CHAPTER I

Concerning the beginning of the World, that the time thereof is not precisely to be known, as men generally suppose: Of mens enquiries in what season or point of the Zodiack it began. That as they are generally made they are in vain, and as particularly applied uncertain. Of the division of the seasons and four quarters of the year, according to Astronomers and Physitians. That the common compute of the Ancients, and which is yet retained by most, is unreasonable and erroneous. Of some Divinations and ridiculous diductions from one part of the year to another. And of the Providence and Wisdom of God in the site and motion of the Sun.

[Sidenote: _The age of the world not certainly determinable._]

Concerning the World and its temporal circumscriptions, who ever shall strictly examine both extreams, will easily perceive there is not only obscurity in its end, but its beginning; that as its period is inscrutable, so is its nativity indeterminable: That as it is presumption to enquire after the one, so is there no rest or satisfactory decision in the other. And hereunto we shall more readily assent, if we examine the informations, and take a view of the several difficulties in this point; which we shall more easily do, if we consider the different conceits of men, and duly perpend the imperfections of their discoveries.

And first, The histories of the _Gentiles_ afford us slender satisfaction, nor can they relate any story, or affix a probable point to its beginning. For some thereof (and those of the wisest amongst them) are so far from determining its beginning, that they opinion and maintain it never had any at all; as the doctrin of _Epicurus_ implieth, and more positively _Aristotle_ in his books _De Cœlo_ declareth. Endeavouring to confirm it with arguments of reason, and those appearingly demonstrative; wherein his labours are rational, and uncontroulable upon the grounds assumed, that is, of Physical generation, and a Primary or first matter, beyond which no other hand was apprehended. But herein we remain sufficiently satisfied from _Moses_, and the Doctrin delivered of the Creation; that is, a production of all things out of nothing, a formation not only of matter, but of form, and a materiation even of matter it self.

Others are so far from defining the Original of the World or of mankind, that they have held opinions not only repugnant unto Chronology, but Philosophy; that is, that they had their beginning in the soil where they inhabited; assuming or receiving appellations conformable unto such conceits. [SN: _Why the_ Athenians _did wear a golden Insect upon their head._] So did the _Athenians_, term themselves αὐτοχθόνες or _Aborigines_, and in testimony thereof did wear a golden Insect on their heads: the same name is also given unto the Inlanders, or _Midland_ inhabitants of this Island by _Cæsar_. But this is a conceit answerable unto the generation of the Giants; not admittable in Philosophy, much less in Divinity, which distinctly informeth we are all the seed of _Adam_, that the whole world perished unto eight persons before the flood, and was after peopled by the _Colonies_ of the sons of _Noah_. There was therefore never any _Autochthon_, or man arising from the earth but _Adam_; for the Woman being formed out of the rib, was once removed from earth, and framed from that Element under incarnation. And so although her production were not by copulation, yet was it in a manner seminal: For if in every part from whence the seed doth flow, there be contained the Idea of the whole; there was a seminality and contracted _Adam_ in the rib, which by the information of a soul, was individuated into _Eve_. And therefore this conceit applied unto the Original of man, and the beginning of the world, is more justly appropriable unto its end. For then indeed men shall rise out of the earth: the graves shall shoot up their concealed seeds, and in that great Autumn, men shall spring up, and awake from their Chaos again.

Others have been so blind in deducing the Original of things, or delivering their own beginnings, that when it hath fallen into controversie, they have not recurred unto Chronologie or the Records of time: but betaken themselves unto probabilities, and the conjecturalities of Philosophy. Thus when the two ancient Nations, _Egyptians_ and _Scythians_, contended for antiquity, the _Egyptians_ pleaded their antiquity from the fertility of their soil, [SN: Diodor. Justin.] inferring that men there first inhabited, where they were with most facility sustained; and such a land did they conceive was _Egypt_.

The _Scythians_, although a cold and heavier Nation urged more acutely, deducing their arguments from the two active Elements and Principles of all things, Fire and Water. For if of all things there was first an union, and that Fire over-ruled the rest: surely that part of earth which was coldest, would first get free, and afford a place of habitation. But if all the earth were first involved in Water, those parts would surely first appear, which were most high, and of most elevated situation, and such was theirs. These reasons carried indeed the antiquity from the _Egyptians_, but confirmed it not in the _Scythians_: for as _Herodotus_ relateth from _Pargitaus_, their first King unto _Darius_, they accounted but two thousand years.

