don even more than the former calculation, and Paris more than the latter; it being (3) computed that in London there are about 725,943 perfons, and about 437.478 in Paris.

The inhabitants of Nineveh, like thofe of other great cities, abounding in wealth and luxury, became very corrupt in their morals. Whereupon it pleafed God to commiffion the prophet Jonah to preach unto them the neceffity of repentance, as the only means of avert ing their impending deftruction: and fuch was the fuc cefs of his preaching, that both the king and the people repented and turned from their evil ways, and thereby for a time delayed the execution of the divine judg ments. Who this king of Affyria was we cannot be certain, we can only make conjectures, his name not being mentioned in the book of Jonah. Archbishop Uther (4) fuppofeth him to have been Pul the king of Affyria, who afterward invaded the kingdom of Ifrael, in the days of Menahem; (2 Kings XV. 19.) it being very agreeable to the methods of providence to make ufe of an heathen king who was penitent, to punith the impenitency of God's own people Ifrael. But it fhould feem more probable, that this prince was one of the kings of Affyria, before any of those who are mentioned in feripture. For Jonah is reckoned the moft ancient of all the prophets ufually fo called, whofe writings are preferved in the canon of feripture. We know that he prophefied of the restoration of the coafts of Ifrael taken by the king of Syria, which was accomplithed by Jero boam the fecond: (2 Kings XIV. 25.) and therefore Jonah must have lived before that time; and is with great reafon fuppofed by bithop Lloyd in his Chronolo gical Tables to have prophefied at the latter end of Jehu's, or the beginning of the reign of Jehoabaz, when the kingdom of Ifrael was reduced very low, and greatly oppreffed by Hazael king of Syria. (2 Kings X. 32. If he prophefied at that time, there intervened Jehoa haz's reign of feventeen years, Joah's reign of fixteen years, Jeroboam's of forty and one years, Zachariah's

(3) Maitland, p. 541, et 548.

(4) See Usher's Annals, A. M. 3233. p. 58, and Lowth's Comment.

of fix months, Shallum's of one month, and Menahem was feated on the throne of Ifrael, before any mention is made of Pul the king of Affyria: and therefore we may reasonably conclude from the diftance of time, which was above feventy years, that Jonah was not fent to Pul the king of Affyria, but to one of his predeceffors, tho' to whom particularly we are unable to discover, for the want before complained of, the want of Affyrian hiftories, which no doubt would have related fo memorable a tranfaction.

But this repentance of the Ninevites, we may prefume, was of no long continuance. For not many years after we find the prophet Nahum foretelling the total and entire deftruction of the city; tho' there is no certainty of the time of Nahum's, any more than of Jonah's prophefying. Jofephus (5) faith that he florifhed in the time of Jotham king of Judah, and that all the things which he foretold concerning Nineveh came to pass one hundred and fifteen years afterwards. St. Jerome (6) placetly him under Hezekiah, king of Judah, and faith that his name by interpretation is a comforter; for the ten tribes being carried away by the king of Affyria, this vifion was to comfort them in their captivity; nor was it a lefs confolation to the other two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who remained in the land, and were befieged by the fame enemies, to hear that thefe conquerors would in time be conquered themselves, their city be taken, and their empire overthrown. All that is faid of him in feripture is Nahum the Elkofhite, (Nahum 1. 1.) which title in all probability was given him from

TUTOD κατα

τον

(5) Hi de τις καιρόν προφητής Ναύμα τ' ονόμα. Erat autem quidem eo tempore vates, cui nomen Nahumus. oven de πάντα τα προειρημένα περι Νινευής, μετα έτη ἑκατον και πεντεκαιδεκα, evenerunt autem omnia quæ de Nineveh prædicta funt centum et quindecim poft annos. Jof. Antiq. Lib. 9. Cap. 11. Sect. 3. p. 422. 423. Edit. Hudion.

