{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_76771/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_76771","id":"gutenberg_76771","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76771","summary":null,"tags":["Bible","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Chronology","Chronology, Historical"],"text":"A DISSERTATION\n                                   ON\n                       THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD,\n                         IN WHICH IS DETERMINED\n                     =The Chronology of the Period=\n                                  FROM\n                     CREATION TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA.\n\n\n                         BY PROFESSOR WALLACE.\n\n      \u201cMundum tradidit disputationi eorum.\u201d\n                                      ECCLES. iii. 11. Lat. Vulg.\n\n                                LONDON:\n                   SMITH, ELDER AND CO. 65, CORNHILL.\n                                 1844.\n\n\n\n\n                                London:\n                     Printed by STEWART and MURRAY,\n                              Old Bailey.\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nThe following Dissertation treats of a subject which has divided the\nopinions of the learned world from the third century till the present\ntime; namely, the discrepancies which exist between the present Hebrew\ntext and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, respecting the\ngenerations of the Ante and Postdiluvian Patriarchs. It treats also of\nthe similar discrepancies, which exist between the Hebrew and the\nSamaritan texts, and of the testimonies of Josephus and other ancient\nhistorians and chronographers, in favour of the accuracy of the\nSeptuagint on this point. These discrepancies, with others of minor\nextent, which are here also duly considered, occasion a difference\nbetween the Hebrew and the Septuagint as to the chronology of the period\nfrom creation to the Birth of Christ, amounting in all to nearly 1500\nyears,\u2014the difference between the modern and ancient computation of the\n_true age of the world_.\n\nThis question, which has never been satisfactorily settled,\nnotwithstanding the efforts of the ancient chronographers Theophilus,\nAfricanus, Eusebius and Syncellus, and the labours of the modern\nchronologers, Petavius, Usher, Jackson, Hales, Russell and Clinton, has\nacquired fresh importance from the late discoveries of Astronomers and\nGeologists, and the recent investigations of learned writers on the\nprophecies and the millennium. The startling announcements made by\nGeologists regarding the antiquity of the earth, which, according to\ntheir discoveries, amounts to millions of millions of years; and the\ncurious statements of Astronomers respecting the ages of time required\nfor the transmission of the light of the stars, the continual\ndevelopment of new nebul\u00e6 in the heavens, and the gradual formation of\nnew suns and systems in the universe; are sufficient causes, why a new\ninquiry into the chronology of the Bible has become both popular and\nnecessary, and why the question concerning the discrepancies between the\nHebrew text and the ancient Greek version has been revived.\n\nThe interest attached in these latter days, by pious and learned men, to\nthe study of the prophecies of Daniel, and of the Apocalyptic visions of\nJohn, tends greatly to increase the popularity of chronological\ninquiries respecting the Mundane Times. The late researches of writers\non this subject into the mystic numbers of days or years appointed by\nthe Great Creator for the fulfilment of these prophecies and visions,\nnaturally leads to the investigation of the _true age of the world_; and\nthis again, if properly conducted, conduces to the settlement of the\ndates of all the great events both in sacred and profane history. The\nChristian Church, having once established these epochs on a firm\nchronological basis, can then look calmly forward, as from an elevated\nvantage ground, to the rapid accomplishment of all the prophecies both\nof the Old and New Testament; and particularly to the downfall of the\nPapacy, the destruction of the Mohammedan Imposture, the overthrow of\nInfidelity, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the battle of\nArmageddon, the supervention of the Millennium, and the Second Advent of\nthe Messiah in the clouds of Heaven.\n\nIt is no mean and uninteresting inquiry, therefore, to attempt to\nascertain from the Sacred Scriptures, the true date of the present year\nfrom the creation of the world; and to determine which of the modern\ncomputations is the most correct, or whether any of them be in exact\naccordance with the unerring testimony of the word of God. For,\naccording to the chronology of the modern Jews, we now live in the year\nof the world 5604; according to that of the Church of England, founded\non the authority of Archbishop Usher\u2019s interpretation of the Hebrew\ntext, in A.M. 5848; according to that of the Church of Rome, founded on\nthe authority of Eusebius, and the later chronographers, in A.M. 7044;\nbut, according to that of the most learned of all Christian churches,\nand particularly the recent writers, Jackson, Hales, Russell and\nCuninghame, founded on the authority of the Septuagint, corrected\naccording to the best and most ancient codices of that version, and\ntested by Astronomical and Jubilean Cycles of time, in A.M. 7322.\n\nIn the _First Part_ of this Dissertation, a critical analysis is given\nof the construction of the different Ages of the world previous to the\nMessianic age, as determined by the supreme authority of the Sacred\nScriptures, which the author places above and beyond that of the\nstatements and the testimonies of all human writers. The learned\nchronological works of Mr. Cuninghame have been particularly brought\nunder his review, and have, in fact, formed the basis of his\ninvestigations; namely, _A Synopsis of Chronology_, London, 1837; _The\nSeptuagint and Hebrew Chronologies Tried_, London, 1838; _The Fulness of\nthe Times_, second edition, London, 1839; _A Chart of Sacred\nChronology_, London, 1842, &c. The following important chronological\ntreatises have also been specially brought under his notice; namely,\n_Scripture Chronology_, being _Appendix V. to_ Vol. i. of Mr. Clinton\u2019s\nvery learned work, the _Fasti Hellenici_, Oxford, 1834; and\n_Chronographi\u00e6 LXX. Interpretum Defensio_, being _Treatise V. in_ Vol.\niii. of the _Cours Complets D\u2019Ecriture Sainte et De Theologie_, a\nlaborious, learned and valuable work in 50 volumes, published by _M.\nL\u2019Abb\u00e9 Migne_, Paris, 1841. Frequent references are likewise made to the\nwell-known chronological works of Usher, Jackson, Hales, and Russell.\n\nIn the _Second Part_, a critical inquiry has been instituted into the\nevidence, Scriptural, Historical and Physical, for the universal\ndiffusion among mankind of the Great Primeval prophecy concerning the\nRenovation of the world, and its bearing on the question of the true\nperiod of the Advent of our Saviour, and the Extent of the Mundane ages.\nThis inquiry leads to a short discussion on the origin of Idolatry, the\nSource of the Heathen names of the Deity, and the notions entertained by\nthe ancient mythologists and poets concerning the _Seven ages_ of the\nworld. This discussion brings to light some evidences of a curious and\nstriking nature in favour of the true Chronology. The work concludes\nwith an investigation of the errors of the most eminent of the ancient\nChronographers, and an elucidation of their clear and united testimony\nto the authenticity of the computation of the Septuagint.\n\nTo complete the object of this Dissertation, the author intended to\nreview the Astronomical and Geological evidence for the antiquity of the\nglobe; but the Scriptural and Historical evidence for the _true age of\nthe world_, appeared to him of such paramount importance, and of so\noverwhelming a nature, that he was compelled to devote his best\nattention to its development and elucidation. If he has been successful\nin this attempt, it will be to him a source of no small gratification,\nand no small reward for his labour; it will also be a powerful\ninducement to prosecute his intended investigations, having, in this\nwork, only very slightly touched on the Geological question, and not at\nall on the Astronomical, except in what relates to the cyclical\ncharacter of the Mundane Times, which may be considered as only the germ\nof this magnificent subject. Impressed with the idea that the _True Age\nof the World_ is written in the Heavens by the finger of God, and that\nthe revolutions of the Solar System, if rightly investigated, must lead\nto its discovery; the author made some astronomical calculations of\nwhich at present, he can only communicate the results. Assuming that at\nthe Creation of the world, there was a Grand Heliocentric conjunction of\nall the Planets, and that at some subsequent period of its history, the\nsame phenomenon would at least be partially visible from its surface, he\nendeavoured to determine the period or cycle which must elapse before a\nsecond conjunction would happen. He found by these calculations, that\nthis cycle was nearly 2401 years, a period which according to the\nlanguage of Scripture is a _Jubilee of Jubilees_; and, that reckoning\nfrom the era of Creation determined in this work, the Second conjunction\ntook place about B. C. 3078, which is within a few years (24) of the\ndate generally assigned to the Hindoo epoch of the Calyougham. He found\nalso, that the Third conjunction took place about B. C. 677, when the\nremnant of the Ten Tribes was carried away into a long captivity, and\nthe kingdom departed from Israel; and, that the Fourth conjunction took\nplace in A.D. 1725, when on the 17th of March, at Pekin in China, the\nplanets Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter, were all seen in the field of\nthe same telescope at the same instant, by the Jesuit Missionaries\nGaubil, Jacques and Kegler. In confirmation of the same epoch of\nCreation, he also found that the longitude of Sirius, the largest and\nbrightest of all the Stars in the Heavens, and by some supposed to be\nthe central point of attraction to our Sun, was 0\u00b0 0\u2032 0\u2033 on the 21st of\nMarch B. C. 5478, according to the most recent determination of the\nprecession of the equinoxes; but the discussion of these curious results\nand other topics to which he has already alluded, must form the subject\nof a future volume.\n\n\n  _London, Sept. 2nd, 1844._\n\n\n\n\n                           TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                 PART I.\n\n                              INTRODUCTION.\n\n   1. State of the World at the Birth of Christ\u2014Tradition\n     concerning his Advent\u2014Its epoch determined from Prophecy     page 1\n\n   2. Short history of the Septuagint Version of the Old\n     Testament\u2014Discrepancies between the Hebrew and the\n     Septuagint\u2014Their effect on Sacred Chronology                      4\n\n                SECTION I.\u2014AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.\n\n            CHAPTER I.\u2014EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n   1. Discrepancies of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan\n     Texts\u2014Solution of the difficulty by the chronographers of\n     the middle ages\u2014Consistency of the Septuagint and the New\n     Testament\u2014Numerical errors of the Hebrew text                     9\n\n   2. Origin and effect of various readings\u2014The immaculate purity\n     and miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text, a\n     figment\u2014Consistency of the word of God                           12\n\n   3. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard\n     to the Antediluvian Patriarchs: Table I., In their\n     Antepaidogonian ages\u2014Table II., In their Postpaidogonian\n     ages\u2014Table III., In their whole lives\u2014Internal evidence\n     afforded by the Tables in favour of the computation of the\n     Septuagint\u2014The Discrepancies of the Hebrew and Samaritan the\n     work of design\u2014Proof of this fact from the Scriptures            14\n\n   4. Reasons assigned for the alterations in the Hebrew and\n     Samaritan\u2014Accuracy of the Septuagint demonstrated\u2014An\n     objection to its chronology removed\u2014Utility of the\n     publication of _fac simile_ editions of the codices\u2014Late\n     origin of the _printed_ Hebrew text\u2014Its original agreement\n     with the Septuagint proved                                       20\n\n           CHAPTER II.\u2014EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n   1. Discrepancies of the three texts\u2014Unfounded hypothesis of\n     Usher\u2014Agreement of Josephus with the Septuagint\u2014Authority of\n     this Version in the Church\u2014Its chronology confirmed by the\n     most authentic Chinese annals\u2014Reasons why the Jews altered\n     the Hebrew text                                                  28\n\n   2. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard\n     to the Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV. In their\n     Antepaidogonian ages\u2014Table V. In their Postpaidogonian\n     ages\u2014Table VI. In their whole lives                              31\n\n   3. Authenticity of the _Second Cainan_\u2014Dilemma of the\n     Venerable Bede\u2014Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne\u2014Usher\u2019s\n     Dissertation\u2014Inconsistency of authorized translations of the\n     Bible\u2014Rashness of Beza\u2014The Second Cainan in the most ancient\n     Codices\u2014Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers         34\n\n   4. Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the\n     computation of the Septuagint\u2014Omissions in the Hebrew and\n     Septuagint retained in the Samaritan\u2014Accordance of the\n     Septuagint with nature and providence\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s\n     argument from analogy\u2014The alterations of Origen in the text\n     of the Septuagint                                                41\n\n   5. Mistake of Usher, adopted by Hales and Clinton, as to the\n     Antepaidogonian age of Terah\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s arguments\n     unanswerable\u2014His proof of the chronology of the Seventy from\n     the discovery of its Cyclical character\u2014Testimony of\n     Eusebius to the true date of Abraham\u2019s birth\u2014Table VII.\n     Extent of the _first two ages_ of the world                      45\n\n CHAPTER III.\u2014DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.\n\n   1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the\n     proportion between the Antepaidogonian Ages and whole Lives\n     of the Patriarchs\u2014Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio,\n     and the diminution of the length of human life                   50\n\n   2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human\n     generations\u2014Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew\n     text\u2014Remark of Eusebius\u2014Objections of learned men unanswered     52\n\n   3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence\n     of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same\n     family, and within a short period from the flood\u2014Remarks on\n     the building of Babel\u2014Mr. Clinton refuted\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s\n     argument from Scripture\u2014The judgments of God forgotten           55\n\n   4. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the accounts of\n     Sacred and Profane History\u2014Remark of Sir Walter Raleigh\u2014Sir\n     Isaac Newton\u2019s objection refuted\u2014Epoch of the Foundation of\n     the kingdom of Egypt                                             57\n\n   5. Arguments founded on the deficiency of the numbers of\n     mankind\u2014Epoch of the occupation of Babylon by the\n     Medes\u2014Calculation of the numbers of mankind on the Eulerian\n     ratio\u2014Mr. Clinton refuted                                        59\n\n   6. Argument founded on the alteration of the Hebrew text by\n     the Jews\u2014Testimony of the early Fathers on this point\u2014Mr.\n     Clinton\u2019s admission as to the prophecies\u2014His refutation as\n     to the chronology\u2014Motives of the Jews for shortening the\n     genealogies                                                      60\n\n   7. Motives ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters for enlarging\n     the chronology\u2014Pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians to\n     a remote antiquity\u2014Insufficiency of the scheme adopted by\n     the Interpreters\u2014Self-refutation of Mr. Clinton\u2019s hypothesis     62\n\n            CHAPTER IV.\u2014EXTENT OF THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n   Table VIII. Patriarchal Eras and Intervals from Usher\u2014Table\n     IX. Extent of the _first three ages_ of the World\u2014Date of\n     the Exodus of Israel from Egypt                                  64\n\n            CHAPTER V.\u2014EXTENT OF THE FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n   Palpable Forgery of this period in 1 Kings vi. 1.\u2014Table X.\n     Critarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and\n     Cuninghame\u2014Object of Usher in determining this\n     period\u2014Testimony of Paul and the Book of Judges as to its\n     true extent\u2014Testimony of Origen\u2014Table XI. Extent of the\n     _first four ages_ of the world\u2014Verification of the true\n     extent of the _fourth age_ by Chronographers\u2014Agreement on\n     this point between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Cuninghame                67\n\n            CHAPTER VI.\u2014EXTENT OF THE FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n   Table XII. Monarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and\n     Cuninghame\u2014Correction of the mistakes of chronologers as to\n     the true extent of this period, by Mr. Cuninghame\u2014Table\n     XIII. Extent of the _first five ages_ of the\n     World\u2014Confirmation of the true extent of the _fifth age_\n     from sacred history and prophecy                                 73\n\n           CHAPTER VII.\u2014EXTENT OF THE SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n   1. Table XIV. Hierarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and\n     Cuninghame\u2014Determination of the Intervals from\n     Scripture\u2014Period of the Seventy years Captivity\u2014Period of\n     the Seventy prophetic weeks of Daniel\u2014Table XV. Date of the\n     Crucifixion determined\u2014Truth of the Ancient Tradition\n     respecting the First Advent of the Messiah demonstrated          79\n\n   2. Determination of the Epoch of the Birth of Christ\u2014Labours\n     of Mr. Cuninghame on this point\u2014Coincidence of the extent of\n     the period of Patriarchal Pilgrimage with that of Hierarchal\n     Bondage\u2014Table XVI. Extent of the _Six Ages_ of the\n     World\u2014Difference between the true and vulgar dates of the\n     Nativity\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s dates of the Nativity and Public\n     Ministry of Christ deduced from the chronology of the\n     Septuagint                                                       84\n\n       SECTION II.\u2014CONFIRMATION OF THE GREAT EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.\n\n  CHAPTER I.\u2014HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUE SYSTEM OF CHRONOLOGY.\n\n   Testimonies of the ancient chronographers and historians\n     before and after Christ, in favour of the chronology of the\n     Septuagint\u2014Demetrius, Eupolemus, Josephus, Justin Martyr,\n     and all the early fathers of the first three\n     centuries\u2014Theophilus, Hippolytus, Africanus, Origen,\n     Cyprian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Ephrem Syrus,\n     Augustine, Chrysostom, Sulpicius Severus, Annianus,\n     Syncellus, Eutychius, the author of the Paschal Chronicle,\n     and the Council called \u201cSynodus in Trullo\u201d\u2014Probable cause of\n     minute variations among the ancient chronographers               90\n\n         CHAPTER II.\u2014REDUCTION OF THE MUNDANE ERA OF REDEMPTION.