[Sidenote: _That men speak not by natural instinct, but by instruction and imitation._]

As for the _Egyptians_ they invented another way of trial; for as the same Author relateth, _Psammitichus_ their King attempted this decision by a new and unknown experiment, bringing up two Infants with Goats, and where they never heard the voice of man; concluding that to be the ancientest Nation, whose language they should first deliver. But herein he forgot that speech was by instruction not instinct, by imitation, not by nature, that men do speak in some kind but like Parrets, and as they are instructed, that is, in simple terms and words, expressing the open notions of things; which the second act of Reason compoundeth into propositions, and the last into Syllogisms and Forms of ratiocination. And howsoever the account of _Manethon_ the _Egyptian_ Priest run very high, and it be evident that _Mizraim_ peopled that Country (whose name with the _Hebrews_ it beareth unto this day) and there be many things of great antiquity related in Holy Scripture, yet was their exact account not very ancient; for _Ptolomy_ their Country-man beginning his Astronomical compute no higher than _Nabonasser_, who is conceived by some the same with _Salmanasser_. As for the argument deduced from the Fertility of the soil, duly enquired, it rather overthroweth than promoteth their antiquity; if that Country whose Fertility they so advance, was in ancient times no firm or open land, but some vast lake or part of the Sea, and became a gained ground by the mud and limous matter brought down by the River _Nilus_, which setled by degrees into a firm land. According as is expressed by _Strabo_, and more at large by _Herodotus_, both from the _Egyptian_ tradition and probable inducements from reason, called therefore _fluvii donum_, an accession of earth, or tract of land acquired by the River.

Lastly, Some indeed there are, who have kept Records of time, and a considerable duration, yet do the exactest thereof afford no satisfaction concerning the beginning of the world, or any way point out the time of its creation. The most authentick Records and best approved antiquity are those of the _Chaldeans_; yet in the time of _Alexander_ the Great, they attained not so high as the flood. For as _Simplicius_ relateth, _Aristotle_ required of _Calisthenes_, who accompanied that Worthy in his Expedition, that at his arrive at _Babylon_, he would enquire of the antiquity of their Records; and those upon compute he found to amount unto 1903 years; which account notwithstanding ariseth no higher than 95 years after the flood. The _Arcadians_ I confess, were esteemed of great antiquity, and it was usually said they were before the Moon, according unto that of _Seneca_, _Sydus post veteres Arcades editum_; and that of _Ovid_, _Lunâ gens prior illa fuit._ But this as _Censorinus_ observeth, must not be taken grosly, as though they were existent before that Luminary; but were so esteemed, because they observed a set course of year, before the _Greeks_ conformed their year unto the course and motion of the Moon.

Thus the Heathens affording no satisfaction herein, they are most likely to manifest this truth, who have been acquainted with Holy Scripture, and the sacred Chronology delivered by _Moses_, who distinctly sets down this account, computing by certain intervails, by memorable _Æras_, _Epoches_, or terms of time. As from the Creation unto the flood, from thence unto _Abraham_, from _Abraham_ unto the departure from _Egypt_, etc. Now in this number have only been _Samaritans_, _Jews_ and _Christians_. [SN: _Different accounts upon Scripture concerning the Age of the World._] For the _Jews_ they agree not in their accounts, as _Bodine_ in his method of History hath observed out of _Baal Seder_, _Rabbi Nassom_, _Gersom_, and others; in whose compute the age of the World is not yet 5400 years. The same is more evidently observable from the two most learned _Jews_, _Philo_ and _Josephus_; who very much differ in the accounts of time, and variously sum up these Intervails assented unto by all. Thus _Philo_ from the departure out of _Egypt_ unto the building of the Temple, accounts but 920 years, but _Josephus_ sets down 1062. _Philo_ from the building of the Temple to its destruction 440. _Josephus_ 470. _Philo_ from the Creation to the Destruction of the Temple 3373, but _Josephus_ 3513. _Philo_ from the Deluge to the Destruction of the Temple 1718, but _Josephus_ 1913. In which Computes there are manifest disparities, and such as much divide the concordance and harmony of times.

