The history of the world

§. II. [unspec 40] That NIMROD, BELVS, and NINVS were three distinct persons.

BENZO, and out of him Nauclerus with others make many Nimrods. Eusebius confounds him with Belus; and so doth Saint Hierome vpon Ose: and these wordes of S. Augustine seeme to make him of the same* 1.1 opinion: Ibi autem NINVS regnabat post mortem patris sui BELI, qui primus illie regnauer at 65. annos; There did NINVS raigne after the death of his Father BELVS, who first gouerned in Babylon sixtie fiue yeeres. But it could not bee vnknowne to Saint Augustine, that Nimrod was the Establisher of that Empire: Moses being plaine and direct therein. For the beginning of NIMRODS [unspec 50] Kingdome (saith he) was Babel, Erec, Accad, and Chalne, in the Land of 〈◊〉〈◊〉: 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) suppo∣sed: for in Ninus time the World was maruailously replenished. And if S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉

had vndoubtedly taken Belus for Nimrod, he would haue giuen him the name which the Scriptures giue him, rather then haue borrowed any thing out of prophane Au∣thors. And for those wordes of S. AVGVSTINE (qui primus illic regnauerat; Who was the first that reigned there) supposed to be meant by Belus: those wordes doe not dis∣proue that Nimrod was the Founder of the Babylonian Empire. For although Iulius Caesar ouerthrew the libertie of the Romane Commonwealth, making himselfe a per∣petuall Dictator, yet Augustus was the first established Emperor: and the first that reigned absolutely by soueraigne authoritie ouer the Romanes, as an Emperor. The like may be said of Nimrod, that he first brake the rule of Eldership and Paternitie, laying the foundation of soueraigne Rule, as Caesar did; and yet Belus was the first, [unspec 10] who peaceably, and with a generall 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. yeeres after the floud (as they ac∣count) that Belus reigned: but such agreement of times proues it not. For so Edward the Third, and his grand-child Richard the Second, were Kings both in one yeere: the one dyed; the other in the same yeere was crowned King.

And yet the opinion (that Nimrod and Belus were one) is farre more probable then that of Mercator, who makes Ninus and Nimrod to be the same. For it is plaine that the beginning of Nimrods Kingdome was Babel, and the Townes adioyning: but the first and most famous worke of Ninus was the Citie of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. [unspec 20]

Now whereas D. Siculus affirmeth, that Ninus ouercame and supprest the Babylo∣nians, the same rather proueth the contrarie, then that Ninus and Nimrod were one person. For Ninus established the seate of his Empire at Niniue in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, whence the Babylonians might (perchance) in disdayne thereof fall from his obedience, whom he recouered againe by strong hand; which was easie: Babylon being not walled till Semiramis time.

— 〈◊〉〈◊〉 altam Coctilibus 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 SEMIRAMIS 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

SEMIRAMIS with walls of bricke the Citie did inclose.

[unspec 30]

Further, where it is alleaged, that as the Scriptures call Nimrod mightie: so Iustine hath the same of Ninus, which is one of Mercators arguments; It may be answered, that such an addition might haue beene giuen to many other Kings aswell. For if we may beleeue Iustine; then were Vexoris King of Aegypt, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Scythia mightie Kings before Ninus was borne. And if we may compare the wordes of Mo∣ses (touching Nimrod) with the vndertakings of Ninus, there will be found great dif∣ference betweene them. For whereas Mercator conceiueth, that it was too early for any that liued about the time of the confusion of languages, to haue inuaded and [unspec 40] mastered those Cities so farre remoued from Babel, namely, Erec, Accad, and Chalne: which worke he therefore ascribeth to Ninus, as a man of the greatest vndertaking; and consequently would haue Nimrod to haue beene 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 answere. First, I doe not finde that supposition true, That euer Nimrod inuaded any of these Cities; but that hee founded them and built them from the ground, being the first after the floud, that conducted the children of Noah into those parts: and therefore had no∣thing built or erected to his hands.

Besides, whereas these Cities in many mens opinions are found to stand farre a∣way [unspec 50] from Babylon, I finde no reason to bring me to that beliefe. The Citie of Ac∣cad which the Septuagint calls Archard, and Epiphanius, Arphal; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 takes to be Ni∣sibis in Mesopotamia for the Region thereabout the Cosmographers (saith he) call Accabene for Accadene, Others vnderstand Nisibis and Niniue to be one Citie: so

doe Strabo and Stephanus confound it with Charran; but all mistaken. For Nisibis, Accad, and Charran are distinct places. Though I cannot denie Accedene to be a Re∣gion of Mesopotamia, the same which Arias Montanus out of S. Hierome cals Achad: and so doe the Hebrewes also call Nisibis, which seemeth to be the cause of this mi∣staking. As for the Citie of Erec, which the Septuagint call Orech; S. Augustine, Oreg; and Pagninus, Erec; this place Iunius vnderstands for Aracca in Susiana: but there is also a Citie in Comagena called Arace: and indeede likelihood of name is no certaine proofe, without the assistance of other circumstances.

Concerning the third Citie (called Chalneh) some take it for Calinisis: of which Am. Marcellinus. S. Hierome takes it for Seleucia; Hierosolymitanus for Ctesiphon: others [unspec 10] * 1.2 doe thinke it to be the Agrani vpon Euphrates, destroyed and razed by the Persians. But let Moses be the Moderator and Iudge of this dispute, who teacheth vs directly, that these Cities are not seated in so diuers and distant Regions; for these be his wordes: And the beginning of his Kingdome (speaking of NIMROD) was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Chalneh, in the land of Shinaar: so as in this Valley of Shinaar, or Babylonia, or Chaldaea (being all one) we must finde them. And therefore I could (rather of the two) thinke with Viterbiensis, that these foure made but one Babylon, then that they were Cities farre remoued, and in seuerall Prouinces, did not the Prophet Amos precisely distinguish Chalne from Babylon. Goe you (saith AMOS) to Chalne, and from* 1.3 thence goe you to Hamath, and then to Gath of the Philistims. The Geneua translation fa∣uouring [unspec 20] the former opinion, to set these Cities out of Shinaar, hath a marginall note expressing that Shinaar was here named: not that all these Cities were therein seated, but to distinguish Babylon of Chaldaea, from Babylon in Aegypt; but I finde little sub∣stance in that conceit. For sure I am, that in the beginning of Nimrods Empire there was no such Babylon, nor any Citie at all to be found in Aegypt: Babylon of Aegypt being all one with the great Citie of Cairo, which was built long after, not farre from the place where stood Memphis the ancient Citie, but not so ancient as Babylon vpon Eupbrates. Now that Chalne is situate in the Valley of Shinaar, it hath beene formerly proued in the Chapter of Paradise. So as for any argument that may be brought to the contrarie, from the remote situation of these three Cities from Babylon, we may [unspec 30] continue in our opinion, That Nimrod, Belus, and Ninus, were distinct and succes∣siue Kings.

Notes

• * 1.1

  De Ciuit. Dei.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 23.
• * 1.3

  Cap. 6. vers. 2.