\n\n   Errors of Eusebius, Jerome, and the western\n     churches\u2014Consistency of the eastern and southern churches to\n     the latest period\u2014Chronology of the Russians and Armenians,\n     that of the Septuagint\u2014Testimony of\n     Abulpharajius\u2014Chronological innovations of the Venerable\n     Bede\u2014His denouncement as a heretic on this\n     account\u2014Chronology of the Roman Church different from that\n     of the Latin Vulgate\u2014The chronology of the Masoretes an\n     abridgement of the true\u2014The chronology of the Roman\n     Martyrology preserved by Pontifical authority to the present\n     day\u2014Extract from Strauchius\u2014An important testimony in favour\n     of the true chronology                                           95\n\n   CHAPTER III.\u2014CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY ERRONEOUS.\n\n   Chronology of the English Bible erroneous\u2014Usher influenced by\n     the Masoretes\u2014Tradition of the House of Elias\u2014Its complete\n     refutation both from Scripture and fact\u2014Utility and\n     application of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cChart of\n     Chronology\u201d\u2014Reasons assigned by the Jewish Rabbis why their\n     expected Messiah is not yet come\u2014Their curse upon all who\n     calculate the Times                                              99\n\n          CHAPTER IV.\u2014CYCLICAL CHARACTER OF THE MUNDANE TIMES.\n\n   1. The revolutions of the heavenly bodies appointed for\n     cycles\u2014Origin of the cycles of the year and the month\u2014The\n     subject of Enoch\u2019s prophecy\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of\n     the cycle from the Creation to the Era of\n     Redemption\u2014Scriptural cycles of frequent occurrence\u2014The\n     numbers of Jubilee and of Pentecost\u2014of pilgrimage and\n     persecution\u2014of omnipotence, glory and wisdom; and of\n     mystery, vengeance and forgiveness\u2014The prophetic numbers of\n     Daniel\u2014Discovery of their connection with the higher cycles\n     of astronomy, by M. de Chesaux and Mr. Cuninghame               102\n\n   2. Lengths of the tropical year and the synodical period of\n     the moon, according to Sir John Herschel\u2014Application of the\n     method of _continued fractions_ to the determination of\n     their approximating ratios\u2014Various lunisolar cycles\u2014The\n     Octa\u00ebteris of the Greeks\u2014The cycle of nineteen discovered by\n     Meton, but probably known to the Hebrews\u2014The period of\n     Calippus\u2014Proof that the numbers of Daniel are lunisolar\n     cycles\u2014Remarks of Mr. Birks in his \u201cElements of\n     Prophecy\u201d\u2014Observations of Mr. Cuninghame in his \u201cScientific\n     Chronology\u201d\u2014Proof that the prophetic month and the jubilean\n     period are lunisolar cycles                                     106\n\n               CHAPTER V.\u2014DISCOVERY OF NEW MUNDANE CYCLES.\n\n   1. Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of the mystical signification of\n     the seventy years\u2019 captivity\u2014Its connection with the era of\n     the French Revolution\u2014Confirmed by the sentiments of the\n     modern Jews\u2014Prediction of Rabbi Joseph Crool\u2014Prediction in\n     the Hebrew Tract \u201cExplanation of the Times,\u201d published in\n     1794\u2014The latter prediction not fulfilled\u2014Hope concerning\n     Israel                                                          111\n\n   2. Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of seven streams of time, of\n     seventy jubilees each, in the true system of chronology\u2014This\n     test wholly inapplicable to any other system\u2014His discovery\n     of five streams of time of different Jubilean\n     periods\u2014Utility of his \u201cFulness of the Times\u201d where these\n     discoveries are developed\u2014Notice of his more recent works       113\n\n   3. Various cycles which enter into the true system of\n     chronology\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of the _trinal\n     fraction_\u2014Its explanation and application by an Algebraic\n     formula\u2014Original form in which it was discovered\u2014Its\n     superiority to the formul\u00e6 of the _figurate\n     numbers_\u2014Remarkable instance of its application to\n     Scriptural and other numbers, and to lunar and solar\n     cyclical numbers\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s definition of the trinal\n     fraction the most correct\u2014The series deduced from its\n     formula possesses curious properties                            115\n\n   4. Application of the theory of the trinal fraction to the\n     discovery of the meaning of the _Number of the Beast_ in the\n     Revelation of John\u2014Proof that the number 666 is the number\n     of a Man\u2014Its indication of _spiritual_ and _secular_\n     dominion\u2014of tyranny and persecution\u2014Recent efforts to raise\n     the Beast again to power\u2014A warning to Protestants               119\n\n        CHAPTER VI.\u2014DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY.\n\n   1. Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s application of the lunisolar cycles and\n     septennary periods to the settlement of chronological\n     questions\u2014The Septuagint proved to be the _exact truth_ by a\n     complex harmony of scientific time\u2014His \u201cSynopsis of\n     Chronology\u201d recommended                                         122\n\n   2. Evidence in favour of the Septuagint and Hebrew\n     Chronologies compared and tested by Mr. Cuninghame\u2014His\n     detection of the scheme of fraud invented by the Jewish\n     Rabbis for shortening the chronology of the Scriptures\u2014His\n     exposition of this scheme in _three distinct acts_, and the\n     result of the whole                                             123\n\n   3. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cSeptuagint and Hebrew\n     Chronologies Tried\u201d\u2014His description and table of the great\n     periods of 1838\u2014His table of both Chronologies\u2014His appeal to\n     the disciples of Usher\u2014His view of their chronological\n     difficulties and paradoxes\u2014His call to them to produce their\n     evidence in favour of their system                              126\n\n   4. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s later works\u2014Summary of\n     the remarkable and original subjects of which they treat\u2014His\n     remarks on the Theories of modern Geologists\n     recommended\u2014Their large demands upon time not warranted by\n     the simplicity of the Mosaic narrative\u2014The authority and\n     authenticity of the Inspired Record endangered by their\n     speculations\u2014Another mode of solving geological difficulties\n     recommended\u2014A boon of 1500 years additional granted to\n     Geologists\u2014Recommendation of Mr. Morison\u2019s \u201cReligious\n     History of Man\u201d\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discoveries concentrated in\n     his \u201cChart of Chronology\u201d and \u201cEssay,\u201d and in the Appendixes\n     to the fourth edition of his \u201cDissertation on the\n     Apocalypse\u201d                                                     128\n\n\n                                PART II.\n\n        CHAPTER I.\u2014THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.\n\n   Primeval prophecy concerning the Messiah\u2014Errors in the\n     translation of it, in different versions\u2014Correct in the\n     Septuagint\u2014Tradition of this prophecy in the Ante and Post\n     Diluvian ages\u2014Its clearer development in the Patriarchal\n     Age\u2014Dr. Lamb\u2019s explanation of the word _Shiloh_\u2014Prophecy of\n     Balaam in the Critarchal Age\u2014Predictions of Moses and\n     Hannah\u2014The glorious revelations of the Monarchal Age\u2014The\n     testimony of the Psalms to the Messiah\u2014Explanation of the\n     last words of David from Kennicott\u2014Application of the term\n     _Sun_ to Jehovah\u2014Testimony of the Prophecies to the\n     Messiah\u2014Isaiah, the Evangelical Prophet\u2014The predictions at\n     the close of the Monarchal and the commencement of the\n     Hierarchal Age\u2014Testimony among the Heathen                      135\n\n  CHAPTER II.\u2014TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO THE SUBJECT OF\n                                PROPHECY.\n\n   1. Object of the Disposition of the Cherubim at Eden\u2014Its\n     disappearance from the earth\u2014The remembrance of its glory\n     transmitted to the Postdiluvians\u2014Its occasional\n     re-appearance to Abraham, to Moses, to Israel, to Elijah,\n     and to Isaiah\u2014Identity of the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel,\n     and John\u2014Similarity of the visions of Daniel, John, the\n     Three Disciples, and Paul\u2014Object of these glorious\n     representations in heaven and on earth\u2014Known among the\n     Heathen, and grafted on their religious worship\u2014Origin of\n     Zabaism, and its spread over the world                          146\n\n   2. The Sun worshipped by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and\n     Chaldeans, under the names of Baal, or Beelsamen\u2014By the\n     Egyptians, under the names of Orus and Osiris\u2014Connection\n     between the Sun and Sirius\u2014The Sun and his Satellite\n     worshipped by the Israelites, under the names of Molech and\n     Remphan, Baal, and Ashtaroth, during the Critarchal age\u2014The\n     Zabian idolatry set up at Jerusalem in the Monarchal age\u2014The\n     partial Reformation of Josiah\u2014The ancient Persians, Sun and\n     Fire worshippers\u2014Origin of Mithras\u2014The gods of Phenicia,\n     Elioun, and Adonis or Tammuz                                    152\n\n   3. The gods of the Hindoos, Vishnu, Buddha, Brahma, and Seeva,\n     form no Trinity\u2014The theft of their names and attributes from\n     the Hebrew evinced by their meaning\u2014Buddha an avatar of\n     Vishnu\u2014Origin of Fohi, the god of the Chinese\u2014Druidical,\n     Peruvian, Mexican, and Parsee worship\u2014Origin of Surya,\n     Suras, and Asuras\u2014Russell\u2019s citation of Macrobius on the\n     worship of the Solar god\u2014The concentration of Paganism          158\n\n   4. Origin of the Greek and Latin names of the Supreme\n     God\u2014Ingenious derivation by Dr. Hales\u2014Confutation of that\n     given by Francoeur in his \u201cUranographie\u201d\u2014Origin of the New\n     Testament titles of Christ\u2014Citation of Theophilus on this\n     subject\u2014Irrefragable proof of the Divinity of our\n     Lord\u2014Original temple of the Sun\u2014Connection of Religious\n     worship and Astronomical observation\u2014Antiquity of the\n     Hindoos and Chinese                                             163\n\n        CHAPTER III.\u2014TRADITIONARY AND POETICAL AGES OF THE WORLD.\n\n   1. Tradition concerning the Seventh Age\u2014Prophecy of the\n     Universal Saviour\u2014Traditions of the Jews\u2014Opinion of Iren\u00e6us\n     and the Christian Church in his time\u2014Dr. Russell\u2019s opinion\n     confuted\u2014Testimony of the Heathen to the Tradition of the\n     _Seven Ages_\u2014Digression on the Corruptions of the Septuagint\n     and the Hebrew text\u2014Arguments against the numerical accuracy\n     of the latter\u2014Remarkable prophecy contained in the names of\n     the _Antediluvian_ Patriarchs\u2014Opinions of Augustine and\n     Abulfarajius\u2014Notion of Dr. Isaac Barrow\u2014Important admission\n     of Eusebius\u2014Opinion of Ephrem Syrus                             168\n\n   2. Description of the Ages of the World from Hesiod\u2014Error of\n     Newton\u2014The Golden Age corresponds to the Antediluvian\u2014The\n     Silver to the Postdiluvian\u2014The Brazen, Heroic and Iron ages,\n     to the Patriarchal, Critarchal and Monarchal\u2014These ages\n     relate chiefly to Greece\u2014References to Scripture history in\n     all\u2014The Sixth or Cum\u00e6an age corresponds to the\n     Hierarchal\u2014Wisdom of the Heathens\u2014Their expectation of a\n     Divine Instructor\u2014Socrates, Plato, Eupolis, Virgil, and\n     others, anticipate his glorious Advent\u2014The close of the\n     _Sixth age_ indicates the arrival of the _Seventh_, or the\n     return of the _Golden age_                                      193\n\n            CHAPTER IV.\u2014ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.\n\n   1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the\n     ancient chronographers\u2014The testimony of the latter chiefly\n     in favour of the Septuagint\u2014The testimonies of Josephus,\n     Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the\n     Paschal Chronicle selected for examination\u2014Table I.\n     Containing their statements relating to the _First age_ of\n     the world\u2014Errors of Josephus\u2014Corruption of his text\u2014Mr.\n     Cuninghame\u2019s detection of his blunders in regard to the\n     first age\u2014His discovery of the truth from the titulary\n     statements of the first and second books of Josephus\u2014His\n     explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this author appears\n     to have been accessory\u2014Error of Theophilus, and accuracy of\n     Africanus in this age\u2014Similar error of Eusebius and\n     Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the\n     Paschal Chronicle                                               229\n\n   2. Table II., Containing the statements of the ancient\n     chronographers relating to the _Second age_ of the\n     world\u2014Absurd errors of the text of Josephus\u2014The discrepancy\n     between his detailed numbers and his sum total, the work of\n     an enemy to the truth\u2014Proof that the true sum was in his\n     text originally\u2014Errors of Theophilus and Africanus in this\n     age due to Jewish influence\u2014Notion entertained by the\n     ancient chronographers regarding the bisection of the\n     Mundane period at the death of Peleg\u2014The genealogy of Shem,\n     like that of Melchisedec, in the chronology\u2014Reference to Mr.\n     Clinton\u2014Error of Eusebius, rectified in the Hieronymian\n     version of his Chronicon\u2014Accuracy of the Paschal Chronicle,\n     with the exception of the biennial period\u2014Valuable Testimony\n     of Eusebius and Africanus, preserved by Syncellus in his\n     Chronographia, on the extent of the _first two ages_            240\n\n   3. Table III., Containing the statements of the ancient\n     chronographers relating to the _Third age_ of the world\u2014The\n     testimony of Josephus to the true chronology very\n     explicit\u2014Misinterpretation of prophecy the cause of wavering\n     in Josephus and blunder in Theophilus\u2014The testimony of\n     Africanus correct\u2014Eusebius, Demetrius, and the author of the\n     Paschal Chronicle correct\u2014Explanation of the period of _Four\n     Hundred_ years                                                  248\n\n   4. Table IV., Containing the statements of the ancient\n     chronographers relating to the _Fourth age_ of the world\u2014The\n     testimony of Josephus to the extent of this age highly\n     satisfactory\u2014Proof that it was 612 years\u2014Strange errors of\n     Theophilus\u2014Method of rectifying them\u2014Compensating errors of\n     Africanus\u2014His date of the foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple\n     correct\u2014Errors of Eusebius\u2014His _Pr\u00e6paratio_ correct in\n     amount, his _Chronicon_ wrong\u2014He confutes himself and adopts\n     the Hebrew chronology\u2014Comparison between him and\n     Usher\u2014Errors of the Paschal Chronicle\u2014The author coincides\n     with Josephus\u2014Hesitancy of Mr. Clinton\u2014Table V., The _first\n     four ages_ of the world, and date of Solomon\u2019s Temple\n     according to the different chronographers                       254\n\n   5. Table VI. Containing the statements of the chronographers\n     relating to the _Fifth age_ of the world\u2014The errors of\n     Josephus peculiar\u2014His elongation of the reign of\n     Solomon\u2014Disagreement of his titulary periods with the\n     summation of the reigns in Books Eighth, Ninth and\n     Tenth\u2014Proof that the former is nearly correct\u2014Table VII.\n     _Monarchal Periods_ of Josephus\u2014Comparison with the True\n     Chronology\u2014Evidence that these periods have been\n     manufactured\u2014The true chronology of this age detected in his\n     works\u2014Table VIII. _True Flavian Periods_, showing the true\n     Extent as originally held by Josephus\u2014Proof that he knew the\n     true epoch of the Captivity\u2014The errors of Theophilus in this\n     age few\u2014He is also mistaken as to the epoch of the\n     Captivity\u2014Africanus diminishes the true extent of this\n     age\u2014He is misrepresented by Syncellus\u2014The Statements of\n     Eusebius taken from the Hieronymian and Armenian Versions of\n     his Canon\u2014Those of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from\n     that work itself\u2014Their errors pointed out\u2014The difference\n     between their Extent of this age and the true Extent only 3\n     years                                                           274\n\n   6. Table IX. _Ethnocratic Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to\n     Ptolemy\u2019s Canon and the ancient Chronographers\u2014Accuracy of\n     the Canon\u2014Josephus erroneous but consistent in the _Sixth\n     age_\u2014His remarkable coincidence with the true Chronology in\n     the Mundane period\u2014Theophilus follows the Roman Chronology\n     in this age\u2014Africanus the prophetic\u2014Both erroneous\u2014Errors of\n     Eusebius, and accuracy of his Extent of this age\u2014Errors of\n     the Paschal Chronicle considerable and unaccountable\u2014Table\n     X. Summation of the _Six ages_ of the world according to the\n     Septuagint and the ancient chronographers\u2014Table XI.\n     Summation of the Periods of the Christian Chronographers,\n     adopted by themselves\u2014_Chronological Table_ of the Principal\n     Epochs and Events from the Creation to the Advent of Christ     287\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n\n                              DISSERTATION\n\n                                   ON\n\n                       THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n\n\n\n                               =Part I.=\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION.\n\n  1. State of the World at the Birth of Christ\u2014Tradition concerning his\n       Advent\u2014Its epoch determined from Prophecy.\n\n\nThe Christian era was ushered into notice, by a state of peace among all\nnations, unprecedented in the history of the world. The temple of Janus\nat Rome was shut, after the lapse of seven centuries of incessant\nwarfare. At this period, a very general belief prevailed among men, that\nthe long-expected Saviour of the world was about to appear. Many\nincontestable proofs of this fact are to be found in ancient history.\nSoter or Saviour, had indeed become a common appellation among kings,\nboth in Syria and Egypt; and the foreshortened shadows of coming events\nindicated the near approach of the \u201cDesire of all nations.\u201d Poets\nanticipated his happy reign; historians longed for the promised age of\nmiracles; and philosophers panted for the Advent of a heaven-born\nInstructor of mankind. The epoch assigned, by universal tradition, for\nthe epiphany of this wonderful personage, was the _Sixth Age_ of the\nworld; or, according to the ancient Hebrew chronology, the middle of the\n_Sixth Millennium_ or _Chiliad_, of years from the creation of the\nworld.\n\nRespecting the true origin of the assigned epoch, a considerable\ndifference of opinion exists. It is, however, generally referred to the\nancient tradition among the Jews, that the world was destined to last\nfor a period of _seven millenaries_ of years, the first _six_\ncorresponding to the _six days_ of creation, and the _seventh_ to the\n_Sabbath_ or day of rest; and that previous to the last _millennium_,\nthe Messiah should appear in great power and glory. Traces of this\ntradition may be found in the vaticinations of the Sybilline oracles,\nand in the writings of the Greek theogonists and cosmogonists. The\nprevalence of the same tradition in the time of our Saviour and his\nApostles, had evidently led the disciples to associate, as\ncontemporaneous events, the _first_ Advent of Christ, and the\nrestoration of all things. See Matthew xxxiv. 