an ocular demonstration, how Chriftians of all Nations and Languages agree, both in the Canon, and in the Text of Scripture.

CHAP. VI.

Of the difficulties in Chronology in the Holy
Scriptures.

Hronology is the part of Learning, which is moft nice and difficult to be exactly adjusted, because it depends upon fo many feveral Circumftances, and comprehends fo great a variety of Affairs in all Ages and Nations, and how punctually foever the Accounts of Time be fet down at first, yet the least alterations in one Word, or Letter, may cause a great difference in Copies, and the difference of Epoches in the computations of different Countries, especially at great distances of Time as well as Place, is fuch, that the exacteft Chronology may easily be mistaken, and may be farther entangled and perplex'd by thofe, who endeavour to rectifie what they think amifs; for that which was exact at firft, is often made faulty by him who thought it so before. But I fuppofe, that no material Exception will lie against the Scripture upon the account of any difficulties in Chronology, if thefe two things be made out. 1. That differences in Chronology do not infer uncertainty in the Matters of Fact themselves. II. That differences in Chronology do not imply, that there was any Chronological Mistake made by the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures; but that they have been occafioned by the mistakes of Transcribers or of Expofitors.

I. Differences in Chronology do not infer uncertainty in the Matters of Fact themselves: Because the point of Time is but one Circumftance, and that easi

К 4

ly

ly mistaken by a thousand Accidents; and there may be many other circumstances fo particular, and fo well attefted, as to give fufficient evidence to the truth of things related, notwithstanding any uncertainty in the circumstance of Time. For which reafon, Plutarch did not reject the relation of a Difcourfe that pafs'd between Solon and Crafus, tho' he could not answer the Objections brought from Chronology to prove it feign'd, because he found it delivered by good Authors, and faw nothing improbable in it, but every thing very likely and suitable to Solon's temper; and he thought it unreasonable to reject a Matter of Fact, which had no other Objection against it, but fome difficulties in Chronology; when, fays he, innumerable Perfons have endeavoured to rectifie the Chronological Canons, but could never be able to this day to reconcile the differing Opinions. And he obferves in another place, how difficult it is to adjust the Accounts of Time, efpecially of the Olympiads, the Tables whereof are reported to have been taken by Hippias, upon no good Authority. The uncertainty of Chronology is a general complaint made by the best Hiftorians, and therefore if this Objection have any weight, it must invalidate the Authority of all History.

с

A very learned and accurate Author has fhewn the uncertainty in Chronology during the first Monarchy, both in refpect of Kingdoms, viz. the Kingdom of Affyria it felf, and the Kingdoms contemporary with it, and of Perfons and Occurrences. But doth this prove that there never were any fuch Kingdoms, nor any fuch Perfons and Occurrences? Dion Chryfoftomus has an Oration to prove, that Troy was never taken, And there have been no fewer than fixteen different

b In Numâ.

Mr. Milner's Defence of A. Bishop Ufher.

Ruald. in Plut. Animadv. ult.

Opinions

h

Opinions concerning the time when Homer lived; the firft of which, places him in the time of the destru&tich of Troy, the laft, Five hundred Years after it. Was there never therefore any fuch Poet, but were the Books under his Name made by chance, not only without Truth, but without Defign, by the lucky meeting together of Letters and Words? It is uncertain when the City of Rome was firft built; for * Saluft, and others, contrary to the common Opinion, that it was founded by Romulus, have afcribed the Foundation of it to the Trojans. And those who make Romulus the Founder, yet are at a strange difagreement concerning the Parents of Romulus, and the time of his Birth. Some have called his Mothers Name Ilia, fome Rhea, fome Silvia; others, as Livy, Rhea Silvia; yet ftill there is a farther diffe-. rence about the time of the Foundation of the City, which has occafioned great Difputes among Chronologers. What then must follow from hence? Why, if the uncertainty of the time when any Fact was done, imply the uncertainty of the Fact it felf, we must fairly conclude, that it is uncertain whether Rome was ever built at all, or at least, we muft, with Temporarius believe, that there never was any fuch Man as Romulus. The Copies of Diogenes Laertius place the time of Epicurus's Death nine Years before he was born, as * Menagius has observed; but the Enemies of Religion have too great a value for Epicurus, to give him up for that reafon, and to conclude that there never was such a Man. But it is yet more strange, that the time of fo late and so remarkable a thing as the taking of Conftantinople by the Turks, fhould be placed by fome a Year fooner than by others. This was an Action known and difcourfed of throughout all

f Saluft. Bell. Catalin. Diopyf, Halicar. 1. 1.