(6) Naum, qui interpretatur conlator. Jam enim decem tribus ab Affyriis deducte fuerant in captivi

tatem fub Ezechia rege Juda, fub quo etiam nunc in confolationem por puli tranfmigrati, adverfum Nineven vifio cernitur. Nec erat parva confolatio, tam his qui jam Afyriis ferviebant, quam reliquis qui fub Ezechia de tribu Juda et Benjamin ab iifdem hoftibus obfidebantur; ut au dirent Affyrios quoque a Chaldæis effe capiendos, ficut in confequentibus hujus libri demonftrabitur. Hieron. Prol. in Naum. p. 1558. Vol. 3, Edit. Benedi&.

the

the place of his nativity; and (7) St. Jerome fuppofeth it to have been a village in Galilee, the ruins whereof were fhown to him, when he traveled in thofe parts. Now we learn from the facred hiftory, (2 Kings XV, 29.) that the people of Galilee were taken by Tiglathpilefer king of Affyria, and carried captive into Affyria. It is not improbable therefore, that at that time this prophet, who was a Galilean, might be inftructed to foretel the fall of Nineveh: and that time coincides with the reign of Jotham king of Judah, which is the time affigned for Nahum's prophefying by Jofephus. But if Jofephus was right in this particular, he was wrong in another; for more than one hundred and fifteen years intervened between the reign of Jotham king of Judah, and the deftruction of Nineveh, as it is ufually computed by chronologers. There is one thing, which might greatly affift us in fixing the time of Nahum's prophefying; and that is the deftruction of No-Amon or Diofpolis in Egypt, which he mentions (Chap. III. 8, &c.) as a late tranfaction, if we could know certainly, when that deftruction happened, or by whom it was effected. commonly attributed to Nebuchadnezzar; but that time is too late, and the deftruction of No-Amon would fall out after the deftruction of Nineveh inftead of before it. Dr. Prideaux (8) with more reafon believes, that it was effected by Sennacherib, before he marched against Jerufalem; and then Nahum's prophefying would coincide exactly with the reign of Hezekiah, which is the time affigned for it by St. Jerome.

It is

But whenever it was that Nahum prophefied, he plainly and largely foretold the deftruction of Nineveh ; his whole prophecy relates to this fingle event: and the city was accordingly deftroyed by the Medes and Babylonians. This point I think is generally agreed upon, that Nineveh was taken and deftroyed by the Medes and Babylonians; thefe two rebelling and uniting together fubverted the Affyrian empire; but authors differ much about the time when Nineveh was taken, and about the

(7) Elcefi ufque hodie in Galilæa viculus, parvus quidem, et vix ruinis veterum ædificiorum indicans veftigia; fed tamen notus Judæis;

et mihi quoque a circumducente monftratus. Hieron. ibid. p. 1559.

(8) Prid. Connect. Part 1, Book 1. Anno 713. Hezek, 15, L3

king

king of Affyria in whofe reign it was taken, and even about the perfons who had the command in this expedition. Herodotus (9) affirms, that it was taken by Cyaxares king of the Medes; St. Jerome after the Hebrew chronicle (1) afferts that it was taken by Nabuchodonofor king of the Babylonians; but thefe accounts may be easily reconciled, for Cyaxares and Nabuchodonofor might take it with their joint forces, as they actually did according to that which is written in the book of Tobit, (XIV. 15.) if the Affuerus in Tobit be the fame (as there is great reafon to think him the fame) with the Cyaxares of Herodotus; But before Tobias died, he heard of the deftruction of Nineveh, which was taken by Nabuchodonofor and Affuerus; and before his death he rejoiced over Nineveh. Jofephus (2) who faith in one place that the empire of the Affyrians was diffolved by the Medes, faith in another that the Medes and Baby lonians diffolved the empire of the Affyrians. Herodotus himself (3) faith that the Medes took Nineveh, and fubdued the Affyrians, except the Babylonian portion; the reason of which was, the Babylonians were their allies and confederates, Ctefias, and after him (4) Diodorus Siculus afcribe the taking of Nineveh, and the fubverfion of the Affyrian empire, to Arbaces the Mede affifted by Belefis the Babylonian.I know that (5) Eufebius, and after him feveral excellent chro

(9) Herod. Lib. 1. Cap. 106. p. 45: Edit. Gale.