2, and 2 Thessalonians ii.\n1.\n\nAlthough there be no foundation in Scripture for the Jewish tradition\nitself, yet the fact of its existence at an early period of the\nChristian era, added to the universal belief among ancient writers, that\nthe Messiah did appear at the assigned epoch, affords a strong\npresumptive proof that it was the true one. Theophilus, bishop of\nAntioch, who flourished in the second century, ingeniously unites the\nhistorical fact and the Jewish tradition, when he intimates that as the\n_first Adam_ came into existence on the _sixth day_ of creation, so the\n_second Adam_ came into the world on the _sixth day_ of the Chiliads,\n_each day_ being reckoned as \u201c_a thousand years_.\u201d It is evident,\nhowever, that this early father had derived his knowledge of the true\nepoch from its original and only source; for, he says, \u201cthe whole time,\neven all the years\u201d from the Creation to the Crucifixion, \u201care shown\u201d in\nthe Scriptures, \u201cto those who are willing to obey the truth.\u201d[1]\nAccordingly, we assert that it was possible to ascertain at a very early\nperiod,\u2014almost five centuries before Christ,\u2014the true length of the\nwhole interval in question, by a careful examination of the Sacred\nRecords; the exact period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the\nCrucifixion, being assigned in the prophecies of Daniel; while, the\nperiod from Creation to the Return of the Jews from Babylon, can be\ndetermined from the other books of the Old Testament. Before we proceed\nto demonstrate the truth of this assertion, we must shortly glance at\nthe history of these Books.\n\n  2. Short history of the Septuagint Version of the Old\n       Testament\u2014Discrepancies between the Hebrew and Septuagint\u2014Their\n       effect on Sacred Chronology.\n\nIt is universally admitted that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek\nabout three centuries before Christ, for the use of the dispersed tribes\nof Israel, and particularly of the Jews, who had settled in Alexandria,\nand other parts of the Grecian Empire. Although the history of this\ntranslation given by Aristeas, Josephus, and others, savours too much of\nthe marvellous for modern belief, yet all antiquity agrees that it was\nexecuted in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and, according to some,\nat his request, by seventy-two interpreters selected from the most\nlearned and eminent men among the Jews by the High Priest and Sanhedrim\nat Jerusalem. It is moreover asserted, that the other books of the Old\nTestament were translated about a century later than the Pentateuch; and\nthis assertion is in some measure proved by a considerable diversity of\nstyle and sentiment. It is quite certain, however, that the Greek\nversion of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, now called the\nSeptuagint, was in public use at least a century before the Christian\nera; and that the Evangelists and Apostles made citations from this\nversion in the New Testament, in preference to the original text.\n\nSuch being the origin and authority of this ancient and venerable\nversion, its value cannot be too much appreciated; for, without it, the\nChristians would have been entirely at the mercy of the Jews, as to the\nauthenticity, the integrity, and the meaning of the Holy Scriptures;\nfirst, of the Old Testament, on account of their ignorance of the\nHebrew, and the danger of the glosses and traditions of their opponents;\nand second, of the New Testament, on account of its being the complete\nelucidation and fulfilment of the Old. Besides, although the Jews were\nfor ages the appointed custodiers of the Hebrew text, and are generally\nconsidered to have been faithful to their trust; yet we must not conceal\nthe fact that it now differs considerably from the Septuagint in many\nimportant places, particularly in the prophecies relating to the\nMessiah; and, that its chronology of the whole period from the creation\nto the first advent, is completely at variance with that of the Greek\nversion.\n\nThe chronological discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Septuagint,\nwhich amount in all to nearly fifteen centuries of difference in regard\nto the true age of the world, have occasioned disputes among the learned\never since the third century. The Christian Church, however, has always\nfollowed the longer computation of the Seventy, from the earliest period\nof its history till the era of the Reformation; while the Jewish Church\nhas retained the shorter chronology of the Hebrew text from the second\ncentury till the present day. Archbishop Usher, the great modern\nauthority in chronology, endeavoured to fix and determine the true epoch\nof the birth of Christ from that text alone. Dr. Hales, a later and more\naccurate authority, made a similar attempt, founding his computation on\nthe Septuagint. As this subject has been lately revived by writers of\nconsiderable eminence on both sides, we shall endeavour to place the\nwhole Scriptural evidence before our readers, in the following critical\nanalysis of the question.\n\n\n\n\n                               SECTION I.\n                     AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.\n\n\nThe whole period from the Creation to the birth of Christ, whatever may\nbe considered as its real extent, is generally divided by chronologers\ninto six subordinate periods, called _Ages_. The _first_, which is\nreckoned from the Creation to the Deluge, is called the _Antediluvian_\nage; the _second_, from the Deluge to the Call of Abraham, the\n_Postdiluvian_ age; the _third_, from the Call of Abraham to the Exode\nof the Israelites from Egypt, the _Patriarchal_ age; the _fourth_, from\nthe Exode of the Israelites to the foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple, the\n_Critarchal_ (or, _judge-ruling_) age; the _fifth_, from the foundation\nto the destruction of Solomon\u2019s Temple, the _Monarchal_ age; the\n_sixth_, from the destruction of Solomon\u2019s Temple to the birth of\nChrist, the _Hierarchal_ age. We have, for the sake of distinctness and\nbrevity, given to the last four ages, names derived from the four\ndifferent states of the Hebrew Polity, namely, the governments of the\n_Patriarchs_, the _Judges_, the _Kings_, and the _High Priests_; the\ngovernment of the latter terminating in Judea becoming a Roman province.\n\nBesides the great epochs which limit the six ages of the world, there\nare many intermediate eras of very considerable importance in the\nsettlement of disputes both in chronology and history, sacred as well as\nprofane. Thus: in the _first_ age, we have, the fall of Adam, the births\nand deaths of the Patriarchs, and the translation of Enoch; in the\n_second_, the confusion of tongues, the foundation of Babel and Nineveh,\nand the eras of the Calyougham of the Hindoos, and the Chinese emperor\nYao; in the _third_, the destruction of Sodom, the migration of the\nHebrew Patriarchs into Egypt, and the foundation of the Greek kingdoms\nof Sicyon and Argos; in the _fourth_, the servitudes of the Israelites\nin Canaan, the foundation of Athens and Jerusalem, and the destruction\nof Troy; in the _fifth_, the eras of the Olympiads and Nabonassar, the\nfoundation of Rome, and the captivities of Israel and Judah; in the\n_sixth_, the return of the Jews from captivity, the destruction of\nBabylon, the death of Alexander the Great, and the eras of the Seleucid\u00e6\nand the C\u00e6sars.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n                 EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n  1. Discrepancies of the Hebrew, Septuagint and Samaritan\n       Texts\u2014Solution of the difficulty by the chronographers of the\n       middle ages\u2014Consistency of the Septuagint and the New\n       Testament\u2014Numerical errors of the Hebrew text.\n\n\nThe extent of the _first_, or Antediluvian age, is ascertained from the\ntext of Genesis, v. 3\u201332, and vii. 6, by summing up the ages at which\nthe Patriarchs begat their eldest sons, including the date of the flood\nfrom that of Noah. This amount is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656\nyears; according to the Septuagint version, 2262 years; and according to\nthe Samaritan Pentateuch, 1307 years. This astonishing discrepancy,\nwhich is found in all the codices of the three texts, is a Gordian knot,\nwhich has puzzled the Christian Church for more than fifteen centuries!\nThe difference of the three computations is the more remarkable,\ninasmuch as all the three texts are considered to have been very\ncarefully preserved! The Samaritan Pentateuch rivals the Hebrew text in\npoint of antiquity, and is reckoned by some to be the nearest to the\ntrue Mosaic text; while, the Septuagint version is rendered almost\nsacred, by the authority of the Apostles and the early Fathers of the\nChurch. Which then, is the true computation? So difficult of solution\nwas this question deemed in the middle ages, that chronographers, in\norder to reconcile the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint,\neven argued the possibility of both texts _being equally correct_! The\nHebrew computation, however, has been followed in modern times chiefly\non the authority of the Latin vulgate, which is said to have been\ntranslated by St. Jerome. The Samaritan computation has had\ncomparatively few supporters; while that of the Septuagint, which was\nuniversally followed by the ancient chronographers and historians, both\nsacred and profane, has never been wholly abandoned by the Church even\nto the present day.\n\nWith regard to the evidence of the two principal witnesses, it is\nmanifest that the citations from the Old Testament, which are to be\nfound in the New, are, in general, not only in more perfect accordance\nwith the Septuagint version than with the Hebrew text (at least, as we\nnow have it); but they are more consistent with the general tenor of the\nSacred Writings. There is, on this account, therefore, an _\u00e0 priori_\npresumption in favour of the accuracy of the numerical statements of the\nSeptuagint. This presumption is strongly confirmed by a reference to\nseveral passages not at all connected with chronology, of which the\nfollowing are striking instances. Thus, the day on which God _ended_,\nthat is, finished, or completed the work of creation, is said to be the\n7th in the Hebrew, and the 6th in the Septuagint; but the latter\nstatement is plainly the correct one, being confirmed by the context;\nsee Genesis ii. 2, and i. 31. Again, the number of persons present at\nthe Eisodus of Israel into Egypt, is said to be 70 in the Hebrew, and 75\nin the Septuagint; but the latter number is unquestionably the true one,\nbecause it is confirmed by the New Testament; see Genesis xlvi. 27, and\nActs vii. 14. In general, it may be observed, that the numerical\nstatements of the Hebrew text, in many places differ materially from\nthose of the Septuagint, and even from those of other places of that\ntext, where we are certain, from the nature of the context, that they\nought to be precisely the same. The following instances, taken at\nrandom, (and their number might be greatly increased,) will confirm this\nassertion, by a comparison of the different passages, even in our own\nversion:\u2014Exodus xii. 37, and xxxviii. 26, with Numbers i. 46, and ii.\n32; Numbers xxxv. 4, with Numbers xxxv. 5; 1 Samuel xviii. 27, with 2\nSamuel iii. 14; 2 Samuel xv. 7, with 1 Kings ii. 11; 2 Samuel xxiv. 13,\nwith 1 Chronicles xxi. 12; and 1 Kings ix. 28, with 2 Chronicles viii.\n18.\n\n  2. Origin and effect of various readings\u2014The immaculate purity and\n       miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text, a figment\u2014Consistency\n       of the word of God.\n\nFrom the occurrence of such discrepancies as these, both in the original\ntexts and the ancient versions, it is evident, that the authenticity of\neach numerical statement must be carefully examined _per se_, and tested\nby the multiplied means for the discovery of the truth which we possess\nin modern times. For, although the providence of God has watched over\nthe Sacred Scriptures in a very remarkable manner, yet still they are\nfound liable to the same causes of textual error as all other writings;\nso true is the Apostle\u2019s humbling remark, that, \u201cwe have this\u201d heavenly\n\u201ctreasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of\nGod and not of us.\u201d Accordingly, from the necessity and frequency of\ncopying the MSS. (Deuteronomy xvii. 18) during so many ages previous to\nthe invention of printing, and from the inaccuracy and inadvertency of\nuninspired scribes, have arisen what are called \u201cVarious Readings\u201d in\nthe Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament; and, although these,\nand other discrepancies above mentioned, do not in the slightest degree\naffect the grand question of salvation, yet they have a serious\ninfluence on important questions in sacred history and chronology, and\nin the interpretation of prophecy.\n\nIndeed, the extraordinary and multiplied collations of Hebrew MSS. and\neditions of the Old Testament, accomplished by the indefatigable labours\nof Kennicott and De Rossi, have brought to light such a host of\nvariations in the original text, as completely to put to flight the\nantiquated notion of the \u201cimmaculate purity\u201d and \u201cmiraculous\npreservation\u201d of the _Hebrew Verity_, which was so long and so\nstrenuously maintained by critics and divines, and which held fast its\nposition in their hermeneutical Canon, even so late as the 18th century.\nMoreover, it is manifest _\u00e0 priori_, that it is quite impossible for two\ndifferent numbers, or sets of numbers, both relating to the same facts,\nand in precisely the same manner, to be _perfectly accurate and\nauthentic_! We shall feel no hesitation, therefore, in preferring the\nSeptuagint version to the Hebrew text, or the Hebrew text to the\nSeptuagint version, according as the evidence for the truth, appears to\nus, to preponderate in favour of the one document or the other. It is\neven possible that the true number connected with some important event,\nthough originally in both documents, cannot now be found in either. We\nshall, in such a case, feel perfectly justified in adopting that number\nwhich can be demonstrated to be the true one, whether it be discovered\nin an ancient version or commentary, history, or chronicon. The word of\nGod, like all truth, must be perfectly consistent with itself; and if\nthrough the lapse of ages, any part of that word has been corrupted or\nlost, it becomes a Christian duty, as well as a philosophic employment,\nto make all possible search for its recovery, not only that our own\nfaith may be strengthened and confirmed, but that the mind of every\nsincere enquirer may be satisfied.\n\n  3. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the\n       Antediluvian Patriarchs: Table I., In their Antepaidogonian\n       ages\u2014Table II., In their Postpaidogonian ages\u2014Table III., In\n       their whole lives\u2014Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in\n       favour of the computation of the Septuagint\u2014The Discrepancies of\n       the Hebrew and Samaritan the work of design\u2014Proof of this fact\n       from the Scriptures.\n\nWe now proceed to state our arguments in favour of the computation of\nthe Septuagint, which we consider as that of the original and genuine\nchronology of the Sacred Scriptures. As we shall have frequent occasion\nto refer to the ages at which the Patriarchs began to beget their\nchildren, and to the residues or remaining portions of their lives, we\nshall adopt a phraseology sanctioned by the example of Usher,[2] and\ncall the former their _Antepaidogonian_ ages, and the latter, their\n_Postpaidogonian_ ages. The following Table, relating to the _first\nage_, exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the\n_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, and the _Anni\nMundi_, or _years of the world_, in which they were born:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE I.\n ANTEDILUVIAN           HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.\n PATRIARCHS.         A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born\n                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.\n From Creation            0                 0                 0\n Adam                   130        1      230        1      130        1\n Seth                   105      130      205      230      105      130\n Enos                    90      235      190      435       90      235\n Cainan                  70      325      170      625       70      325\n Mahalaleel              65      395      165      795       65      395\n Jared                 *162      460      162      960      *62      460\n Enoch                   65      622      165     1122       65      522\n Methuselah            *187      687      187     1287      *67      587\n Lamech                *182      874      188     1474      *53      654\n Noah                   500     1056      500     1662      500      707\n To the Flood           100               100               100\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014              \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014              \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n     FIRST AGE         1656 years.       2262 years.       1307 years.\n\nThe numbers marked with a star in this and subsequent Tables, are those\nin which the discrepancies are the most striking, and produce the most\nanomalous or absurd results in Chronology.\n\n\nThe following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three\ntexts with regard to the _Postpaidogonian ages_ of the same Patriarchs,\nand the A.M., or _years of the world_ in which they died:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE II.\n   ANTEDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.\n    PATRIARCHS.      P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died\n                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.\n Adam                   800      931      700      931      800      931\n Seth                   807     1042      707     1142      807     1042\n Enos                   815     1140      715     1340      815     1140\n Cainan                 840     1235      740     1535      840     1235\n Mahalaleel             830     1290      730     1690      830     1290\n Jared                  800     1422      800     1922     *785    *1307\n Enoch                  300      987      200     1487      300      887\n   _translated_\n Methuselah             782     1656      782     2256     *653    *1307\n Lamech                *595     1651      565     2227     *600    *1307\n Noah                   350     2006      350     2612      350     1657\n\nLastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three\ntexts with regard to the _Whole Lives_ of these Patriarchs, and the\n_number_ of their generations from Adam:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE III.\n   ANTEDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.\n    PATRIARCHS.       W.      No.       W.      No.       W.      No.\n                    lives.            lives.            lives.