flood was Nimrod, the son of Chush, distinguished by Moses from the rest, according to St. Augustine, in one of these two respects; either for his eminency, and because he was the first of fame, and that took on him to command others; or else in that he was begotten by Chush, after his other children were also become fathers, and of a later time than some of his grandchildren and nephews. Howsoever, seeing Moses in express words calleth Nimrod the son of Chush, other men's conjectures to the contrary ought to have no respect. This empiry of Nimrod, both the fathers, and many later writers, call tyrannical; the same beginning in Babel, which is confusion. But it seemeth to me, that Melancthon conceived not amiss hereof; the same exposition being also made by the author of that work called Onomasticum Theologicum, who affirms that Nimrod was therefore called Amarus Dominator, a bitter or severe governor, because his form of rule seemed at first far more terrible than paternal authority. And therefore is he in this respect also called a mighty hunter; because he took and destroyed both beasts and thieves. But St. Augustine understands it otherwise, and converts the word ante by contra, affirming therein, that Nimrod was a mighty hunter against God, Sic ergo intelligendus est gigas ille, venator contra Dominum; "So is that giant to be understood, a hunter against "the Lord." But howsoever this word, a mighty hunter, be understood, yet it rather appeareth, that as Nimrod had the command of all those which went with him from the east into Shinaar, so this charge was rather given him than by him usurped. For it is no where found, that Noah himself, or any of the sons of his own body, came with this troop into Babylon; no mention at all being made of Noah (the years of his life excepted) in the succeeding story of the Hebrews; nor that Sem was in this disobedient troop, or among the builders of Babel.

The same is also confirmed by divers ancient historians, that Nimrod, Suphne, and Joctan were the captains and leaders of all those which came from the east. And though Sem came not himself so far west as Shinaar, (his lot being RALEGH, HIST. WORLD. VOL. I.

A a

cast on the east parts,) yet from his son's nephew Heber, the name and nation of the Hebrews (according to the general opinion) took beginning, who inhabited the southernmost parts of Chaldea about the city of Ur; from whence Abraham was by God called into Charran, and thence into Ca

naan.

And because those of the race of Sem which came into Chaldea were no partners in the unbelieving work of the tower; therefore (as many of the fathers conjecture) did they retain the first and most ancient language, which the fathers of the first age had left to Noah, and Noah to Sem and his issues: P In familia Heber remansit hæc lingua; “In the family of Heber this language remained," saith St. Augustine out of Epiphanius, " and this language Abraham "used:" yea, it was anciently and before the flood the general speech; and therefore first called, saith Cœlestinus, lingua humana, "the human tongue."

66

We know that Goropius Becanus, following Theodoret, Rabbi Moses, Ægyptius, Vergara, and others, is of another opinion; but howsoever we determine of this point, we may with good probability resolve, that none of the godly seed of Sem were the chief leaders of this presumptuous multitude. And seeing it is not likely but that some one was by order appointed for this charge, we may imagine that Nimrod rather had it by just authority, than by violence of usurpation.

SECT. II.

That Nimrod, Belus, and Ninus were three distinct persons. BENZO, and out of him Nauclerus, with others, make many Nimrods. Eusebius confounds him with Belus, and so doth St. Jerome upon Osea; and these words of St. Augustine seem to make him of the same opinion: ¶Ibi autem Ninus regnabat post mortem patris sui Beli, qui primus illic regnaverat 65 annos; "There did Ninus reign "after the death of his father Belus, who first governed in Babylon 65 years." But it could not be unknown to St. P Ang. de Civitate Dei, l. 6. c. II.

66

a De Civitate Dei.

Augustine, that Nimrod was the establisher of that empire, Moses being plain and direct therein: For the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom, saith he, was Babel, Erec, Accad, and Chalne, in the land of Shinaar; wherefore Nimrod was the first king of Babel. And certainly it best agreeth with reason, that Ninus was the third, and not one with Nimrod, as Mercator (led by Clement) supposed; for in Ninus's time, the world was marvellously replenished. And if St. Augustine had undoubtedly taken Belus for Nimrod, he would have given him the name which the scriptures give him, rather than have borrowed any thing out of profane authors. And for those words of St. Augustine, qui primus illic regnaverat, "who was the first that reigned "there," supposed to be meant by Belus; those words do not disprove that Nimrod was the founder of the Babylonian empire. For although Julius Cæsar overthrew the liberty of the Roman commonwealth, making himself perpetual dictator; yet Augustus was the first established emperor, and the first that reigned absolutely by sovereign authority over the Romans as an emperor. The like may be said of Nimrod, that he first brake the rule of eldership and paternity, laying the foundation of sovereign rule, as Cæsar did; and yet Belus was the first, who peaceably, and with a general allowance, exercised such a power. Pererius is of opinion, that Belus and Nimrod were the same, because many things are said of them both agreeing in time; for it was about 200 years after the flood, as they account, that Belus reigned: but such agreement of times proves it not. For so Edward III. and his grandchild Richard II. were kings both in one year; the one died, and the other in the same year was crowned king.