(1) Hieron. in Naum II. 12. p. 1574. Vol. 3. Edit. Benedict. Seder Olam Rabba foli Nabuchodonoforo "rem attribuit, et tempus ponit. Anno primo Nabuchodonofor iubegit Nineven, id eft, non diu poft mortem patris. Ebraicum hoe Chronicon fecuti funt S. Hieronymus, &c. Marfhami Ch. Sæc. XVIII, p. $59.

(2) συνέβη την των Ασσυειών ax π Mndar natakulniai. Af fyriorum imperium a Medis everfum iri contigit. Jofeph. Antiq. Lib. yo. Cap. 2. Sect. 2. P. 435

Μηδες και τις Βαβυλωνίας, οι την Αστεριών κατέλυσαν αρχην. Medos et Babylonios, qui Affyriorum everterant imperium. ibid. Cap. 5. Sect. P. 441. Edit. Hudson,

(3) και την τε Νίνον εἷλον, και της Ασσυρίες υποχείριος εποιησαντο, πλην της Βαβυλογιης μοίρης. et Ninum expugnaverunt, Affyriofque, excepta Bibylonica portione, fubegerunt. Her. Lib. 1. Cap. 106. p. 45. Edit. Gale.

(4) Diod. Sic. Lib. 2. P. 78. Edit. Steph. p. 11o. Edit. Rhodo. mani.

(5) Eufebius (more fuo) utram. que fententiam in Canonem retulit: ad mentem Ctefie, Arbaces Medus, ait, Num. 1197, Afyriorum imperio deftrudo, regnum in Medos tranftulit: Dein (poft annos 213) ex auctoritate Heroditi, Numb. 1410. Cyaxeres Medus fubvertit Ninum. Ita antem acusara funt. Marthami Chronicon. Sæc. XVIII. p. 556.

nologers,

nologers, Usher, Prideaux, and others reckon this quite a different action, and fix it at quite a different time; but it is not likely that the fame city fhould be twice de-: ftroyed, and the fame empire twice overthrown, by the fame people twice confederated together. Diodorus, who relates this catastrophe, doth not mention the other; but faith exprefly, (6) that Arbaces diftributed the citi zens of Nineveh in the country villages, leveled the city with the ground, transferred many talents of gold and filver to Ecbatana the royal city of the Medes; and fo, faith he. the empire of the Affyrians was fubverted. If there is fome difficulty in difcovering the perfons by whom Nineveh was taken, there is more in afcertaining the king of Affyria in whofe reign it was taken, and more ftill in fixing the time when it was taken, fcarce any two chronologers agreeing in the fame date: but as thefe things are hardly poffible to be known, fo neither are they neceffary to be known, with precifion and exactnefs; and we may fafely leave them among the uncertainties of ancient hiftory and chronology.

It is fufficient for our purpofe, that Nineveh was taken and deftroyed according to the predictions: and Nahum foretold not only the thing, but also the manner of it. Herodotus promifed to relate in his Affyrian hiftory how Nineveh was taken; (7) the Medes took Nineveh, faith he, but how they took it, I will fhow in another work. Again afterwards he mentions his defign of writing the Affyrian hiftory. Speaking of the kings of Babylon he faith, (8) of these I shall make mention

Diod. Sic. Lib. 2. p. 81. Edit. Steph. ρ. 115. Edit. Rhod.

(7) Και την δε Νινον εἷλον (ὡς δε είλον, εν ετεροίσι λόγοισι δηλωσω.) et Ninun expugnaverunt: (ut autem ceperint, in aliis mox fcriptis indicabo.) Herod. Lib. 1. Cap. 106. p. 45. Edit. Gale.

(8) των εν τοισι Ασσυρίοισι λόγοισι pimpen Tonjoual. quorum in expo nendis rebus Affyriis mentionem fa ciam. Lib. 1. Cap. 184. p. 76. Edit. Gale. Voffius de Hift. Græc. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Fabricius Bib. Græc. Lib. 2. Cap. 20.