\n Adam                   930        1      930        1      930        1\n Seth                   912        2      912        2      912        2\n Enos                   905        3      905        3      905        3\n Cainan                 910        4      910        4      910        4\n Mahalaleel             895        5      895        5      895        5\n Jared                  962        6      962        6     *847        6\n Enoch                  365        7      365        7      365        7\n Methuselah             969        8      969        8     *720        8\n Lamech                *777        9      753        9     *653        9\n Noah                   950       10      950       10      950       10\n\nLet us now examine the internal evidence afforded by these tables in\nfavour of our argument. On looking at Table III., we perceive that the\n_whole lives_ of these Patriarchs, with the exception of that of Lamech,\nare all exactly the same, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; but\nthat in the Samaritan, three of them are very considerably different,\nnamely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. It is plain, therefore,\nthat we must prefer the testimony of the two former witnesses to that of\nthe latter. Moreover, it is evident that the lives of the three\nPatriarchs in question have been shortened in the Samaritan, in order\nthat their deaths should be represented as all occurring in the _year of\nthe flood_, see Table II.; for, had their lives been preserved as entire\nin this text, as in the other two, they would, contrary to the express\nwords of Scripture, have _survived the flood_ by 115, 249, and 100 years\nrespectively! The evidence of the Samaritan text being thus clearly\nexcluded, we have only to settle the claims of the other two witnesses\non the question of the life of Lamech. As in this case all the witnesses\ndiffer in their statements, we are deprived of the evidence of double\ntestimony, and we must resort to another test of the truth. In the mean\ntime it is proper to observe that the _date of the flood from creation_\nwill not, in the slightest degree, be affected by the discrepancy of the\nthree texts on this point.\n\nThe most striking discrepancies, however, are to be found in the first\ntwo Tables. On looking at Table I., we perceive that _six_ of the Hebrew\n_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the first five, and the seventh, have\nbeen _diminished_ by the exact number of 100 years; for, omitting that\nof Noah, which is the same in all, the remaining _three_ agree with\nthose of the Septuagint, with the exception of six years only, in that\nof Lamech. Again:\u2014On looking at Table II., we perceive that the _six_\nHebrew _Postpaidogonian_ ages, corresponding to the six former ages,\nhave been _increased_ by the exact number of 100 years; for, the\nremaining _three_, corresponding to the three former ages, agree with\nthose of the Septuagint, with the exception of 30 years in that of\nLamech. It is manifest, therefore, on the slightest consideration of the\nquestion, that the _centenary increase_ of the _six Hebrew\nPostpaidogonian_ ages was made to balance the _centenary decrease_ of\nthe _six Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages, in order to preserve the\nintegrity of the _whole lives_ of the Patriarchs. These discrepancies,\nespecially the _regular centenary difference_ which occurs six times,\nhave led to the uniform opinion among almost all chronologers, from the\nperiod of their first discovery, in the second century, till the present\nday, that they were _the work of design or artifice_, and not the\noffspring of chance or mistake!\n\nThe regularity of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages of the Septuagint, argues\nvery strongly in favour of their accuracy; while, the irregularity of\nthose of the Hebrew text militates powerfully against the supposition of\n_their_ being correct. For, in accordance with the language of\nScripture, and the experience of all ages, \u201cgeneration comes, and\ngeneration goes, and the earth continues stationary for the age,\u201d\n(Ecclesiastes i. 4);[3] little change is therefore likely to have taken\nplace in the _Ante_ and _Post Paidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_ of\nthose almost millenarian patriarchs, except by the special interposition\nof God, and for some specific purpose, which he would have condescended\nto reveal unto man. Hence, we find that when the Patriarch Enoch, \u201cthe\nseventh from Adam,\u201d was appointed, as the first Prophet on record, to\nannounce to the old world the mingled news of redemption and judgment,\nhe was afterwards translated to heaven without dying, before three of\nhis ancestors (according to the Septuagint), and about six centuries\nbefore the usual term of human life in that age of wonders; so soon and\nso strikingly did the Lord sanction the message of his faithful servant,\nand admit him at once to his eternal and glorious reward.\n\n  4. Reasons assigned for the alterations in the Hebrew and\n       Samaritan\u2014Accuracy of the Septuagint demonstrated\u2014An objection to\n       its chronology removed\u2014Utility of the publication of _fac simile_\n       editions of the codices\u2014Late origin of the _printed_ Hebrew\n       text\u2014Its original agreement with the Septuagint proved.\n\nMoreover, the remarkable circumstance that _three_ of the Hebrew\n_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech,\nexceed _other three_, namely\u2014those of Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch, by\na difference of about 100 years, although the former patriarchs stood so\nnearly related to the latter, argues that some good reason must have\nexisted in the minds of those who dared to make the alterations, for not\nabstracting the usual _centenary difference_ from the former.\nAccordingly, we find that if this alteration had been effected on the\n_Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, in order\nto make them uniform with the rest in this respect, the flood would,\naccording to that text, have taken place in A.M. 1356, their\n_Postpaidogonian_ ages would have been 900, 882, and 695 years, and they\nwould, contrary to Scripture, _have survived the flood_ by 66, 200, and\n95 years respectively! This anticipated result affords the strongest\npresumptive evidence that the _Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages must all\nhave been _originally_ the same as those of the Septuagint; and that to\nserve some particular purpose, a _century_ was abstracted from _six_ of\nthem, but not from the remaining _three_; because if this had been done,\neither the integrity of the _whole lives_ corresponding to them would\nhave been destroyed, or the _three_ patriarchs in question would have\nbeen falsely represented, as having long survived the deluge. The Hebrew\ntext (as it now exists), represents Methuselah as dying in the very year\nof the flood, although only _forty_ days of it had elapsed when Noah\nentered the Ark! Thus, according to that text, the only man of that age\nwho \u201cwalked with God,\u201d and was \u201crighteous before him in that\ngeneration,\u201d would have, in addition to the distressing cares and the\nunutterable sympathies attending the arrival of God\u2019s awful\njudgment,\u2014the personal and relative sorrow of heart arising from the\ndeath and burial of his pious and aged grandfather; but we know that God\n\u201cdoth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men;\u201d and we\nhave much reason, therefore, to question the accuracy of this\ncoincidence; for, to suppose with some, that Methuselah was swept away\nby the deluge, would be to contradict the Scripture, which affirms that\nNoah was \u201cjust and perfect in his generations.\u201d\n\nThis difficulty is entirely removed by the accurate copies of the\nSeptuagint, which places the death of Methuselah _six_ years before the\nflood. Again, by the Hebrew text Lamech is represented as having died\nfive years before that catastrophe, and consequently before Methuselah,\nbeing the only instance in the generations of the righteous from Adam to\nNoah, in which the son paid the debt of nature before the father. But\nthis anomaly evidently arises from the alteration which was made in the\nHebrew _Antepaidogonian_ age of Lamech, by the abstraction of _six_\nyears, the difference between it and that of the Septuagint; for, if the\noriginal number had been retained as in the case of Methuselah, Lamech\nwould then have been represented as surviving the deluge by _one year_!\nAccording to the present text of the Septuagint, Lamech is indeed\nrepresented as having died _twenty-nine_ years before his father; but if\nhis _Hebrew Postpaidogonian_ age be considered as the correct one, his\ndeath would then have taken place _five_ years before the flood, and\n_one year_ after that of his father; thus, the natural anomaly would be\nremoved, and the difference between the years of his _whole life_, in\nthe Hebrew and the Septuagint, reduced from _thirty_ years to _six_, the\namount of alteration in his _Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ age. The whole\nquestion is ably and fully discussed in Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cFulness of the\nTimes,\u201d pp. 138, 139, and his \u201cSeptuagint and Hebrew Chronologies\ntried,\u201d pp. 36\u201345, on the supposition that Lamech\u2019s _Postpaidogonian_\nage and _whole life_, as given in the Septuagint, are strictly correct;\nbut his reasoning is of so lengthened and recondite a nature that we\nmust refer our readers to the works themselves for complete satisfaction\non the subject.[4]\n\nThe Samaritan text is more consistent than the Hebrew with regard to the\n_centenary decrease_ of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages; all of them but that\nof Noah, having been submitted to its operation. This alteration alone,\nhowever, was found to be totally inadmissible; because, as formerly\nremarked, the text would then have represented _three_ of the Patriarchs\nas long surviving the deluge; it was therefore necessary to make a\nfarther alteration, but on what principle it is difficult to divine. We\nonly know that two of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages, those of Methuselah\nand Lamech, were reduced still more, namely from 87 and 82 years, to 67\nand 53 years respectively; thereby occasioning a corresponding\n_decrease_ in the _Postpaidogonian_ ages of Jared, Methuselah, and\nLamech, namely, from 900, 882, and 695 years, to 785, 653, and 600 years\nrespectively, in order to shorten their _whole lives_, and to bring the\ndates of their deaths to coincide with the _year of the flood_!\nMoreover, the idea thus conveyed, that these three Patriarchs, either\nall died within _forty_ days of that event, or were swept away in the\ncommon ruin,\u2014is, as we have shown in the case of the Hebrew text, so\ncontrary to nature and to Scripture, that it cannot be entertained for a\nmoment. Whatever, therefore, may have been the object of these\ncomplicated alterations in the Samaritan, it is plain that they have\nbeen made with much less skill and ingenuity than those of the Hebrew,\nthe clumsy artifice being so easy of detection. Thus, we are forced, by\ninternal evidence alone, to conclude that the numerical statements of\nthe Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_\nages,\u2014on which their chronology is considered entirely to depend,\u2014have,\nwith very few exceptions, been manufactured to serve some particular end\nor design; and that those of the Septuagint are not only entirely free\nfrom any appearance of this kind, but being perfectly natural and\nconsistent with themselves, possess all the marks of genuineness and\nauthenticity.\n\nIt has been objected to the accuracy of the chronology of the\nSeptuagint, that some copies of that version, were found at an early\nperiod of the Christian era, having 167 instead of 187 years for the\n_Antepaidogonian_ age of Methuselah, and 802 instead of 782 years for\nhis _Postpaidogonian_ age, whereby this Patriarch was represented as\nsurviving the flood by _fourteen_ years! Common sense, however, teaches\nthat this discrepancy must have been purely owing to a mistake in the\ntranscribers of these copies; because, other copies were extant at the\nsame period which contained the correct numbers. Mr. Clinton, in his\n\u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i. p. 286, proves by extracts from the early\nchronographers and historians, that some, as Theophilus, Eusebius,\nAugustine, and Syncellus, had the faulty reading in their copies; while\nothers, as Demetrius, Josephus, Africanus, Epiphanius, and the author of\nthe Paschal Chronicle, followed the correct copies; and he states that\nalthough \u201cAugustine had the faulty reading in his copies,\u201d yet \u201che\njudiciously applied the proper remedy, and adopted the better reading.\u201d\nThis difference in the copies has even reached our own times, and is\nfound in the two oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Septuagint\nat present known to exist, namely, the Vatican and Alexandrine codices;\nthe edition of the Scriptures printed from the former having the faulty\nreading, and that printed from the latter having the true one. The\nlibrarians of the British Museum have indeed, conferred an invaluable\nboon on the world, by the publication of the _fac simile_ of the\nAlexandrine codex; and we most anxiously hope that ere long, the Pope\nwill permit[5] the _fac simile_ of the Vatican codex to be published,\nespecially as it is already printed and ready for circulation! The\nacknowledged fact that discrepancies exist between this manuscript and\nthe editions printed from it,[6] increases the solicitude of all the\npious and learned in this country for its immediate publication. Would\nthat we could purchase even a single copy!\n\nThe last argument we shall adduce here in favour of the chronology of\nthe Septuagint, and it applies both to the Ante and Post Diluvian ages,\nis derived from the deliberate opinion of Dr. Kennicott. In his valuable\nposthumous work, entitled \u201cRemarks on Select Passages of the Old\nTestament,\u201d p. 16, he says, \u201cIt has been proved from _Eusebius_, that\nsome Hebrew copies\u201d of the Old Testament, \u201chaving the _larger_ numbers,\nexisted in the fourth century; and others, on the authority of _Jacob\nEdessenus_, as late as the year 700; whilst others much later, are\nmentioned in the chronicle of _Ecchellensis_. And though such\nmanuscripts are all perhaps now lost, yet are these testimonies\nconfirmed by the traditions still preserved among the _Jews_ themselves,\nas to _Seth being born a hundred and thirty years after Abel\u2019s death_!\u201d\nMoreover, it is acknowledged by biblical critics, that all the copies of\nthe present Hebrew text were taken from manuscripts of date later than\nthe ninth century; and, that the striking uniformity which all the\nprinted editions exhibit, is to be attributed to the fact, that they\nwere all copied from the same codex. Dr. Hales also gives citations from\nEusebius, from the Jewish Targums, and from other works, in which\ndecided reference is made to the _larger_ numbers as they anciently\nexisted in the Hebrew.[7] In fine, Mr. Cuninghame, in his \u201cDissertation\non the Apocalypse,\u201d p. 535, fourth edition, proves, on the authority of\nancient Jewish tradition, that Adam was _two hundred and thirty years_\nold when he begat Seth; consequently, by the argument _ex uno disce\nomnes_, we conclude that the whole of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages are\ncorrectly given in the Septuagint, and that the true extent of the\nANTEDILUVIAN AGE, is 2262 years.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n                 EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n  1. Discrepancies of the three texts\u2014Unfounded hypothesis of\n       Usher\u2014Agreement of Josephus with the Septuagint\u2014Authority of this\n       Version in the Church\u2014Its chronology confirmed by the most\n       authentic Chinese annals\u2014Reasons why the Jews altered the Hebrew\n       text.\n\n\nThe extent of the _Second_, or Postdiluvian Age, is ascertained from the\ntext of Genesis x. 21\u201325; xi. 10\u201332, and xii. 4; by summing up the\n_Antepaidogonian_ ages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, including the\ndate of the Call of Abraham from that of Terah. This amount is,\naccording to the Hebrew text, and the Latin Vulgate, 367 years;\naccording to Usher\u2019s view of that text, 427 years; according to the\nSeptuagint, 1147 years; and, according to the Samaritan, 1017 years.\nThis enormous discrepancy is another Gordian knot of equal difficulty\nwith the former, and requiring for its resolution, a similar process of\ninvestigation and argument. Before resuming the discussion, however, it\nis proper to notice a very able and logical article in the \u201cCours\nComplet de Theologie\u201d of M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9 Migne, entitled \u201cChronographi\u00e6 LXX\nInterpretum Defensio.\u201d\n\nThe author of this dissertation enters fully into the critical history\nof the Septuagint version, and investigates the causes of the existing\ndiscrepancies between it and the Hebrew text. He powerfully vindicates\nthe authenticity and authority of the Septuagint; he clearly refutes the\nabsurd suppositions which have been advanced from time to time by\ncritics in order to account for the numerical errors which the advocates\nof the _Hebrew verity_ suppose it contains; and, he completely\ndemolishes the unfounded hypothesis of Usher as to the fancied existence\nof two Greek versions, both of which were ascribed to the Seventy\ninterpreters![8] He next discusses the authority of the Samaritan\nPentateuch, and proves that it, as well as the Hebrew, originally\ncontained the same numerical statements as the Septuagint; and shews\nthat it is entitled to be heard as an additional witness in regard to\nthe Postdiluvian age, notwithstanding its error in the matter of the\nJunior Cainan. He treats, in a very full and impartial manner, of the\nauthority of Josephus as an historian and chronographer, and institutes\na careful and searching inquiry into his numerical statements, which are\nuniversally admitted to be so puzzling and contradictory. He clearly\nelicits, however, the undeniable fact that the numbers of Josephus\noriginally agreed with those of the Septuagint, both before and after\nthe flood; but he avows that they have been so vitiated by careless or\ndesigning copyists, that it is impossible to establish a perfect\ncoincidence.\n\nThe author then shows that in the first ages of Christianity, the\nSeptuagint translation was esteemed a divine production; that by the\ncitations made from it in the New Testament, it has received the stamp\nand seal of Christ and his Apostles, as a genuine and faithful witness\nof the truth; and that the ancient chronology of this version was\nreckoned authentic by the whole Christian Church till the ninth century.\nHe next inquires into the authenticity of the chronological statements\nof profane historians, particularly among the Chinese and the Egyptians;\nand shows that the true and ancient records of these nations are wholly\nirreconcileable with the shorter chronology. Thus, the era of the\nEmperor Yao, according to the most authentic Chinese annals, is B. C.\n2357; so that, according to the Hebrew chronology, even as expounded by\nUsher, he flourished _thirteen_ years before the flood! While, according\nto that of the Septuagint, he flourished in the ninth century after the\nflood, or _forty-one_ years after the division of the earth among the\nprimitive founders of the nations.[9]\n\nThe author next refutes some popular objections to the computation of\nthe Septuagint, founded, _first_, on the supposed immaculate purity and\nmiraculous preservation of the Hebrew text; _secondly_, on the supposed\nantiquity of the Chaldee paraphrasts, the Syriac version, and the Indian\nand Chinese copies of the Pentateuch; and _thirdly_, on the decree of\nthe Council of Trent, in reference to the paramount authority of the\nLatin Vulgate. He concludes by offering some reasonable conjectures on\nthe causes of the discrepancies in question; and, he shows that the\nearly Fathers were generally of opinion that the Jews had violated and\nmystified the numbers of the sacred text, in order, to disturb and\nconfuse the times which related to the Advent of the Messiah, and\nthereby to confute the Christians, by pretending to prove from that\ntext, that Jesus Christ could not be the true Messiah, because he had\nappeared before the period predicted by the prophets, namely, the middle\nof the sixth millenary from Creation. Such is but a short and hasty\nsketch of one of the ablest treatises we have yet seen, on the Ante and\nPost Diluvian chronology of the Septuagint.\n\n  2. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the\n       Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV., In their Antepaidogonian\n       ages\u2014Table V., In their Postpaidogonian ages\u2014Table VI., In their\n       whole Lives.\n\nThe following Table relating to the _Second Age_, exhibits the\ndiscrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_\nages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, and the _years of the world_, in\nwhich they were born:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE IV.\n   POSTDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.\n    PATRIARCHS.      A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born\n                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.\n From the Flood           2                 2                 2\n Arphaxad                35     1658      135     2264      135     1309\n Cainan[10]                               130     2399\n Salah                   30     1693      130     2529      130     1444\n Heber                   34     1723      134     2659      134     1574\n Peleg                   30     1757      130     2793      130     1708\n Reu                     32     1787      132     2923      132     1838\n Serug                   30     1819      130     3055      130     1970\n Nahor                  *29     1849       79     3185       79     2100\n Terah                   70     1878       70     3264       70     2179\n To the Call of          75     1948       75     3334       75     2249\n   Abraham\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014              \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014              \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    SECOND AGE          367 years.       1147 years.       1017 years.\n\nThe following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three\ntexts with regard to the _Postpaidogonian_ ages of the same Patriarchs,\nand the _years of the world_ in which they died:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE V.\n   POSTDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.\n    PATRIARCHS.      P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died\n                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.\n Arphaxad               403     2096      403     2802      303     1747\n Cainan[10]                               330     2859\n Salah                  403     2126      303     2962      303     1877\n Heber                  430     2187      270     3063      270     1978\n Peleg                  209     1996      209     3132      109     1947\n Reu                    207     2026      207     3262      107     2077\n Serug                  200     2049      200     3385      100     2200\n Nahor                 *119     1997     *129     3393      *69     2248\n Terah                 *135     2083     *135     3469      *75     2324\n Abraham                 75     2123       75     3509       75     2424\n\nLastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three\ntexts with regard to the _whole lives_ of these Patriarchs, and the\n_number_ of their generations from the flood:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE VI.\n   POSTDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.\n    PATRIARCHS.       W.      No.       W.      No.       W.      No.\n                    lives.            lives.            lives.\n Arphaxad               438        1      538        1      438        1\n Cainan[10]                               460        2\n Salah                  433        2      433        3      433        2\n Heber                  464        3      404        4      404        3\n Peleg                  239        4      339        5      239        4\n Reu                    239        5      339        6      239        5\n Serug                  230        6      330        7      230        6\n Nahor                 *148        7     *208        8     *148        7\n Terah                 *205        8     *205        9     *145        8\n Abraham                175        9      175       10      175        9\n\n  3. Authenticity of the _Second Cainan_\u2014Dilemma of the Venerable\n       Bede\u2014Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne\u2014Usher\u2019s\n       Dissertation\u2014Inconsistency of authorized translations of the\n       Bible\u2014Rashness of Beza\u2014The Second Cainan in the most ancient\n       Codices\u2014Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers.\n\nLet us examine the internal evidence again afforded by these Tables, in\nfavour of our argument. On comparing their different columns, we find\nthat the name and generation of one of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs,\ncalled by chronologers the _Second_ or _Junior Cainan_, has been either\nentirely lost or wilfully omitted in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts.\nThis assertion we make with the utmost confidence, because in Luke iii.\n36, this Cainan is distinctly enumerated in the genealogy of our Lord\nJesus Christ; and his name is found in all the MSS. of the New\nTestament, with the exception of the _Codex Bez\u00e6_, which it is well\nknown has been corrupted in this place. The hallucinations of\ncommentators and chronologers on this point, are perhaps the most\nextraordinary which the annals of Criticism can furnish. To refer no\nfarther back than to the days of the venerable Bede, we find him, in the\npreface to his commentary on the Acts, confessing himself unequal to the\ntask of solving this difficult question; and, he greatly marvels why\n\u201c_ten_ generations only, from the flood to Abraham, are found in the\n_Hebrew verity_,\u201d while the inspired Luke chose to put \u201c_eleven_ in his\nGospel, Cainan being added according to the Seventy Interpreters.\u201d In\nhis exposition of that Gospel, he touches on the same question, and says\nwith singular na\u00efvet\u00e9, \u201cbut which of these is the truer, or whether both\ncan be true, God knoweth!\u201d[11] Modern critics appear to have had much\nless difficulty in settling this important matter.\n\nMr. Clinton, \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i. pp. 288\u2013297, after citing all\nthe testimonies of the ancient chronographers _for_ and _against_ the\ngeneration of the second Cainan, hastily concludes that it is a\n\u201cspurious addition to the text;\u201d and, although he admits its existence\nin the \u201cGreek copies,\u201d yet he entirely omits to cite the testimony of\nSt. Luke, who must have been better acquainted with the genealogy of\nChrist than any of the chronographers! His silence on this point would\nseem to indicate that he had some doubts of the authenticity of the text\nin question. He has, however, given an extract from Syncellus, affirming\nthat the second Cainan was in all the copies of the Septuagint in his\ntime, censuring Eusebius for omitting him, and stating that St. Luke\nreckons him the 13th from Adam. Syncellus, in this passage, very\nproperly includes Shem in the genealogy, although he is necessarily\nomitted in the chronology; because, he was an _Antediluvian_ by birth,\nhis _Antepaidogonian_ age being entirely omitted in the Scriptures, and\nthe birth of his son being reckoned from the flood. Hence, we find that\nall the ancient writers reckon Noah the _tenth_ from Adam, and Abraham\nthe _tenth_ from the flood, Shem being evidently the _eleventh_ from\nAdam, and Abraham the _twenty-first_. With feelings of the greatest\nrespect for the extensive learning and deep research of Mr. Clinton, we\nwould seriously advise him to consult the _Codex Alexandrinus_ in the\nBritish Museum, and convince himself by ocular demonstration, as we have\ndone, of the genuineness and authenticity of the testimonies of the\nEvangelist and the Seventy Interpreters to the undeniable fact of the\nexistence of the Postdiluvian Cainan. Dr. Hales, \u201cAnalysis of\nChronology,\u201d[12] vol. i. p. 90, appears to have strongly felt the weight\nof St. Luke\u2019s authority on this point, although, following the recent\nMasorete and Samaritan texts, he rejects this generation.\n\nMr. Horne, \u201cCritical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,\u201d vol. iii. p.\n561, 7th edition, asserts that \u201cSt. Luke wrote for those Christians who\nread the Greek version more than the original Hebrew, and consequently\nhe preferred their version, which adds the name of Cainan to the\ngenealogy of Shem!\u201d The desire to humour the prejudices of any set of\nreaders, by adding a spurious generation to \u201cthe genealogy of Shem,\u201d is\ntoo serious a charge to bring against the Evangelist; but when we\nconsider that this would be, in fact, adding a spurious generation to\n\u201cthe genealogy of Christ,\u201d the charge becomes infinitely more serious!\nThe attempt of chronologers to mutilate this authentic document, by the\nexclusion of one of the ancestors of our Lord, is so great an injury to\nthe _Christian verity_, that we do not wonder at the pointed question\nput by Mr. Cuninghame, \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p. 200, \u201cDid St. Luke\nprefer a lie to the truth, to please men?\u201d In order to satisfy his own\nmind, and to vindicate his system of chronology from the charge of\nhaving unwarrantably omitted this generation, by following too closely\nthe _Hebrew verity_, Usher deemed it necessary to write in his\n\u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d a prolix Dissertation, entitled \u201cDe Cainano\nArphaxadi filio, &c.,\u201d to which our limits permit us only to refer. The\nwhole question, however, is discussed in a very clear and satisfactory\nmanner, in Dr. Russell\u2019s \u201cConnection of Sacred and Profane History,\u201d\nvol. i. pp. 158\u2013167. There is also a most admirable summary of the\narguments in proof of the existence of this Cainan, in Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s\nwork above cited, where our readers will find some very judicious\nstrictures on the \u201cScripture Chronology\u201d of Mr. Clinton; see pp.\n187\u2013207.\n\nA candid perusal of these works must lead to the inevitable conclusion\nthat the name of the _Second Cainan_ ought not to have been rejected\nfrom the Sacred Text. It is strange, however, to observe that in our\nauthorized version of the Scriptures, this generation has been excluded\nfrom the Old Testament, while it has been admitted into the New. Such a\nmanifest inconsistency should have been avoided in a version intended\nfor public use in all the churches, and sanctioned by royal authority!\nThe Latin Vulgate, published by the \u201csupreme authority\u201d of the Roman\nPontiff, is equally liable to the same charge of inconsistency; while\nTheodore Beza, in his Latin version of the New Testament, has omitted\nthis generation altogether! For this bold step, Beza had no other\nauthority than the \u201cCodex Gr\u00e6colatinus,\u201d which, from having been in his\npossession, bears his own name; and which, while reckoned of \u201clittle\ncritical value,\u201d is the only manuscript of the New Testament discovered\nto be deficient in this respect. The _Second Cainan_ is, moreover, found\nin all the Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, both in Genesis x.\n24, and xi. 13; and, also in many copies, in 1 Chronicles i. 18 and\n24,\u2014this chapter being imperfect in the Vatican Codex, but complete in\nthe Codex Alexandrinus.\n\nIn confirmation of our argument, it is proper to state, that there\nexists a fragment of a very ancient codex, which lays claim even to a\nhigher antiquity than either of these codices, being described in the\nwords of Usher, \u201cSyntagma de Septuaginta,\u201d cap. ii. p. 18, as \u201comnium\nqui uspiam hodie extant vetustissimus,\u201d and known by the name of the\n\u201cCodex Cottonianus.\u201d Of this codex, unfortunately, a certain portion of\nGenesis only remains; but it is of immense \u201ccritical value,\u201d as it\nconfirms the true readings of the Ante and Post Paidogonian ages of\nMethuselah, and of the passages relating to the second Cainan. In the\ncollation of this fragment \u201ccum editione Roman\u00e2,\u201d that is, with the\nVatican edition, by Dr. Grabe,\u2014posthumously published by Dr. H.\nOwen,\u2014there are two _fac simile_ engravings of a portion of the\nmanuscript, exhibiting the old, uncial Greek letters, unaccented and\nunspirited, like the codex Alexandrinus, and (curious to remark)\nexhibiting also the effigies of four of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,\nspoken of in the adjacent text,\u2014one being the very identical personage,\nwhose existence is not recognized by the Masorete and Samaritan texts,\nand is therefore so stoutly denied by the defenders of the _Hebrew\nverity_! We copy from the preface, the explanation of one of the\npictures, the plates of which were engraven at the expence of the\nAntiquarian Society of London, in 1744:\u2014\u201cFigurarum Explicatio.\u2014Tabula\nPrima. Fig. II. Arphaxadus, Semi filius, cum uxore sua et filio Cainane.\nGen. xi. 12, 13.\u201d[13]\n\nThe unaccountable mistake committed by Bede, in supposing that Abraham\nwould be the _eleventh_ generation from the flood, if the Junior Cainan\nwere admitted into the text, has been copied by a host of chronologers\nsince his time, including both Dr. Hales and Mr. Clinton! Nothing,\nhowever, is more surprising than the pertinacity of error, especially\nwhen it rests on the authority of an esteemed or a learned man. We have\nseen that when the Second Cainan is admitted into the text, Abraham must\nbe reckoned the _tenth_ generation from the flood; consequently, if he\nbe rejected, Abraham must be reckoned only the _ninth_,\u2014contrary to the\nunited voice of antiquity, both sacred and profane! Hales and Clinton\nhave both cited extracts in proof of this argument, from the most\nancient chronographers, particularly Berosus, Josephus, and Philo,\nshewing that Abraham was universally reckoned the _tenth generation\nafter the flood_. The subterfuge adopted by the advocates of the _Hebrew\nverity_, in reckoning Shem,\u2014an _Antediluvian_,\u2014as one of the generations\nafter the flood, in order to make up their number, is too weak to\nrequire any comment. There is no doubt, therefore, that both Hales and\nClinton are in the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell, and Cuninghame,\nwho admit the Second Cainan, are \u201cin the right.\u201d The ancient testimonies\nwhich the former authors cite in favour of their own argument, most\ndecidedly confirm that of their opponents; consequently, _they_ have the\nmerit of drawing \u201copposite conclusions from the same facts,\u201d\u2014conclusions\nalike opposite to the truth, and to the New Testament.\n\n  4. Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the\n       computation of the Septuagint\u2014Omissions in the Hebrew and\n       Septuagint retained in the Samaritan\u2014Accordance of the Septuagint\n       with nature and providence\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s argument from\n       analogy\u2014The alterations of Origen in the text of the Septuagint.\n\nWith reference to the three _Postdiluvian_ Tables, we find that the\ndiscrepancies of the three texts exhibit greater irregularities in\nTables V. and VI. than in Table IV. It is manifest that _these_\ndiscrepancies are also _the work of design or artifice_, and not the\noffspring of chance or mistake. The regular _centenary difference_\nbetween the Hebrew and the Septuagint, occurs in _six_ of the\n_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the _first seven_, omitting the\n_second_, which, as we have seen, is wanting both in the Hebrew and the\nSamaritan; while, singular to remark, in these six ages, the Samaritan\nagrees exactly with the Septuagint! To counterbalance this _regular\ncentenary decrease_ in the _Antepaidogonian_ ages in the Hebrew, we\nshould have expected, as in the former case, that there would be a\n_regular centenary increase_ of the corresponding _Postpaidogonian_\nages, in order to preserve the integrity of the _whole lives_. This\nappears, however, to have been considered as a matter of no moment in\nregard to the _whole lives_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, because the\nusual obituary statements regarding them have been entirely omitted both\nin the Hebrew and the Septuagint, while they have been preserved in the\nSamaritan. Accordingly, we find that the Samaritan, in the\n_Postpaidogonian_ ages, agrees only _in two out of the six_ with the\nSeptuagint, and _in none at all_ with the Hebrew. Moreover, the\ndifference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew, is an _exact centenary_\nin _five out of the six_; while the Hebrew coincides entirely with the\nSeptuagint in _four_,\u2014_one_ of the remaining _two_, being the only case\nin which there is an _exact centenary increase_ to balance the\n_centenary decrease_ in the corresponding _Antepaidogonian_ age. In the\ncorresponding _whole lives_, the Samaritan agrees with the Hebrew in\n_five out of the six_, while the Septuagint and the Hebrew agree only in\n_one_. The assimilation of the Samaritan to the Hebrew in the _whole\nlives_, and its almost perfect agreement with the Septuagint in the\n_Antepaidogonian_ ages, while it differs so much from both in other\nrespects, render its testimony as an uncorrupted witness quite\ninadmissible; yet, as it contains manifest traces of the truth,\nespecially in regard to the latter statements, on which the chronology\nmainly depends, we deem the double testimony of the Septuagint and\nSamaritan of very considerable importance to our argument. This\nimportance is greatly increased, when we consider that the statements\nrespecting the _whole lives_ in the three texts cannot be compared,\nbecause they are now only to be found in the Samaritan, and, even in it,\nin a mutilated form; the Hebrew and Septuagint columns of Table VI.\nhaving been obtained from those of Tables IV. and V., by the simple\nprocess of addition. We, therefore, entirely agree with Dr. Hales[14] in\nthe opinion, that they must have originally existed in all the texts;\nfirst, because they are given in all in the Antediluvian period, and no\nsufficient reason can be assigned why they are not also given in all in\nthe Postdiluvian period; and secondly, because, though no trace of them\nis left in the Hebrew, yet there is some in the Septuagint, the latter\nstill containing the last clause of each statement, in the words\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5,\u2014\u201cand he died.\u201d\n\nAn important argument in favour of the longer computation is derived\nfrom the consideration that the decrease in the duration of human life\nafter the flood, for the first ten generations, is more natural and\nprogressive in the Septuagint than in the other two texts; for, in the\nlatter there are greater leaps between the terms of the progression, and\nsome of the differences even become negative, which is not the case in\nthe former. Moreover, the decrease in the Greek series of lives, seems\nto be more in accordance with the usual proceedings of God\u2019s providence,\nand with the history of the human race,\u2014instances of longevity having\nslowly and gradually diminished both in number and extent, according as\nmankind approached a greater degree of civilization and refinement. In\nthe preface to part second of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d\np. xvii., the author has discussed this question in a very full and\nsatisfactory manner. He shews that, in the Septuagint, \u201cthere are deep\nanalogies observable in the gradual diminution of human life.\u201d Thus,\n\u201cfrom Arphaxad to Serug are seven generations,\u201d and \u201cfrom Nahor to\nKohath are seven generations.\u201d Now, from his observations, it appears\nthat the _lives_ of the first and last of both septenaries, constitute,\nwith the highest average of human life in the days of Moses (Psalm xc.