had been some very eminent person so called before the naming the river from him; for thus the ancients endeavoured to perpetuate the memories of their ancestors, by giving their names to countries, cities, mountains, and rivers, Haran being the name of a country," and Nahor the name of a city, is no proof that there were no men thus called, but rather the contrary; and abundance of like instances might be offered from the profane historians. Other writers allow, that there was such a person as Inachus; but they do not think him near so ancient as we here suppose him. Clemens Alexandrinus places him about the time of the children of Israel's going out of Egypt;P and this was the opinion of Africanus, and of Josephus, or Josippus, and of Justus who wrote a history of the Jews; which was espoused by Clemens, and by Tatian also, most probably out of a zeal to raise the antiquity of Moses as high as any thing the heathens could pretend to offer. Porphyry took advantage of this mistake, and was willing to improve it. He not only allowed Moses to be as ancient as Inachus, but placed him even before Semiramis. And Eusebius hints that he had endeavoured to do that out of zeal against the sacred writers. Thus no endeavours have been wanting to puzzle and perplex the accounts of the sacred history. At first the heathen writers endeavoured to pretend to antiquities beyond what the r sacred writers could be thought to aim at; but when the falsity of this pretence was abundantly detected, then Porphyry thought he could compass the end aimed at another way, by endeavouring to shew, that the heathen history did not reach near so far back as had been imagined; but that the times of which Moses treated were really so much prior to the first rise of the most ancient kingdoms, that all possible accounts of them can at best be but fiction and mere fancy. This put Eusebius upon a strict and careful review of the ancient history;' and in order hereto, he first collected the particulars of the ancient histories of all nations, that had made any figure in the world, and then endeavoured to arange them with one another. And if any one will take the pains to look over the materials which Eusebius collected, he will see that the first year of the reign of Inachus must be placed about the time where I have above fixed it. The writers, who had treated of the Argive accounts before Castor, could not find" what to synchronize the first year of Inachus with, and therefore could at best but guess where to fix it. But Castor has informed us, that Inachus began to reign about the time of Thurimachus the seventh king of Sicyon,' I suppose t • Εγω δε περι πολλες τον αληθη λογον τιμωμενα και το ακριβες ανιχνεύσαι δια σπεδης προθέμην. Euseb. Prom. • Chron. λογ. πρωτ. εν. P. I. * Ο χρόνος αυτε βασιλειας ασυμφων θα φέρεται πας Ελλησι δια την αρχαιότητα· Chron. p. 23. a about his sixth year, as Eusebius computes.* This will place him in the year above-mentioned; for Ægialeus the first king of Sicyon began his reign A. M. 1920; and from the first year of gjaleus to the first year of Thurimachus are 228 years." Carry this account forward to the sixth year of the reign of Thurimachus, and you will place the first year of Inachus, A. M. 2154, as above; and this seems to be a just and reasonable position of it. All writers agree in making Danaus the tenth king of Argos, and Pausanias has given a very clear account of the several kings from Inachus to Danaus, so as to leave no room to doubt that there were so many. Now the time of Danaus coming into Greece, being near the time when Moses visited the Israelites, A. M. 2494, Inachus must evidently be long before Moses, and most probably not earlier than the latter end of Abraham's life. Moses was the sixth in descent from Abraham, being the third from Levi, and was contemporary with Danaus; and it is not improbable to suppose ten successions of kings in any country within the compass * Ad Num. Euseb. 161. This will appear by putting together the years of the reigns of the kings of Sicyon, from Egialeus to Thurimachus. Tatian. Orat. ad Græc, p. 131. Euseb. in Chronic. Pausanias in Corinthiacis. of the generations between Abraham and Moses. In like manner the accounts we have of the kings of Sicyon have no apparent inconsistency or improbability, to give any seeming colour of prejudice against them. Ægialeus the first king of Sicyon, according to Castor began to reign A. M. 1920, that is, two hundred and thirty-four years before Inachus at Argos; and according to the same writer, the Sicyonians had had six kings in that space of time, and the seventh had reigned a few years. Therefore these first kings of Sicyon must have reigned thirty-eight years each, one with another; which is no extravagant length of time for their reigns, considering the length of men's lives in those ages. Moses gives an account of eight successive kings of Edom, who reigned one with another much longer. Sir John Marsham endeavours to set aside these ancient kings of Sicyon, but his arguments are very insufficient. His inference, that there could be no kings of Sicyon before Phoroneus reigned at Argos, because Acusilaus, Plato, or Syncellus, have occasionally spoken at large of the antiquity of Phoroneus, calling him the first man, or in the words of the poet cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, the father of mortal men,' can require no refutation. For these writers did not mean to assert that there d Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, and see hereafter b. 7. Can. Chron. p. 16. f Ακυσίλαο Φωςονεα πρωτον Ανθρωπον γενεσθαι λεγει, οθεν • της Φορωνίδος ποιητης είναι αυτον εφη Πατέρα σθνητων ̓Ανθρώπων. Clem. Alexand. Stromat. lib. 1. were no men before Phoroneus; but only that he was of great antiquity. Sir John Marsham from the fol lowing verse of Homer & Και Σικυων, οθ' αρ' Αδραςον πρωτ εμβασίλευεν would insinuate, that Adrastus was the first king of Sicyon. Scaliger had obviated this interpretation of Homer's expression, but our learned author rejects what Scaliger offers upon it; yet certainly no one can infer what he would have inferred from it. Had Homer used πρωτος instead of πρωτ', there would have seemed more colour for his interpretation; but rewr', which is the same as τα πρώτα, can signify no more than formerly, heretofore, or in the first or ancient days. Adrastus was according to Pausanias, (for Castor has misplaced him) the eighteenth king of Sicyon; and Homer did not mean to assert that he was the first king that ever reigned there, but only that Sicyon was a country of which Adrastus had anciently been king; and thus our English poet expresses Homer's meaning, calling Sicyon h Adrastus' ancient reign. Our learned writer makes objections against some particular kings in the Sicyonian roll: but it is observ. Il. 2. v. 572. 3 In Corinthiacis. |