For the _Samaritans_; their account is different from these or any others; for they account from the Creation to the Deluge, but 1302 years; which cometh to pass upon the different account of the ages of the Patriarks set down when they begat children. For whereas the _Hebrew_, _Greek_ and _Latin_ texts account _Jared_ 162 when he begat _Enoch_, they account but 62, and so in others. Now the _Samaritans_ were no incompetent Judges of times and the Chronology thereof; for they embraced the five books of _Moses_, and as it seemeth, preserved the Text with far more integrity then the _Jews_; who as _Tertullian_, _Chrysostom_, and others observe, did several wayes corrupt the same, especially in passages concerning the prophesies of Christ; So that as _Jerom_ professeth, in his translation he was fain sometime to relieve himself by the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch; as amongst others in that Text, _Deuteronomy_ 27. _Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quæ scripta sunt in libro Legis._ From hence Saint _Paul_ [SN: Gal. 3.] inferreth there is no justification by the Law, and urgeth the Text according to the Septuagint. Now the Jews to afford a latitude unto themselves, in their copies expunged the word בל or Syncategorematical term _omnis_: wherein lieth the strength of the Law, and of the Apostles argument; but the _Samaritan_ Bible retained it right, and answerable unto what the Apostle had urged.

As for Christians from whom we should expect the exactest and most concurring account, there is also in them a manifest disagreement, and such as is not easily reconciled. For first, the Latins accord not in their account: to omit the calculation of the Ancients, of _Austin_, _Bede_, and others, the Chronology of the Moderns doth manifestly dissent. _Josephus Scaliger_, whom _Helvicus_ seems to follow, accounts the Creation in 765 of the _Julian_ period; and from thence unto the Nativity of our Saviour alloweth 3947 years; but _Dionysius Petavius_ a learned Chronologer dissenteth from this compute almost 40 years; placing the Creation in the 730 of the _Julian_ period, and from thence unto the Incarnation accounteth 3983 years.

For the Greeks; their accounts are more anomalous: for if we recur unto ancient computes, we shall find that _Clemens Alexandrinus_, an ancient Father and _Præceptor_ unto _Origen_, accounted from the Creation unto our Saviour, 5664 years; for in the first of his Stromaticks, he collecteth the time from _Adam_ unto the death of _Commodus_ to be 5858 years; now the death of _Commodus_ he placeth in the year after Christ 194, which number deducted from the former, there remaineth 5664. _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Antioch_ accounteth unto the Nativity of Christ 5515, deduceable from the like way of compute, for in his first book _ad Autolychum_, he accounteth from _Adam_ unto _Aurelius Verus_ 5695 years; now that Emperour died in the year of our Lord 180, which deducted from the former sum, there remaineth 5515. _Julius Africanus_, an ancient Chronologer, accounteth somewhat less, that is, 5500. _Eusebius_, _Orosius_ and others dissent not much from this, but all exceed five thousand.

The latter compute of the Greeks, as _Petavius_ observeth, hath been reduced unto two or three accounts. The first accounts unto our Saviour 5501, and this hath been observed by _Nicephorus_, _Theophanes_, and _Maximus_. [SN: _By what account the world hath lasted 7154 years._] The other accounts 5509; and this of all at present is generally received by the Church of _Constantinople_, observed also by the _Moscovite_, as I have seen in the date of the Emperors letters; wherein this year of ours 1645 is from the year of the world 7154, which doth exactly agree unto this last account 5509, for if unto that sum be added 1645, the product will be 7154, by this Chronology are many Greek Authors to be understood; and thus is _Martinus Crusius_ to be made out, when in his Turcogrecian history he delivers, the City of _Constantinople_ was taken by the Turks in the year ϛϠξα; that is, 6961. Now according unto these Chronologists, the Prophecy of _Elias_ the Rabbin, so much in request with the Jews, and in some credit also with Christians, that the world should last but six thousand years; unto these I say, it hath been long and out of memory disproved, for the Sabbatical and 7000 year wherein the world should end (as did the Creation on the seventh day) unto them is long ago expired; they are proceeding in the eight thousand year, and numbers exceeding those days which men have made the types and shadows of these. But certainly what _Marcus Leo_ the Jew conceiveth of the end of the heavens, exceedeth the account of all that ever shall be; for though he conceiveth the Elemental frame shall end in the Seventh or Sabbatical Millenary, yet cannot he opinion the heavens and more durable part of the Creation shall perish before seven times seven, or 49, that is, the Quadrant of the other seven, and perfect Jubilee of thousands.