\n10), a series of terms very nearly in geometrical progression, namely,\n538, 330, 208, 133, and 80, of which the approximate ratio is 0.62; but\nif the same test be applied to the Hebrew _lives_, namely 438, 230, 148,\n133, and 80, (the two latter terms being the same in both texts,) the\nregularity of the progression utterly fails; for, if the ratio of the\nfirst two terms were continued, the succeeding terms would be so much\nreduced, that the highest average of human life would become less than\nhalf its true length! The omission of the statements respecting the\n_whole lives_ in the Septuagint, can only be accounted for, on the\nprinciple of undue deference to the Hebrew text and to Jewish\nprejudices, after the era of the publication of the Hexapla, the\nOctapla, and the Enneapla of the celebrated Origen. This daring\ninnovator in the Church of God, so altered the original form of the\nSeptuagint, in order to make it correspond with the Hebrew text,\u2014which\nhe appears to have first received from the hands of the Jews with the\nmost unsuspecting confidence,\u2014that the complete restoration of the\nautograph of the Seventy interpreters, is, at this immense distance of\ntime, a question extremely problematical.\n\n  5. Mistake of Usher, adopted by Hales and Clinton, as to the\n       Antepaidogonian age of Terah\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s arguments\n       unanswerable\u2014His proof of the chronology of the Seventy from the\n       discovery of its Cyclical character\u2014Testimony of Eusebius to the\n       true data of Abraham\u2019s birth\u2014Table VII. Extent of the _first two\n       ages_ of the world.\n\nThe extraordinary hallucination of Usher in adopting the unfounded\nopinion of some of the later chronographers, that Abraham was born when\nTerah was 130 years old,[15] is implicitly followed by Mr. Clinton,\nalthough he admits that \u201call the authorities which have been quoted\u201d by\nhim, adhere to the Scriptural number, 70 years; and he argues in favour\nof the former, by conjecturing without a shadow of evidence, that the\nSamaritan text was altered in Genesis xi. 32, from 205 years to 145, in\norder that Terah\u2019s \u201cdeath might be adapted to the supposed time of the\nCall.\u201d This time is distinctly marked in Scripture, and therefore\nrequires \u201cno supposition\u201d at all. It is plain, from Genesis xii. 4, that\nAbraham was 75 years old, when he obeyed the Call; and, from Genesis xi.\n26, that he was born when Terah was 70 years old. It is, therefore,\njustly inferred that Terah was 145 years old, at the time of the Call;\nbut as he died before Abraham left Charran (Acts vii. 4), then 145 years\nwas also his age at his death, as in the Samaritan, and not 205, as in\nthe other two texts. The inconsistency of the latter number, however,\ncannot by any means affect the chronology, so long as the authenticity\nof the former numbers is maintained. The addition of 60 years,\ntherefore, to the _Antepaidogonian_ age of Terah, in order to preserve\nthe consistency of the number 205, is an unwarrantable assumption on the\npart of Usher and his followers, and demonstrates that they have\n_virtually_ altered the Hebrew text in Genesis xi. 26, from 70 years to\n130, in order that Terah\u2019s age at the birth of Abraham _might be adapted\nto the supposed time of his death_! There is no doubt that both Hales\nand Clinton, who follow human conjectures on this point, are again in\nthe wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell and Cuninghame, who follow the\nplain statements of Scripture, are \u201cin the right.\u201d In the preface to\nPart II. of the \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p. xv., the author has placed\nthe inconsistency of Usher\u2019s scheme in such a clear light, that further\nargument on the subject is needless; the following is his unanswerable\nconclusion:\u2014\u201cthe greatness of Abraham\u2019s faith, in believing that he\nshould have a son at 100, is every where spoken of in the Scriptures\u201d as\nmiraculous, \u201cwhile he himself, on this scheme, is procreated by his\nfather at 130!\u201d The author has, moreover, shown in this work, that \u201cthe\nwhole chronology of the Seventy is arranged in various parallel series\nof Astronomical time, Jubilees, Metonic cycles, and the larger cycles of\nthe universe;\u201d and, that these \u201cdepend upon the _exclusion_ of the 60\nyears added to Terah\u2019s generation by Usher; for if that period be\n_inserted_, they are all destroyed. This, then, is complete evidence\nthat the _framer_ of the Septuagint chronology, did not consider the 60\nyears as any part of the chronology of the book of Genesis, which is\nutterly incredible, had it then existed. _Therefore, it did not exist._\u201d\nOn the other hand, he has shown that \u201cin the formation of the Hebrew\nchronology, the _insertion_ of the 60 years was essential to the\npreservation of a Jubilean character; therefore, since there was a time\nwhen\u201d this period was \u201cnot a part of the chronology, the unavoidable and\nnecessary inference is, that the _Greek_, and _not_ the _Hebrew_, is the\n_original chronology_.\u201d\n\nFrom the Postdiluvian tables, it appears that the birth of Abraham took\nplace, according to the Masorete text, 292 years after the flood; but,\naccording to Usher\u2019s interpretation of it, 352 years. The Samaritan text\ngives 942, and the Septuagint 1072 years; the latter number being that\ngiven by Eusebius, at the beginning of his Chronicon, translated by\nJerome, as testified by Scaliger in his \u201cThesaurus Temporum,\u201d p. 10, and\nreferred to by Usher, in his \u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d cap. vi. p. 97;\nalthough in some of the finest copies, we have seen it absurdly printed\n1720 years, by an unaccountable transposition of the figures! See the\nedition by H. Stephans, in 1542. The following table exhibits the whole\namount of the discrepancies of the three texts, in the first two ages of\nthe world:[16]\u2014\n\n                               TABLE VII.\n AGES OF THE WORLD.    HEBREW.       USHER.    SEPTUAGINT.   SAMARITAN.\n       Years.           Years.       Years.       Years.       Years.\n Antediluvian Age            1656         1656         2262         1307\n Postdiluvian Age             367          427         1147         1017\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n   FIRST TWO AGES            2023         2083         3409         2324\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n       DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.\n\n\nThus, it appears that there is a difference of _thirteen centuries and\na-quarter_ between the Hebrew-Usher and the Septuagint chronologies, at\nthe epoch of the Call of Abraham,\u2014a difference which is increased by\nanother _century and a-half_, in the remaining ages of the world up to\nthe birth of Christ,\u2014making in all, a difference of _fourteen and\nthree-quarters_ exactly, or nearly _fifteen centuries_! To account for\nthis difference, the advocates of the longer computation not only\nimpugn, as we have seen, the accuracy of the Hebrew text, but adduce\nvarious important and conclusive arguments against the shorter\ncomputation, in order to show the inconsistency of its statements. Mr.\nClinton, in citing these arguments, chiefly from Jackson and Hales,\nendeavours to rebut them, and to defend the Hebrew chronology,\nespecially in the first two ages of the world; although he is forced to\nyield to the mass of evidence against it, in the period of the Judges.\n\n  1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the proportion\n       between the Antepaidogonian Ages and Whole Lives of the\n       Patriarchs\u2014Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio, and the\n       diminution of the length of human life.\n\nThe first argument, which is, that \u201cthe shorter generations are\nrepugnant to the course of nature,\u201d is neither placed in a clear light,\nnor fairly answered by Mr. Clinton; Fast. Hell. vol. i. p. 292. Although\nthe extraordinary longevity of man both before and after the flood, has\nno parallel in the subsequent history of the world, and we are therefore\ndeprived of a satisfactory means of comparison; yet we perceive a\nsuitable proportion in the Greek numbers, between the Antepaidogonian\nages and whole lives of the Patriarchs in the first two periods, which\nentirely fails in the Hebrew numbers. Thus, taking the averages of the\n_six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the great discrepancy in the\nAntediluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that\nthe former is about _one-fifth_ part of the latter in the Septuagint,\nand about _one-ninth_ part in the Hebrew. If these ratios be applied to\nthe present average duration of human life, we find that men, according\nto the former text, would beget children at the age of _fourteen_ years;\nbut, according to the latter, at the age of _eight_ years! Again, taking\nthe averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the chief\ndiscrepancy in the Postdiluvian period, and the corresponding _whole\nlives_, we find that the former is about _one-third_ part of the latter\nin the Septuagint, and about _one-eleventh_ part in the Hebrew. Applying\nthese ratios as before, we find that men, according to the former text,\nwould beget children at the age of _twenty-three_ years; but according\nto the latter, at the age of _seven_ years! On the supposition,\ntherefore, which we think not unreasonable, that in these periods, the\ndevelopment of the powers of the human frame was proportional to the\nlength of human life, it is manifest that there is a propriety and\nconsistency in the Greek numbers, which are not only totally wanting in\nthe Hebrew, but which render the idea of generation at the ages now to\nbe found in that text, utterly impossible. It may be objected even to\nthe Greek numbers, that the ratio in the Antediluvian period is rather\npremature, but it is not impossible; and we see in the enlargement of\nthe ratio, and in the diminution of the length of life in the\nPostdiluvian period, according to the Septuagint, the wise arrangement\nof an overruling Providence! For, the wickedness which led to the\ndestruction of the old world, appears to have had its origin in the\npremature and unlawful connections which were formed between \u201cthe sons\u201d\nof the worshippers of the true God, \u201cwho kept not their first estate\u201d or\noriginal principles, and \u201cthe daughters\u201d of those sensualists of the\nCainitish race, who are, with them, \u201creserved in perpetual chains under\ndarkness to the judgment of the great day!\u201d In order, therefore, to\nprevent such a fearful superabundance of vice in future ages of the\nworld, we see that the duration of the life, as well as the development\nof the natural powers of man, was reduced to narrower limits.\n\n  2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human\n       generations\u2014Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew text\u2014Remark of\n       Eusebius\u2014Objections of learned men unanswered.\n\nThe second argument, which is, that the shorter computation is\ninconsistent with the regular succession of human generations, is rather\ntoo quickly passed over by Mr. Clinton; nor do we wonder at his haste,\nfor in our opinion, this argument possesses very great weight, and is\nvery difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. In the Postdiluvian\nage, where he admits that it is more cogent, there were, according to\nthe Hebrew chronology, no less than _ten_ generations all alive on the\nearth at the same time, contrary to the principles of providential\ngovernment so often referred to in Scripture, and the following strange\nanomalies and paradoxes took place. The last two Antediluvian Patriarchs\nwere contemporary with all the Postdiluvian; and after having witnessed\nthe destruction of the old world, they were doomed to behold the\nviolence of Nimrod, the rebellious, the wicked project of the building\nof Babel, and the judgment of God in the confusion of tongues and the\nsudden dispersion of mankind. Noah also survived the deaths of Peleg and\nNahor; so that, contrary to the express words of Scripture, the earth\nwas divided in the days of Noah instead of the days of Peleg. Eusebius\nhas even remarked that Noah was the contemporary of Abraham for\n_fifty-eight_ years! To avoid this obvious inconsistency was no doubt a\nstrong reason for Usher\u2019s adoption of the _sixty_ years additional to\nTerah\u2019s Antepaidogonian age, the Hebrew chronology standing so much in\nneed of this extra time at the point of its greatest poverty. Shem, the\nAntediluvian, survived the deaths of all the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,\nexcepting Heber; he was alive at the marriages of Isaac, Ishmael and\nEsau; and, having buried nine generations of his descendants, including\nthe Father of the Faithful, witnessed the destruction of Sodom, and died\nwithout partaking of the Covenant of Circumcision! Terah, the father of\nAbraham, was an idolater; while Noah, the living witness of God\u2019s\njudgment on the old world, and a preacher of righteousness, and his son\nShem, the heir of his father\u2019s blessing,\u2014both Terah\u2019s ancestors\u2014were\nstill alive! The promise made to Abraham, that he should \u201cgo to his\nfathers in peace,\u201d and be \u201cburied in a good old age,\u201d most distinctly\nimplies that all those fathers,\u2014the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,\u2014were dead\nand buried before him; but, according to the Masorete text, Shem, the\nAntediluvian, and _seven_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, all his\nancestors, were alive at his death; and the same Antediluvian, with\n_two_ of the Postdiluvians, Salah and Heber, even survived him! But it\nis quite unnecessary to dwell on these paradoxes so contrary to the\nordinary providence of God, and to the whole tenor of holy writ. Enough\nhas been adduced to show the inconsistency of the shorter computation,\nand the difficult problems which its advocates have yet to solve, in\norder to establish it on a secure foundation, and to meet the unanswered\nobjections of the host of learned and pious men in all ages, who have,\neither wholly or in part, adopted or defended the Septuagint chronology;\nsuch as, the early chronographers, and historians down to Syncellus, the\nearly Christian Fathers, and in later times, Morinus, J. Vossius,\nPezron, Raleigh, Stillingfleet, Walton, Kennicott, Jackson, Hales,\nHorsley, and Russell. This argument is ably enforced by Mr. Cuninghame\nin the \u201cEssay\u201d to his \u201cChart of Sacred Chronology\u201d pp. 17, 18, the\n\u201cDiscourse,\u201d in his \u201cDissertation on the Apocalypse\u201d pp. 533\u2013536, and\nhis other Chronological works.[17]\n\n  3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence of\n       idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and\n       within a short period from the flood\u2014Remarks on the building of\n       Babel\u2014Mr. Clinton refuted\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s argument from\n       Scripture\u2014The judgments of God forgotten.\n\nThe third argument is, that the Hebrew computation is inconsistent with\nthe co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the\nsame family, and within so short a period from the flood. This argument\nhas been partly anticipated; but it receives additional strength from\nthe following considerations. If the short account of the building of\nBabel, Gen. xii. 1\u20139, be critically examined, there can be no doubt that\nthis politico-religious project, which was headed by Nimrod, the \u201c_Great\nIntolerant_ before the Lord,\u201d was the earliest attempt on record to\nestablish the Zabian system of idolatry. For the arguments in favour of\nthis opinion, we must, for brevity\u2019s sake, refer to a work recently\npublished, alike remarkable for the novelty of its views and the\nScriptural simplicity of its style, entitled the \u201cReligious History of\nMan,\u201d by Mr. D. Morison, pp. 157\u2013168. Mr. Clinton sees \u201cnothing\nwonderful\u201d in the fact that \u201cidolatry should have sprung up during the\nlives of Noah and Shem;\u201d and he accounts for it on the principles of the\nfecundity of mankind and their dispersion at the confusion of tongues.\nIt is very strange, however, that Terah, who is mentioned in Joshua\nxxiv. 2, as the only idolater among the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, should\nhave dared to follow the practices of the Heathen, while all his pious\nancestors were yet alive! And, that, as Mr. Cuninghame justly remarks,\n\u201cthe Scriptures should tell us nothing\u201d of the matter, seeing that the\nsacred historians invariably record such awful apostacies in the\nfamilies of the righteous, as a warning to all future generations.\nIdolatry, in fact, sprang up in the family of Ham, in the _third_\ngeneration; but, not in that of Shem, till the _ninth_; shewing that the\nexample and the memory of pious ancestry had the effect of so long\nretarding the influence of surrounding evil among their descendants. The\nwhole history of the period, indeed, indicates that ages not a few, had\nelapsed between the flood and the Call of Abraham; and, that during that\ninterval, the remembrance of the judgment of the old world was almost\nobliterated, the worship of the true God virtually superseded, and the\nmemory of the early Patriarchs practically forgotten. Moreover, the\nremarkable interposition of Providence in the confusion of tongues and\nthe dispersion of mankind, calculated so deeply to renew in the minds of\nmen the recollection of former judgments, and to put a stop to farther\nprogress in idolatry, appears in the lapse of time to have shared the\ncommon oblivion, and to have failed in producing that striking\nimpression which was sure to be felt among contemporaries and their\nimmediate successors.\n\n  4. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the accounts of Sacred and\n       Profane History\u2014Remark of Sir Walter Raleigh\u2014Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s\n       objection refuted\u2014Epoch of the Foundation of the kingdom of\n       Egypt.\n\nThe fourth argument is, that the shorter computation is inconsistent\nwith the credible accounts of profane history, and the existence of so\nmany populous kingdoms and empires in the days of Abraham. The\ninsuperable difficulties in reconciling the chronology of sacred and\nprofane history, which have perpetually puzzled modern historians, are\nin a great measure removed by the longer computation. The often-cited\npassage of Raleigh,[18] which contains his cutting remark on the danger\nof \u201cparing the times too near the quick,\u201d lest thereby \u201cthe reputation\nof the whole story might perchance bleed,\u201d has, in fact, never been\nfairly answered on the principles of the Hebrew chronology. The history\nof the battle of the \u201cfour kings against five,\u201d in Genesis xiv., implies\na very great degree of populousness and civilization in a single region,\nand more than can be admitted on the shorter computation; nor can Sir\nIsaac Newton\u2019s answer to this objection be considered as decisive, in\nwhich he implies that the numbers of the allied armies must have been\nsmall, because they were overcome by Abraham with a very small force;\nfor, the Scriptures inform us that it was \u201cthe Most High God that\ndelivered his enemies into his hand,\u201d and that it is His province \u201cto\nsave by many or by few.\u201d The account of Egypt, at the descent of\nAbraham, in Genesis xii. 10\u201320, indicates that it was then an ancient,\npopulous, and long-established kingdom; and the profane records of its\nhistory, though mingled with much that is fabulous, contain\nwell-attested facts which reach to a period far beyond that assigned by\nthe Hebrew text. In an excellent article, entitled \u201cAnnotations\nG\u00e9ologiques \u00e0 la Gen\u00e8se,\u201d vol. iii. of the \u201cCours Complet,\u201d it is shewn,\nby a careful and critical analysis of the historical notices of Egypt,\nin Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Artapan, Josephus, Eratosthenes, Pliny,\nthe author of the Old Chronicle, and Syncellus, that its various\ndynasties were not _consecutive_ but _collateral_; and, from the\nunsuspected agreement of the reigns of different kings, it appears that\n\u201cthe epoch B.C. 2900,\u201d or A.M. 2579, \u201cmay, in fact, be considered as\nthat of the foundation of the kingdom of Egypt.