And yet the opinion that Nimrod and Belus were one is far more probable than that of Mercator, who makes Ninus and Nimrod to be the same. For it is plain, that the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Babel, and the towns adjoining; but the first and most famous work of Ninus was the city of Nineveh.

Now whereas D. Siculus affirmeth that Ninus overcame

and suppressed the Babylonians, the same rather proveth the contrary, than that Ninus and Nimrod were one person. For Ninus established the seat of his empire at Nineveh in Assyria, whence the Babylonians might, perchance, in disdain thereof, fall from his obedience, whom he recovered again by strong hand, which was easy; Babylon being not walled till Semiramis's time.

-Dicitur altam

Coctilibus muris cinxisse Semiramis urbem.

Semiramis with walls of brick the city did enclose.

Further, where it is alleged, that as the scriptures call Nimrod mighty, so Justin hath the same of Ninus, which is one of Mercator's arguments; it may be answered, that such an addition might have been given to many other kings as well. For if we may believe Justin, then were Vexoris king of Egypt, and Tanais of Scythia, mighty kings before Ninus was born. And if we may compare the words of Moses, touching Nimrod, with the undertakings of Ninus, there will be found great difference between them. For whereas Mercator conceiveth that it was too early for any that lived about the time of the confusion of languages, to have invaded and mastered those cities so far removed from Babel, namely, Erec, Accad, and Chalne; which work he therefore ascribeth to Ninus, as a man of the greatest undertaking, and consequently would have Nimrod to have been long after the time in which we suppose he flourished; and both those names of Nimrod and Ninus to belong to one person, to wit, to Ninus: to these things to make some answer. First, I do not find that supposition true, that ever Nimrod invaded any of these cities, but that he founded them and built them from the ground, being the first after the flood that conducted the children of Noah into those parts; and therefore had nothing built or erected to his hands.

Besides, whereas these cities, in many men's opinions, are found to stand far away from Babylon, I find no reason to bring me to that belief. The city of Accad, which the Septuagint calls Archard, and Epiphanius Arphal, Junius takes

to be Nisibis in Mesopotamia; for the region thereabout, the cosmographers, saith he, call Accabene for Accadene. Others understand Nisibis and Nineveh to be one city; so do Strabo and Stephanus confound it with Charran; but all mistaken. For Nisibis, Accad, and Charran are distinct places. Though I cannot deny Accadene to be a region of Mesopotamia, the same which Arias Montanus out of St. Jerome calls Achad; and so do the Hebrews also call Nisibis, which seemeth to be the cause of this mistaking. As for the city of Erec, which the Septuagint call Orech, St. Augustine Oreg, and Pagninus Erec, this place Junius understands for Arraca in Susiana; but there is also a city in Comegena called Arace; and indeed likelihood of name is no certain proof, without the assistance of other circum

stances.

Concerning the third city, called Chalneh, some take it for Calinisis; of which Am. Marcellinus. St. Jerome takes it for Seleucia, Hierosolymitanus for Ctesiphon; others do think it to be the Agrani upon Euphrates, destroyed and razed by the Persians. But let Moses be the moderator and judge of this dispute, who teacheth us directly, that these cities are not seated in so divers and distant regions; for these be his words: And the beginning of his kingdom, speaking of Nimrod, was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Chalneh, in the land of Shinaar; so as in this valley of Shinaar, or Babylonia, or Chaldea, (being all one,) we must find them. And therefore I could (rather of the two) think with Viterbiensis, that these four made but one Babylon, than that they were cities far removed, and in several provinces, did not the prophet Amos precisely distinguish Chalne from Babylon. Go you, saith Amos, vi. 2. to Chalne; and from thence go you to Hamath : and then to Gath of the Philistines. The Geneva translation favouring the former opinion, to set these cities out of Shinaar, hath a marginal note expressing that Shinaar was here named, not that all these cities were therein seated, but to distinguish Babylon of Chaldea from Babylon in

r Lib. 23.