Thus may we observe the difference and wide dissent of mens opinions, and thereby the great incertainty in this establishment. The Hebrews not only dissenting from the Samaritans, the Latins from the Greeks, but every one from another. Insomuch that all can be in the right it is impossible; that any one is so, not with assurance determinable. And therefore as _Petavius_ confesseth, to effect the same exactly without inspiration it is impossible, and beyond the Arithmetick of any but God himself. And therefore also what satisfaction may be obtained from those violent disputes, and eager enquirers in what day of the month the world began either of March or October; likewise in what face or position of the Moon, whether at the prime or full, or soon after, let our second and serious considerations determine.

[Sidenote: _The cause of so different accounts about the age of the world._]

Now the reason and ground of this dissent, is the unhappy difference between the Greek and Hebrew Editions of the Bible, for unto these two Languages have all translations conformed; the holy Scripture being first delivered in Hebrew, and first translated into Greek. For the Hebrew; it seems the primitive and surest text to rely on, and to preserve the same entire and uncorrupt there hath been used the highest caution humanity could invent. For as _R. Ben. Maimon_ hath declared, if in the copying thereof one letter were written twice, or if one letter but touched another, that copy was not admitted into their Synagogues, but only allowable to be read in Schools and private families. Neither were they careful only in the exact number of their Sections of the Law, but had also the curiosity to number every word, and affixed the account unto their several books. [SN: _Corruption even in the Hebrew Text of the Bible._] Notwithstanding all which, divers corruptions ensued, and several depravations slipt in, arising from many and manifest grounds, as hath been exactly noted by _Morinus_ in his preface unto the Septuagint.

As for the Septuagint, it is the first and most ancient Translation; and of greater antiquity than the Chaldee version; occasioned by the request of _Ptolomeus Philadelphus_, King of _Egypt_, for the ornament of his memorable Library; unto whom the high Priest addressed six Jews out of every Tribe, which amounteth unto 72; and by these was effected that Translation we usually term the Septuagint, or Translation of seventy. [SN: _The Credit of the Septuagint translation._] Which name, however it obtain from the number of their persons, yet in respect of one common Spirit, it was the Translation but as it were of one man; if as the story relateth, although they were set apart and severed from each other, yet were their Translations found to agree in every point, according as is related by _Philo_ and _Josephus_; although we find not the same in _Aristæas_ [Sidenote: Aristeas ad Philocratorem de 72 interpretibus.], who hath expresly treated thereof. But of the Greek compute there have passed some learned dissertations not many years ago, wherein the learned _Isacius Vossius_ makes the nativity of the world to anticipate the common account one thousand four hundred and forty years.

This Translation in ancient times was of great authority, by this many of the Heathens received some notions of the Creation and the mighty works of God; This in express terms is often followed by the Evangelists, by the Apostles, and by our Saviour himself in the quotations of the Old Testament. This for many years was used by the Jews themselves, that is, such as did Hellenize and dispersedly dwelt out of Palestine with the Greeks; and this also the succeeding Christians and ancient Fathers observed; although there succeeded other Greek versions, that is, of _Aquila_, _Theodosius_ and _Symmachus_; for the Latin translation of _Jerom_, called now the Vulgar, was about 800 years after the Septuagint; although there was also a Latin translation before, called the Italick version. Which was after lost upon the general reception of the translation of Saint _Jerom_ [SN: Præfat. in Paralipom.]. Which notwithstanding (as he himself acknowledgeth) had been needless, if the Septuagint copys had remained pure, and as they were first translated. But, (beside that different copys were used, that _Alexandria_ and _Egypt_ followed the copy of _Hesychius_, _Antioch_ and _Constantinople_ that of _Lucian_ the Martyr, and others that of _Origen_) the Septuagint was much depraved, not only from the errors of Scribes, and the emergent corruptions of time, but malicious contrivance of the Jews; as _Justin Martyr_ hath declared, in his learned dialogue _Tryphon_, and _Morinus_ hath learnedly shewn from many confirmations.