\u201d This epoch, according\nto the Septuagint, corresponds to the patriarchate of the _Junior_\nCainan, about 300 years after the birth of _Mizraim_, and about _fifty_\nyears after that of Salah;\u2014now, it is universally admitted that Egypt or\nMizraim (Genesis x. 6) was one of the first kingdoms founded after the\nflood. According to the Hebrew, however, the same epoch corresponds to\nthe patriarchate of the _Senior_ Cainan, upwards of 500 years before the\nflood, and long before Mizraim was in existence!\n\n  5. Arguments founded on the deficiency of the numbers of mankind\u2014Epoch\n       of the occupation of Babylon by the Medes\u2014Calculation of the\n       numbers of mankind on the Eulerian ratio\u2014Mr. Clinton refuted.\n\nAs to the argument founded on the \u201cnumbers of mankind,\u201d Mr. Clinton has\nproved, Fast. Hell., vol. i. p. 282, that an army of Medes occupied\nBabylon about B.C. 2233, that is, according to the Hebrew-Usher\ncomputation, 115 years, and according to his own, partially interpolated\nfrom the Septuagint, about 250 years after the flood,\u2014when, as he says,\n\u201cthe population of the earth would amount to _many millions_;\u201d and yet,\nin the same page, he remarks, it is not likely that \u201c101 years\u201d after\nthat event, the population \u201cwould exceed 50,000 persons, and this number\nit would certainly have reached within 160 years of the flood!\u201d Now,\neven on the Eulerian ratio, cited from Malthus, this number would\nincrease only to about 6\u00bd millions,[19] in his interval of ninety\nyears,\u2014which is far from \u201c_many millions_;\u201d while, in the Usherian\ninterval, on his own showing, it would have barely reached the former\nnumber! Such are only a few of the difficulties attending the shorter\ncomputation, and such some of the shifts to which its abettors and\nfollowers are driven for its support. The simple and consistent\nchronology of the Septuagint places the above mentioned event at the\ndistance of nearly 1000 years after the flood, and rather less than a\ncentury previous to the birth of Abraham; so that in his days the world\nhad had sufficient time to reach a state of populousness and\ncivilization corresponding to the history of the period, as recorded\nboth by sacred and profane authors.\n\n  6. Argument founded on the alteration of the Hebrew text by the\n       Jews\u2014Testimony of the early Fathers on this point\u2014Mr. Clinton\u2019s\n       admission as to the prophecies\u2014His refutation as to the\n       chronology\u2014Motives of the Jews for shortening the genealogies.\n\nMr. Clinton states that \u201cJackson and Hales impute great alterations in\nthe Hebrew copies\u201d of the Scriptures, \u201cto the Jews of the second\ncentury.\u201d It would have been more correct to have said that Iren\u00e6us,\nJustin Martyr, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and\nAbulfarajius imputed such alterations to the Jews, not only in the\npassages which applied to Christ,\u2014which he considers \u201cvery\nprobable,\u201d\u2014but also in the numbers relating to the Ante and Post\nDiluvian genealogies; because the testimonies of these ancient authors\nare either cited or referred to by the former. Mr. Clinton adds, that\n\u201cit is difficult to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had\nfor shortening the _genealogies_.\u201d Not more difficult, in our opinion,\nthan to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for\nshortening the _life_ of Jesus Christ! A difficulty, however, \u201cto\nimagine an adequate motive\u201d for any transaction, is no proof that it did\nnot take place. The Jews did not attempt \u201cto shorten the genealogies,\u201d\nthat is, to corrupt the chronology of the Scriptures, till all the\nwitnesses were dead who knew Jesus, and who had \u201ccompanied with them\nthat were witnesses of his resurrection!\u201d But when they found afterwards\nthat the Christians constantly proved out of the Septuagint, that Jesus\nwas the Messiah, they had then a sufficient motive for \u201cshortening the\ngenealogies,\u201d if they could make it appear, from the Hebrew text, that\nour Lord had come about _fifteen centuries_ earlier than the time fixed\nby tradition; and that, as the chronology of that text did not agree\nwith the chronology of the Septuagint, the epoch of the true Messiah\u2019s\nadvent had not yet arrived! They have accordingly continued to assert,\nin contradiction even to their own Scriptures, and up to the present\nday, that Jesus of Nazareth was not their Messiah!\n\n  7. Motives ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters for enlarging the\n       chronology\u2014Pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a\n       remote antiquity\u2014Insufficiency of the scheme adopted by the\n       Interpreters\u2014Self-refutation of Mr. Clinton\u2019s hypothesis.\n\nMr. Clinton finally asserts that \u201cthe first translators of the Hebrew\nScriptures had a very obvious motive for enlarging the chronology,\u201d\nbecause the \u201cChaldeans and Egyptians laid claim to a remote antiquity!\u201d\nThe wished for inference is, that the Jewish translators, from a very\nnatural desire not to be behind their neighbours in these pretensions,\nwent upon an opposite tack, and \u201clengthened the genealogies!\u201d This\nstatement, for argument it cannot be called, proves a great deal too\nmuch; because the scheme which they adopted, falls immensely short of\nthe end proposed. We have seen that the difference between the Hebrew\nand Septuagint chronologies, is only about _fifteen_ centuries! This\ndifference was, indeed, quite sufficient for the purpose of the Jews, in\ndenying the advent of the true Messiah; but, it was wholly insufficient,\nnay, utterly useless, for the purpose of coping with the pretensions of\n\u201cthe Chaldeans and Egyptians to a remote antiquity.\u201d For, it appears,\nfrom the testimony of Cicero, Diodorus, and others, that Berosus claimed\nfor the _first_ Chaldean kings, an antiquity of no less than 470,000\nyears! And, from the fragments of Manetho and the Old Chronicle,\npreserved by Syncellus, that for the _first_ Egyptian kings, an\nantiquity is claimed, of 36,525 years! But, what are _fifty-five_\ncenturies of antiquity, to 365 centuries, or to 4,700 centuries? To add\n_fifteen_ centuries was to add nothing! The Jews should have added 1500\nor 15000 centuries, in order to meet the exigency of their \u201cobvious\nmotive!\u201d The argument, therefore, founded on the supposition that the\nSeventy Interpreters enlarged the chronology of the Scriptures, in order\nto place the claims of the Jews to \u201ca remote antiquity,\u201d on a par with\nthose of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, is so very absurd, that it\ncompletely refutes itself:[20]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n                 EXTENT OF THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n  Table VIII. Patriarchal Eras and Intervals from Usher\u2014Table IX. Extent\n      of the _first Three Ages_ of the World\u2014Date of the Exodus of\n      Israel from Egypt.\n\n\nThe extent of the _Third_, or Patriarchal age, is ascertained from the\ntext of Exodus xii. 40 and 41. That this passage originally stood in the\nHebrew as it now stands in the other two texts, is evident from\nGalatians iii. 17; and as all commentators and chronologers are now\nagreed that the commencement of the 430 years was reckoned from the date\nof the Call, or the year following, it is unnecessary to revive former\ndisputes on this point. The following table, partly from Usher,[21] who\ndistinctly enumerates all the texts of Scripture on which their\ndetermination depends, exhibits the _intervals_, between the\n_Patriarchal eras_ of this period, and the corresponding _years of the\nworld_, according to the Hebrew and Septuagint computations:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE VIII.\n     PATRIARCHAL              HEBREW.                 SEPTUAGINT.\n        ERAS.         Intervals.      A.M.      Intervals.      A.M.\n From the Call                  0         2083            0         3409\n Birth of Isaac                25         2108           25         3434\n Birth of Jacob                60         2168           60         3494\n The Eisodus                  130         2298          130         3624\n Death of Joseph               71         2369           71         3695\n Birth of Moses                64         2433           64         3759\n To the Exodus                 80         2513           80         3839\n                             \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n      THIRD AGE               430 years.                430 years.\n\nIn the above and following tables we omit the Samaritan computation, and\nadopt the Hebrew as interpreted by Usher, as the question of the true\nchronology in modern times is considered to lie between the latter and\nthe Septuagint. The next table exhibits, according to these two systems,\nthe extent of the first three ages of the world.\n\n                               TABLE IX.\n       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.\n                               Years.              Years.\n       First two Ages                  2083                  3409\n       Third Age                        430                   430\n                                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n        FIRST THREE AGES               2513                  3839\n\nMr. Cuninghame, \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p. 36, gives an ingenious\nexplanation of \u201cthe sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt,\u201d and\nshows that, strictly speaking, the period of 430 years should be\nreckoned from the date of Abraham\u2019s descent into that land, after his\narrival in Canaan, or _one_ year later than the date of the Call. Hence,\nthe Exodus took place in A.M. 3840, according to the computation of the\nSeptuagint.[22]\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n                 EXTENT OF THE FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n  Palpable Forgery of this period in 1 Kings vi. 1.\u2014Table X. Critarchal\n      Eras and Intervals, from Usher and Cuninghame\u2014Object of Usher in\n      determining this period\u2014Testimony of Paul and the Book of Judges\n      as to its true extent\u2014Testimony of Origen\u2014Table XI. Extent of the\n      _first four ages_ of the world\u2014Verification of the true extent of\n      the _fourth age_ by Chronographers\u2014Agreement on this point between\n      Mr. Clinton and Mr. Cuninghame.\n\n\nThe extent of the Fourth, or Critarchal age, is ascertained from the\nbooks of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, and confirmed by Acts iii.\n17\u201322. Many disputes have arisen as to the true length of this period,\nin consequence of the interpolation of a passage in 1 Kings vi. 1,\u2014both\nin the Hebrew and Septuagint,\u2014which is now very generally admitted to be\na _palpable forgery_! The following table, partly from Mr. Cuninghame,\n\u201cSynopsis of Chronology,\u201d p. 15, and partly from Usher, \u201cChronologia\nSacra,\u201d p. 203, both of whom distinctly enumerate all the texts of\nScripture on which their determination depends, exhibits the intervals\nof the _Critarchal eras_, and the corresponding _years of the world_,\naccording to the two systems:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE X.\n     CRITARCHAL               HEBREW.                 SEPTUAGINT.\n        ERAS.         Intervals.      A.M.      Intervals.      A.M.\n From the Exodus                0         2513            0         3840\n Passage of Jordan             40         2553           40         3880\n Division of the               6\u2153         2559            7         3887\n   Land\n 1st SERVITUDE                  0                        28         3915\n Critarchate of                40         2599           40         3955\n   Othniel\n 2nd SERVITUDE                  0                        18         3973\n Cr. of Ehud and               80         2679           80         4053\n   Shamgar\n 3rd SERVITUDE                  0                        20         4073\n Cr. of Deborah and            40         2719           40         4113\n   Barak\n 4th SERVITUDE                  0                         7         4120\n Critarchate of              *49\u2159         2769          *40         4160\n   Gideon\n Of Abimelech, Tolah           48         2817           48         4208\n   and Jair\n 5th SERVITUDE                  0                        18         4226\n Critarchate of                 6         2823            6         4232\n   Jephthah\n Of Ibzan, Elon and            25         2848           25         4257\n   Abdon\n 6th SERVITUDE                  0                        40         4297\n   (Samson)\n Critarchate of Eli            40         2888           40         4337\n 7th SERVITUDE                  0                        20         4357\n Critarchate of               *21         2909          *12         4369\n   Samuel\n Reign of Saul                 40         2949           40         4409\n Reign of David                40         2989           40         4449\n To the Foundation\n   of Solomon\u2019s                 3         2992            3         4452\n   Temple\n                             \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n     FOURTH AGE               479 years.                612 years.\n\nThe object of Usher in determining the Hebrew computation of this\nperiod, as given above, was evidently to square or fashion the intervals\nso that their sum should not exceed the _interpolated period_ of 480\nyears! This he has effected by the omission of the intervals of all the\nSERVITUDES, which are expressly recorded in Scripture, the interpolation\nof 9\u2159 years between the critarchates of Gideon and Abimelech, and the\naddition of _nine_ years to the critarchate of Samuel. The remark,\ntherefore, of Mr. Cuninghame, in treating of the distinguishing marks of\nthe true and false systems of chronology, \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p.\n141, is no less just than severe:\u2014\u201cit is plain that had Usher given to\nthis part of his chronology the title of _An attempt to pervert the\ntestimony of the Book of Judges_, it would have been a just description\nof it!\u201d Moreover, Paul, when he addressed the Jews at Antioch in\nPisidia, with the book of the Law and the Prophets in his hand, must\nhave been perfectly well acquainted with the period in question, and his\nsummary of the intervals completely confirms the reckoning of the\nSeptuagint, which was followed by all the ancient chronographers,\nnotwithstanding the interpolated passage, which is manifestly the work\nof a later age. In this summary, he marks out the intervals of \u201c_forty_\nyears in the wilderness,\u201d of the judges \u201cabout 450 years\u201d from the\ndivision of the land, \u201cuntil Samuel _the prophet_,\u201d and of the reign of\nSaul \u201c_forty_ years,\u201d\u2014the amount of which is 530 years. If to this be\nadded the intervals of the _five_ years\u2019 war (Joshua xiv. 10), of the\n_two_ years for the completion of the conquest of Canaan and the\ndivision of the land, of the _twenty_ years\u2019 abode of the ark at\nKirjathjearim, of _twelve_ years for the critarchate of Samuel, of the\n_forty_ years\u2019 reign of David, and of the first _three_ years of\nSolomon\u2019s reign, making in all _eighty-two_ years,\u2014the whole amount is\nexactly 612 years. The only _one_ of these intervals not now mentioned\nin Scripture, is the critarchate of Samuel at Mizpeh, which has\nfortunately been preserved by Josephus and Theophilus, both of whom,\nwithout doubt, had more perfect copies of the Hebrew and Septuagint\ntexts, and who state its length at _twelve_ years. Independently,\nhowever, of this interval, the Book of Judges clearly establishes the\n_true_ period as far as 600 years, and completely overthrows the\n_forged_ period of 480 years. It is worthy also of remark, that Origen\ncites the immediate context of the interpolated passage, giving the\nsentences both _before_ and _after_ it, but making no mention whatever\nof the number itself;[23] which clearly shows that it was not in the\nHebrew text in his time. The following table exhibits, according to the\ntwo systems, the extent of the first four ages of the world:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE XI.\n       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.\n                               Years.              Years.\n       First three Ages                2513                  3840\n       Fourth Age                       479                   612\n                                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n        FIRST FOUR AGES                2992                  4452\n\nIn the learned works of Russell, Clinton, and Cuninghame, will be found\nnumerous and important verifications of the true extent of the _fourth_\nperiod, from different authors, ancient and modern, of which the\nfollowing are the most important. Josephus makes it 612 years in two\ndifferent places of his works, and 592 in another, where he omits the\n7th Servitude;\u2014Dr. Russell, 592 years, following Josephus in the latter\nnumber;\u2014Theophilus, 612 years, some of his intervals being inaccurate,\nbut the errors balancing each other;\u2014Eusebius, 613 years in his\n\u201cPreparatio,\u201d and 600 in his \u201cChronicon,\u201d where he omits the critarchate\nof Samuel;\u2014Jackson, 579 years, by the omission of both; and Hales, 621\nyears, by the interpolation of an interregnum of _ten_ years;\u2014lastly,\nMr. Clinton, 612 years, his intervals being very nearly the same as\nthose of Mr. Cuninghame. Thus, by the double testimony of Scripture, and\nby the admission of the ablest defender of the _Hebrew verity_ in modern\ntimes, it is manifest that the forged period of 480 years current, or\n479 complete, falls short of the truth by 133 years! Hence, Mr. Clinton\nplaces the creation of the world in the year B. C. 4138, instead of the\nUsherian year B. C. 4004.[24]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n                 EXTENT OF THE FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n  Table XII. Monarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and\n      Cuninghame\u2014Correction of the mistakes of chronologers as to the\n      true extent of this period, by Mr. Cuninghame\u2014Table XIII. Extent\n      of the _first five ages_ of the World\u2014Confirmation of the true\n      extent of the _fifth age_ from sacred history and prophecy.\n\n\nThe extent of the _Fifth_, or Monarchal Age, is ascertained from the\nBooks of Kings and Chronicles, and confirmed by chronological notices of\nthe Prophets. The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint\nchronologies in this period, amount only to about fifteen years, which\nis chiefly owing to an interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and\nUzziah not acknowledged by Usher and his followers. The following table,\nfrom Usher\u2019s \u201cChronologia,\u201d pp. 2\u201323, and Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cSynopsis,\u201d\np. 73, where the texts of Scripture containing them are distinctly\nenumerated, exhibits the intervals of the _Monarchal Eras_, and the\ncorresponding _years of the world_, according to both systems:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE XII.\n        MONARCHAL                HEBREW.               SEPTUAGINT.\n          ERAS.          Intervals.     A.M.     Intervals.     A.M.