( ?98 ) 
The firft places thefe Beginnings under one Fou hty 
whom it makes reign Years before Jefus Chrijh. 
The fecond places them under one Hoang 7/, 2697 
Years before the vulgar jEra. 
The third in fine puts them under one Tao^ ^SS 7 
Years before the Birth of our Saviour. 
This Fou hf/ this Hoang 7 /, and this FaOy who 
arefuppofed to have been fo many Chmefe Princes, 
are myfterious Names of heroick Perfons, who never 
were in China : this is elfewhere demonftrated. 
Wherefore thefe Opinions, though they appear lefs fa- 
bulous, are not lefs remote from Truth. 
It is manifeft, that not one of thefe Opinions can be 
made agree with the vulgate Tranflation of the Bible. 
Recourfe muft be had to the Septuagint, which indeed 
would be no Inconveniency *, feeing the Numbers of 
the Vulgate and thofe of the Septuagint are equally 
current in the Church. 
But to fpeak in general, thefe various Opinions make 
the Epoque of the Chinefe Hiftory remount higher 
than is true. Their Diyerfity already gives room to 
perceive their Incertainty, and how little Solidity there 
is in the Foundations, whereon each of themftands. 
The Author of certain Memoirs on China^ that 
have made fome Noife in the World, declaring for 
the Chronology, which fixes the true Epoque of the 
Chinefe Hiftory at Tao^ has not feared to advance, on 
this Chronology, thefe five Propofitions. 
I. That it is very much followed, and hath many 
Circumftances to fupport it. 
X. That it is not fabulous in its Beginnings, as that 
of the Romans and Grecians. 
I 3. That 
