whence came the great resort of people from various nations, who in those times lived without rule and order, with whom the Oannes conversed much, but would not eat? The first year after the deluge, the whole world was as a vast unpeopled waste, totally bereft of inhabitants, save those who issued from the ark. Besides, if this author is correct in supposing that men in general fed on raw flesh, there is no reason for supposing that Noah had an antipathy thereto. But the command of God to refrain from flesh "with the life thereof which is the blood thereof" appears to be a prohibition of that barbarous custom still prevalent in Egypt, of cutting up animals, while the life was in them; a practice, shame it is to say, the finny tribe are still victims to in our own country; and to prevent which, a merciful God, when he ordained that the animal creation should be food for man, commanded that he should refrain from the blood which was the life thereof. This command is yet more comprehensive, as appears from the succeeding verse. It is not only a prohibition of inhumanity, but of human sacrifices in particular, and of the unnecessary shedding of blood in general; which had been

the priests in the sacrifice of cattle.

sense the Hindus understand it.

practised by

And in this

"Thou con

demnest, O kind-hearted, the whole Veda when

"thou perceivest the slaughter of cattle presented for sacrifice." But Berosus could not allude to this command of the Almighty, which was not renewed in the person of Noah, for more than twelve hundred years after the appearance of Oannes. Berosus recorded that the Oannes conversed much with mankind, but would not eat with them, to denote that he was not of the idolatrous race of Cain. For it is well known, even to the present day, that no man of a superior cast can eat with an inferior, not in point of rank, but of sanctity. Therefore, the Oannes, who appeared for the reformation of the race of Alaparus, was in the habit of retiring each evening, after instructing his new subjects. That the Oannes was not Noah, I trust you are now fully convinced. We are next told by the same author, that the four double-faced persons, who appeared in the time of Daus, called Enedocus, Eneugamus, Enabarbus, and Anemantus, "were certainly the three sons of Noah, who had, like their father, been witnesses of the antediluvian world." He then endeavours to explain that Daus, the shepherd, in whose time those four persons are said to have appeared, was no other than Nimrod. "For the original list, supposed to have been a dynasty of antediluvian kings, was the genealogy of Nimrod, the first king of the country, in which were conVOL. I. A A

tained four persons only. First Sisuthrus, or the patriarch; next, under the character of Amenon, Amelon; Amillarus is Ham; Eudoreschus (Euc-ud-Arez-chus) is the son of Cush; and, lastly, Alorus and Duonus, the shepherd, was Nimrod. For it is expressly said of him, that he took the title of Shepherd. The rest are foreign to the catalogue, and through ignorance have been inserted." Now, it is certain, Berosus places Daus, the shepherd, five reigns after Alorus; and the commencement of his reign 381 years after the death of that prince (Vide Tables XIX and XXII). But, admitting Daus, the commencement of whose reign, Berosus expressly says, was just 275 years (28 Zapo, or 280 prophetic years) before the deluge, to have been intended for Nimrod, whose reign is said to have commenced 304 years after the deluge, how does it assist the argument which it is brought forward to support? Nimrod commenced his reign on the death of his father Cush, about A. M. 1960, who had succeeded to the government about 55 years before, on the death of Ham: so that, if these four personages, who appeared in the time of Nimrod, were Noah and his sons, the old patriarch must have made his appearance in the 860th year of his age, with his three sons (one of whom the grandfather of Nimrod had been dead for more

than 50 years) to congratulate his great grandson Nimrod, on having seized on a country, which by right belonged to his elder brother.

Mr. Bryant next refers us to the account given by Alexander Polyhistor, as follows: "Berosus, in his first book concerning the history of Babylon, informs us that he lived in the time of Alexander the son of Philip; and he mentions that there were written accounts preserved, at Babylon, with the greatest care, comprehending a term of fifteen myriads of years. These writings contained a history of the heavens, and of the sea; of the birth of mankind; also of those who had sovereign rule; and of the actions achieved by them. And, in the first place, he describes Babylonia as a country, which lay between the Tigris and Euphrates; he mentions that it abounded with wheat, barley, Ocrus, Sesamum, and in the lakes were found the roots called Yongoe, which were good to be eaten, and were in respect to nutriment like barley; there were also palm-trees, and apples, and most kinds of fruits; fish too, and birds, both those that are merely of flight, and those that take to the element of water. The part of Babylon that bordered on Arabia was barren and without water; but that, which lay on the other side, had hills, and was fruitful. At Babylonia there was in these times a great resort of people of various

nations, who inhabited Chaldea, and lived without rule and order, like the beasts of the field; in the first year there made its appearance, from a part of the Erythrean sea, which bordered upon Babylonia, an animal endowed with reason, who was called Oannes." The account goes on to give the cosmogony of the world, and the reigns of the kings; making the collective rule of this people, from the first year to the time of the deluge, one hundred and twenty Zapo or four hundred and thirty-two thousand years of days; answering to twelve hundred years. The above Mr. Bryant assures us "is a faithful translation," clearly demonstrating that Oannes the man of the sea, was the emblematic character of Noah: "for the new world must be considered as the basis of historic knowledge." Let us examine this extract, considering it as the history of the time, not when Berosus wrote, but of which Berosus wrote; commencing with the return of the race of Cain to Babylon, A. M. 413, and with the commencement of their rule as governors of provinces, A. M. 474: the priest of Belus begins, by telling us that when he wrote, there were written accounts preserved with the greatest care, from fifteen myriads of years. Fifteen myriads of Chaldean historic years are equal to four hundred and sixteen prophetic years and a fraction; for 150000÷360=