[Sidenote: De Hebræi et Græci textus sinceritate.]

Whatsoever Interpretations there have been since, have been especially effected with reference unto these, that is, the Greek and Hebrew text, the Translators sometimes following the one, sometimes adhering unto the other, according as they found them consonant unto truth, or most correspondent unto the rules of faith. Now however it cometh to pass, these two are very different in the enumeration of Genealogies, and particular accounts of time; for in the second intervail, that is, between the Flood and _Abraham_, there is by the Septuagint introduced one _Cainan_ to be the son of _Arphaxad_ and father of _Salah_; whereas in the Hebrew there is no mention of such a person, but _Arphaxad_ is set down to be the father of _Salah_. But in the first intervail, that is, from the Creation unto the Flood, their disagreement is more considerable; for therein the Greek exceedeth the Hebrew, and common account almost 600 years. And 'tis indeed a thing not very strange, to be at the difference of a third part, in so large and collective an account, if we consider how differently they are set forth in minor and less mistakable numbers. So in the Prophesie of _Jonah_, both in the Hebrew and Latin text, it is said, Yet forty dayes and _Ninevy_ shall be overthrown: But the Septuagint saith plainly, and that in letters at length, τρεῖς ἡμέρας that is, yet three dayes and _Ninevy_ shall be destroyed. Which is a difference not newly crept in, but an observation very ancient, discussed by _Austin_ and _Theodoret_, and was conceived an error committed by the Scribe. Men therefore have raised different computes of time, according as they have followed their different texts; and so have left the history of times far more perplexed than Chronology hath reduced.

Again, However the texts were plain, and might in their numerations agree, yet were there no small difficulty to set down a determinable Chronology, or establish from whence any fixed point of time. For the doubts concerning the time of the Judges are inexplicable; that of the Reigns and succession of Kings is as perplexed; it being uncertain whether the years both of their lives and reigns ought to be taken as compleat, or in their beginning and but currant accounts. Nor is it unreasonable to make some doubt whether in the first ages and long lives of our fathers, _Moses_ doth not sometime account by full and round numbers, whereas strictly taken they might be some few years above or under; as in the age of _Noah_, it is delivered to be just five hundred when he begat _Sem_; whereas perhaps he might be somewhat above or below that round and compleat number. For the same way of speech is usual in divers other expressions: Thus do we say the Septuagint, and using the full and articulate number, do write the Translation of Seventy; whereas we have shewn before, the precise number was Seventy two. So is it said that Christ was three days in the grave; according to that of _Mathew_, as _Jonas_ was three days and three nights in the Whales belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth: which notwithstanding must be taken Synecdochically; or by understanding a part for an whole day; for he remained but two nights in the grave; for he was buried in the afternoon of the first day, and arose very early in the morning on the third; that is, he was interred in the eve of the Sabbath, and arose in the morning after it.

Moreover although the number of years be determined and rightly understood, and there be without doubt a certain truth herein; yet the text speaking obscurely or dubiously, there is oft-times no slender difficulty at what point to begin or terminate the account. So when it is said _Exod._ 12. the sojourning of the children of _Israel_ who dwelt in _Egypt_ was 430 years, it cannot be taken strictly, and from their first arrival into Egypt, for their habitation in that land was far less; but the account must begin from the Covenant of God with _Abraham_, and must also comprehend their sojourn in the land of _Canaan_, according as is expressed, _Gal._ 3. The Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanul. Thus hath it also happened in the account of the 70 years of their captivity, according to that of _Jeremy_ [SN: _Chap._ 20.], This whole land shall be a desolation, and these nations shall serve the King of _Babylon_ 70 years. Now where to begin or end this compute, ariseth no small difficulties; for there were three remarkable captivities and deportations of the Jews. The first was in the third or fourth year of _Joachim_, and first of _Nabuchodonozor_, when _Daniel_ was carried away; the second in the reign of _Ieconiah_, and the eighth year of the same King; the third and most deplorable to the reign of _Zedechias_ and in the nineteenth year of _Nabuchodonozor_, whereat both the Temple and City were burned. Now such is the different conceit of these times, that men have computed from all; but the probablest account and most concordant unto the intention of _Ieremy_, is from the first of _Nabuchodonozor_ unto the first of King _Cyrus_ over _Babylon_; although the Prophet _Zachary_ [SN: _Chap._ 1. 12.] accounteth from the last. O Lord of hosts, How Long! Wilt thou not have mercy on _Ierusalem_, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? for he maketh this expostulation in the second year of _Darius Histaspes_, wherein he prophesied, which is about eighteen years in account after the other.