Plutarch. in Romulo.

h Dionyf. Halicar. ib. i Temporar. Chron. Demonft. lib. iii. Menag, obferv. in Diog Laert.

Europe,

Europe, and is a pregnant inftance, how little Reason there is to difpute the Certainty of a thing from any Uncertainty of Time, if other Circumstances concur to affure us of the Truth of it. The Chronologers are not a little ashamed, fays Mr. Gregory, that they should not be able to fatisfy us, concerning fo late and famous a Calamity, as the Siege of Conftantinople by Mahumed

the Second'.

II. The differences in Chronology do not imply, that there was any Chronological Mistake made by the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures, but they arise from the Mistakes of Transcribers or Expofitors. To be convinced of this, we need only reflect a little upon fome of those things, which are apt to cause Mistakes in the Computations of Chronology; and it will foon appear, how unreafonable it is to imagine, that no Book can be of Divine Inspiration, which is not fitted to fecure Men from the Errors, which it is natural for them to commit in things of that Intricacy.

1. Many difficulties in Chronology are occafion'd by not obferving, that that which had been faid before in the general, is afterwards refum'd and deliver'd in the Particulars contain'd under it. For the total Sum of any Term of Years being fet down first, before the Particulars have been infifted upon and explain'd, has led fome into Mistakes, by fuppofing that the Particulars afterwards mention'd were not to be comprehended in it, but to be reckon'd apart, as if they had happen'd afterwards in order of Time, because they are laft related in the course of the History. Thus Gen. xi. 26. it is faid that Terah lived feventy years and begåt Abram; and verf. 32. that the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran. But Gen. xii. 4. it is written that Abram. was feventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran: which is inconfiftent, if we suppose that Abram

! Jo, Greg. de Æris & Epochis, c.iii?

.

liv'd in Haran till the Death of his Father Terah: but if we confider that the whole number of years which Terah liv'd, is fet down Gen. xi. 32. and that the Departure of Abram out of Haran, which is related Gen. xii. yet happen'd before his Father's Death, there will be no Inconfiftency; but it will be evident, if Terah was but feventy years old when Abram was begotten, and Abram was but feventy five years old when he went out of Haran, that Abram left his Father Terah in Haran, where he liv'd after Abram's departure from him to the Age of two hundred and five years. Though during his Father's Life, he did upon occafion return to Haran. For the final Removal of Abram was not till the Death of his Father, as we learn from Acts vii. 4. And if this way of relating that in General firft, which is afterwards set forth in the Particulars, be attended to in the Interpretation of the Scriptures, it will afford a Solution of many Difficulties, as TM St. Auftin has obferv'd, which otherwife are inexplicable. Others fuppofe Abram was the youngest of Terah's Sons, though mention'd first, and then there is no Difficulty in the Chronology; only by this and other Instances we may observe that the eldest Brother is not always placed first in Scripture, but fometimes the youngest, out of refpect to him, for his Favour with God, and his greater Dignity and Worth: and therefore whatever Difficulties in Chronology arise upon this Suppofition, that the Son first named muft therefore neceffarily be first born, proceed from a Mistake.

2. Sometimes the principal number is fet down and the odd or lesser number is omitted, which being added to the great or principal number in fome other. place, causes a difference not to be reconciled, but by confidering that it is cuftomary in the best Authors not always to mention the leffer numbers, where the

Aug. Qu. Sup. Genef. c. 25.

matter