[Sidenote: _The difficulties of_ Daniels _70 Weeks_.]

Thus also although there be a certain truth therein, yet is there no easie doubt concerning the seventy weeks, or seventy times seven years of _Daniel_; whether they have reference unto the nativity or passion of our Saviour, and especially from whence, or what point of time they are to be computed. For thus is it delivered by the Angel _Gabriel_: Seventy weeks are determined upon the people; and again in the following verse: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build _Ierusalem_ unto the Messias the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublesome times; and after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. Now the going out of the Commandment to build the City, being the point from whence to compute, there is no slender controversie when to begin. For there are no less than four several Edicts to this effect, the one in the first year of _Cyrus_, the other in the second of _Darius_, the third and fourth in the seventh, and in the twentieth of _Artaxerxes Longimanus_; although as _Petavius_ accounteth, it best accordeth unto the twenty year of _Artaxerxes_, from whence _Nehemiah_ deriveth his Commission. [SN: _Of our Bless. Saviours age at his Passion._] Now that computes are made uncertainly with reference unto Christ, it is no wonder, since I perceive the time of his Nativity is in controversie, and no less his age at his Passion. For _Clemens_ and _Tertullian_ conceive he suffered at thirty; but _Irenæus_ a Father neerer his time, is further off in his account, that is, between forty and fifty.

_Longomontanus_ a late Astronomer, endeavours to discover this secret from Astronomical grounds, that is, the Apogeum of the Sun; conceiving the Excentricity invariable, and the Apogeum yearly to move one scruple, two seconds, fifty thirds, etc. Wherefore if in the time of _Hipparchus_, that is, in the year of the _Iulian_ period 4557 it was in the fifth degree of _Gemini_, and in the daies of _Tycho Brahe_, that is in the year of our Lord 1588, or of the world 5554, the same was removed unto the fift degree of _Cancer_; by the proportion of its motion, it was at the Creation first in the beginning of _Aries_, and the Perigeum or nearest point in _Libra_. But this conceit how ingenious or subtile soever, is not of satisfaction; it being not determinable, or yet agreed in what time precisely the Apogeum absolveth one degree, as _Petavius_ [SN: De Doctrina temporum 1.4.] hath also delivered.

Lastly, However these or other difficulties intervene, and that we cannot satisfie our selves in the exact compute of time, yet may we sit down with the common and usual account; nor are these differences derogatory unto the Advent or Passion of Christ, unto which indeed they all do seem to point, for the Prophecies concerning our Saviour were indefinitely delivered before that of _Daniel_; so was that pronounced unto _Eve_ in paradise, that after of _Balaam_, those of _Isaiah_ and the Prophets, and that memorable one of _Iacob_, the Scepter shall not depart from _Israel_ untill _Shilo_ come; which time notwithstanding it did not define at all. In what year therefore soever, either from the destruction of the Temple, from the re-edifying thereof, from the flood, or from the Creation he appeared, certain it is, that in the fulness of time he came. When he therefore came is not so considerable, as that he is come: in the one there is consolation, in the other no satisfaction. The greater Quere is, when he will come again; and yet indeed it is no Quere at all: for that is never to be known, and therefore vainly enquired: 'tis a professed and authentick obscurity, unknown to all but to the omniscience of the Almighty. Certainly the ends of things are wrapt up in the hands of God, he that undertakes the knowledge thereof, forgets his own beginning, and disclaims his principles of earth. No man knows the end of the world, nor assuredly of any thing in it: God sees it, because unto his Eternity it is present; he knoweth the ends of us, but not of himself: and because he knows not this, he knoweth all things, and his knowledge is endless, even in the object of himself.