\n From the Foundation of            0        2992           0        4452\n   Solomon\u2019s Temple\n Death of Solomon                 37        3029          37        4489\n Reign of Rehoboam                17        3046          17        4506\n          Abijah                   3        3049           3        4509\n          Asa                     41        3090          41        4550\n          Jehoshaphat             25        3115          25        4575\n          Jehoram                 *4        3119          *6        4581\n          Ahaziah                  1        3120           1        4582\n          Athaliah                 6        3126           6        4588\n          Jehoash                *39        3165         *40        4628\n          Amaziah                 29        3194          29        4657\n Interregnum                      *0                     *12        4669\n Reign of Uzziah                  52        3246          52        4721\n          Jotham                  16        3262          16        4737\n          Ahaz                   *15        3277         *16        4753\n          Hezekiah                29        3306          29        4782\n          Manasseh                55        3361          55        4837\n          Amon                     2        3363           2        4839\n          Josiah                  31        3394          31        4870\n Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim,             11        3405          11        4881\n   and Jehoiachin\n To the Destruction of           *11        3416         *10        4891\n   Solomon\u2019s Temple\n                                \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n        FIFTH AGE                424 years.              439 years.\n\nThe discrepancies in the different columns of this table, have been very\ncarefully and laboriously investigated by Mr. Cuninghame, in his\n\u201cChronology of Israel,\u201d pp. 18\u201339, 87, 88, 115 and 116; and in his\n\u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d part i. pp. 193\u2013197, and part ii. pp. 32\u201349, and\n56\u201360, where the errors of Usher, Lightfoot, Hales, Russell and Clinton,\nand of the \u201cSeder Olam Rabba,\u201d[25] are clearly pointed out and refuted\non Scripture authority; and, by the correction of obvious mistakes of\ntwo or three current years in their computation, the testimonies of\nJosephus, Clemens, Theophilus, and Eusebius in favour of the true\nchronology, are satisfactorily established. By excluding the\ninterregnum, and reckoning the years of each reign complete, Dr. Russell\nand Mr. Clinton, both estimate the length of this period at 430 years;\nthe latter, however, in his tabular view, p. 329, vol. i., ultimately\nreduces this number from 430 current, to 426 complete years, by\nreckoning from Rehoboam to Zedekiah 389 years. Jackson reckons this\nperiod at 428, and Hales at 441 years. The true extent of the _fifth_\nage being determined at 439 years, the following table exhibits\naccording to the two systems, the extent of the _first five_ ages of the\nworld:\u2014\n\n                              TABLE XIII.\n       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.\n                               Years.              Years.\n       First four Ages                 2992                  4452\n       Fifth Age                        424                   439\n                                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n        FIRST FIVE AGES                3416                  4891\n\nThe true extent of the fifth age is strongly confirmed by Ezekiel iv.\n1\u20138, where, in the fifth year of Jehoiachin\u2019s captivity, or in A. M.\n4885, the prophet is commanded to predict in a striking manner the siege\nof Jerusalem, and to lie on his left side 390 _days_, according to the\n_number of the years_ of the iniquity of the house of Israel; and, on\nhis right side _forty days_, according to the _number of the years_ of\nthe iniquity of the house of Judah; EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. The sum of\nthese prophetic days, namely 430, is therefore, the whole _number of the\nyears_ of the iniquity of Israel and Judah. This number of years\nsingularly coincides with that of the period appointed for the\n\u201csojourning of the fathers and children of Israel,\u201d and has no doubt a\nvery extensive prophetic signification. But the period of 390 years more\nparticularly points at some _great general defection_, when the iniquity\nof Israel was particularly prominent. This iniquity in fact, rose to its\nhighest pitch, when the Ten Tribes separated themselves from the house\nof Judah, and took to the worship of the golden calves. Now, it appears\nfrom 2 Chronicles xi. 13\u201317, that the general defection from the worship\nof the true God, both in Israel and Judah, did not take place till\n_three_ years after the accession of Rehoboam to the throne of David,\nand the election of Jeroboam to the kingdom of Israel. For a period,\ntherefore, of _forty years_ after the foundation of the Temple, the\niniquity of the Twelve Tribes was restrained, and an apparent desire to\nworship God aright, prevented the full manifestation of their idolatrous\npropensities. After this, however, \u201cRehoboam forsook the law of the\nLord, _and all Israel with him_,\u201d (2 Chron. xii. 1); and by this time\nthe subjects of Jeroboam had become more accustomed to the \u201cnew gods\nthat came newly up\u201d at his accession, and had begun to think that it was\nindeed \u201ctoo much for them to go up to Jerusalem\u201d to worship; and\naccordingly, they went to worship a golden calf, \u201ceven unto Dan,\u201d (1\nKings xii. 30). If from this epoch, A. M. 4491, therefore, the period of\n390 years be computed, it will terminate in the first year of the\n_captivity of Jehoiachin_, A. M. 4881; and, if the whole period of 430\nyears be computed from the epoch of the _completion of the Temple_, A.\nM. 4459, it will terminate in the ninth year of Zedekiah\u2019s reign, A. M.\n4889, when the _holy city was besieged_ by Nebuchadnezzar; and when,\naccording to Ezekiel\u2019s prophecy, \u201che and all his host came against\nJerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it round\nabout,\u201d (2 Kings xxv. 1). Moreover, in two years after this epoch, in A.\nM. 4891, and when the 439 years from the _Foundation of the Temple_ in\nA. M. 4452, were completed, the \u201ccity was broken up,\u201d the \u201cwalls were\nbroken down,\u201d and the Temple was \u201cburned with fire!\u201d (2 Kings xxv.\n1\u201310). Thus, the true extent of the _fifth_ age is established by Sacred\nHistory, and confirmed by prophecy. On this subject, see Mr.\nCuninghame\u2019s \u201cSynopsis,\u201d p. 47, and \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p. 195.[26]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n                 EXTENT OF THE SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n  1. Table XIV. Hierarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and\n       Cuninghame\u2014Determination of the Intervals from Scripture\u2014Period\n       of the Seventy years Captivity\u2014Period of the Seventy prophetic\n       weeks of Daniel\u2014Table XV. Date of the Crucifixion\n       determined\u2014Truth of the Ancient Tradition respecting the First\n       Advent of the Messiah demonstrated.\n\n\nThe extent of the _Sixth_, or Hierarchal age, is ascertained from\nchronological notices interspersed in the Historical and Prophetical\nBooks of Scripture, and confirmed by the Astronomical Canon of\nPtolemy.[27] The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint\nchronologies in this period, amounts only to two years, its length,\naccording to Usher\u2019s \u201cChronologia,\u201d p. 44, being 583 years, and,\naccording to the following table, 585 years. This table, in which we\nhave taken the Hebrew dates and intervals from Usher\u2019s \u201cAnnals,\u201d because\nthey are wanting in the Chronologia, exhibits only the Scriptural\nintervals of the _Hierarchal eras_, and the corresponding _years of the\nworld_, according to both systems:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE XIV.\n     HIERARCHAL               HEBREW.                 SEPTUAGINT.\n        ERAS.         Intervals.      A.M.      Intervals.      A.M.\n From the\n   Destruction of               0         3416            0         4891\n   Solomon\u2019s Temple\n The Edict of Cyrus            52         3468           52         4943\n The Commission of            *69         3537          *78         5021\n   Ezra\n The Commission of             13         3550           13         5034\n   Nehemiah\n The Return of                 12         3562           12         5046\n   Nehemiah\n To the Birth of             *437         3999         *430         5476\n   Christ\n                             \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    THE SIXTH AGE             583 years.                585 years.\n\nThe first interval in this table is determined from the following\ntexts:\u2014Jeremiah xxv. 12, and xxix. 10; 2 Kings xxiv. 1, and xxv. 2; 2\nChron. xxxvi. 21; and Daniel ix. 2; from these, it appears that the\n_seventy_ years\u2019 captivity in Babylon commenced in the _fourth_ year of\nJehoiakim, and the first of Nebuchadnezzar; and, that it preceded the\ndestruction of the Temple by _eighteen_ years. Consequently, it\nterminated exactly _fifty-two_ years after that epoch, namely, in the\n_first_ year of Cyrus, when, by his permission, the Jews \u201cwent up out of\nthe Captivity,\u201d in A.M. 4943. The second interval is determined in the\nfollowing manner:\u2014from Zechariah vii. 5, it appears that in the _fourth_\nyear of Darius, _seventy_ years had elapsed from the destruction of the\nTemple; consequently, _eighteen_ years must have elapsed from the first\nof Cyrus. This computation agrees with that of Ptolemy\u2019s Canon, which\ngives _seven_ years to Cyrus, and _eight_ to Cambyses, or Ahasuerus,\nmaking, with the _three_ complete years of Darius, the same amount.\nAgain, we find, from Ezra vii. 8, that in the _seventh_ year of\nArtaxerxes, A. M. 5021, Ezra received a commandment from that king, to\nestablish the Jews in their own land, and to beautify the Second Temple.\nNow, Ptolemy\u2019s Canon gives _thirty-three_ years for the rest of Darius\u2019s\nreign, and _twenty-one_ for that of Xerxes, making, with the _six_\ncomplete years of Artaxerxes, the amount of _sixty_ years; consequently,\nthe whole interval, from the _first_ of Cyrus to the _seventh_ of\nArtaxerxes, is _seventy-eight_ years. That the epoch of Ezra\u2019s\ncommission is the _commencement of the prophetic period_ of _seventy_\nweeks, or 490 years, is evident from Daniel ix. 24\u201327. Hitherto, the\nJews had been hindered in the building of the city and temple; the\nlatter was indeed built and dedicated; but the walls of the city were\nstill in ruins, and the inhabitants were exposed to the insults and\ninroads of their enemies! Now, by the liberal decree of Artaxerxes, Ezra\nwas furnished with money and means to forward the work at Jerusalem; and\ntheir enemies were not only silenced, but compelled to assist in\ncarrying the king\u2019s order into execution. This was, therefore, the epoch\nof \u201cthe going forth of the commandment to restore and to build\nJerusalem,\u201d and the beginning of the period \u201cdetermined upon the people\nand the holy city,\u201d until the time, when \u201cthe Messiah, the Prince,\u201d\nshould \u201cbe cut off, but not for himself;\u201d when \u201cthe transgression should\nbe finished or consummated\u201d in his crucifixion; and, when\n\u201creconciliation\u201d should be made \u201cfor iniquity,\u201d by his death and\nresurrection.\n\nThe third and fourth intervals in the table are clearly pointed out in\nNehemiah ii. 1; v. 14; and xiii. 6; the date, indeed, recorded in the\nlatter text, being the _last note of time_ to be found in the present\nHebrew text. At this period, or very soon afterwards (according to Mr.\nCuninghame, in A.M. 5055),[28] the Old Testament Canon was closed by the\nprophecy of Malachi, and a long night of darkness reigned, \u201cuntil at\nlength the Day-spring from on high\u201d visited the world. Thus we have\nproved, from Scripture evidence alone, that at the date of Ezra\u2019s\ncommission, which was upwards of 5000 years from Creation, and even\nbefore that period, the Jews were in possession of a prophecy extending\nnearly 500 years into futurity, and pointing to the Advent of a mighty\nSaviour who should restore all things, and \u201cbring in everlasting\nrighteousness.\u201d The date of the passion of Christ is fixed and\ndetermined as in the following table:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE XV.\n          The Date of Ezra\u2019s Commission             A.M. 5021\n          The period of seventy weeks, or 490 years       490\n                                                         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION,        A.M. 5511\n\nHence, it is clearly demonstrated that the general belief among all\nnations, that the Messiah should appear in the middle of the _Sixth\nMillenary_ from Creation, had its real origin in a knowledge of the true\nchronology of the sacred Scriptures! In arriving at this conclusion, we\nhave been obliged, in order to establish the exact lengths of the\nCritarchal and Hierarchal ages, to borrow _twelve_ years from the\nwritings of the ancient chronographers, and _seventy-eight_ from the\ncanon of Ptolemy, amounting only to _ninety_ years in all,\u2014a period\nwhich may be considered as almost evanescent in the long range of 5500\nyears. Probably the Scriptures originally contained notices even of\nthese intervals, and in the course of ages, they may have been either\nlost, through the negligence of transcribers, or omitted through the\nwilfulness of enemies to the truth.\n\n  2. Determination of the Epoch of the Birth of Christ\u2014Labours of Mr.\n       Cuninghame on this point\u2014Coincidence of the extent of the period\n       of Patriarchal pilgrimage with that of Hierarchal Bondage\u2014Table\n       XVI. Extent of the _Six Ages_ of the World\u2014Difference between the\n       true and vulgar dates of the Nativity\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s dates of\n       the Nativity and Public Ministry of Christ, deduced from the\n       chronology of the Septuagint.\n\nThe determination of the dates of the Nativity and Passion of our Lord,\nis a question of considerable difficulty, and of great importance in the\ntrue system of chronology; but much has been written upon it to very\nlittle purpose. We agree, however, with Mr. Cuninghame, in the\nconclusion to which he has arrived, after a very laborious and complete\ninvestigation, in his \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d part i. pp. 60\u2013107, and\npart ii. pp. 1\u201327, and in his \u201cSeason of the End,\u201d pp. 73\u201390, where he\nrefutes the opinions of Newton, Hales, Gresswell and others, and\ndemonstrates that the Passion of Christ took place in the _thirty-fifth_\nyear of his age, that is, according to the vulgar reckoning in A. D. 33:\nand, that consequently, the true date of his Nativity was B. C. 3. The\nScriptural evidence for this conclusion recommends itself to the mind,\nboth by its simplicity and sufficiency. It appears from Luke iii. 23,\nthat Christ was baptized when he was _thirty_ years of age; and from\nLuke iv. 16\u201324, that soon after that period, he began his public\nministry. Moreover, from the whole of the Gospel history, particularly\nthat of John, it appears that he was present at _four_, if not _five_,\npublic celebrations of the Passover; and consequently, that his\n_thirty-fifth_ year was coincident with the date of the Crucifixion.\nHence, it clearly follows, that the _epoch of the birth of Christ_ was\ncoincident with the 455th year of the prophetic period of _seventy_\nweeks, this being the difference between 35 and 490 years. Again, the\nintervals of _thirteen_ years between the commissions of Ezra and\nNehemiah, and of _twelve_ between that of the latter and his return to\nthe court of Artaxerxes,\u2014amounting to _twenty-five_ years in all,\u2014being\ndeducted from the 455 years, gives the last interval of 430 years to the\nNativity. Thus, we perceive a singular coincidence in the period of the\npilgrimage and afflictions of the Hebrews in Canaan and Egypt, till the\ntime of Moses; and that of the persecution and sufferings of the Jews in\nSyria and Egypt, till the Advent of the Messiah! The following table\nexhibits, according to the two systems, the extent of the _six ages_ of\nthe world:\u2014\n\n                               TABLE XVI.\n       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.\n                               Years.              Years.\n       First Five Ages                 3416                  4891\n       Sixth Age                        583                   585\n                                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014                  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n          THE SIX AGES                 3999                  5476\n\nUsher states in his \u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d p. 45, that the true period\nfrom Creation to the Birth of Christ, is 3999 years, _two_ months,\n_four_ days, and _six_ hours; but, according to the vulgar reckoning\n4003 years, _two_ months, _eleven_ days, and _six_ hours! Hence,\naccording to his computation, the true date of the Nativity in current\nyears is A.M. 4000, and the vulgar date A.M. 4004. It is indeed admitted\nby all chronologers that an error of two or three years was committed by\nDionysius Exiguus, who first introduced the Christian era, in A.D. 532;\nand, by Bede, who followed him, in A.D. 720. Accordingly, Mr. Cuninghame\nvery properly places the commencement of the vulgar era in A.M. 5478;\nand that of the Public Ministry of Christ, in A.M. 5508, which was in\nfact the true period of his appearance to the world! In the whole of\nthis interesting inquiry, now approaching a close, we must candidly\nacknowledge the invaluable assistance we have received from the learned\nand original works of Mr. Cuninghame, which have been, as it were, our\nguide through the labyrinth of chronological difficulties, till we have\nat last arrived at the open field of well-known History.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION II.\n                   CONFIRMATION OF THE GREAT EPOCHS.\n\n\nThe epochs of the Nativity and Epiphany of Christ, determined in the\npreceding Section, receive very strong confirmation from the histories\nand chronicons of ancient writers both sacred and profane, from the\nwritings of the early Fathers, and from the prophetic arrangement of\n\u201cthe Times and the Seasons\u201d by the Great \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, or Supreme \u201cDisposer\u201d of\nall human events. It is plain, however, that a multiplicity of views\nboth of the Hebrew and the Septuagint chronology may be taken, according\nas more or fewer of the errors, which we have pointed out in the\ncomputation of the different ages of the world, are either adopted or\nrejected. Dr. Hales, in his \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. i. pp. 3\u20137, gives a list of\nmore than a _hundred and twenty_ different dates of the birth of Christ,\nunder the title of \u201cEpochs of the Creation;\u201d and he adds that the list\nmight be swelled to the number of _three hundred_! In such a multitude\nof discordant dates we might, at first sight, despair of ever arriving\nat the truth; but let us remember that error is a hydra-headed monster,\nwhich in chronology as well as in more sacred subjects, can only be\nsuccessfully destroyed by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of\nGod.\n\nIt is easy to see the source of the differences of opinion among the\nlearned, in regard to the point under consideration. Instead of taking\nthe sacred Scriptures as their guide, men have chosen rather to follow\ntheir own fancies; and, because discrepancies were found to exist in the\nancient texts, they have with one consent agreed to abandon the light of\ninternal evidence, and to take refuge in the obscure glimmerings of\nheathen tradition or the doubtful testimony of Jewish writers and\nChristian fathers. Hence, we have all varieties of dates, from the bold\nconjecture of Alphonsus, king of Castile, who supposed that the Mundane\nCycle of 7000 years had nearly expired at the birth of Christ, to the\ntraditionary epoch of the Chronicle of Axum in Abyssinia, which,\naccording to Bruce, places that event in the year of the world 5500;\nand, from the Alexandrian or Constantinopolitan era, which, according to\nthe computation of the Greeks, places it in A. M. 5508, to the Jewish\nepoch of the \u201cSeder Olam Rabba,\u201d which according to Ganz, dates it in\nA.M. 3751.\n\nThe following Table of the extent of the different ages of the world\naccording to the three texts, will serve the double purpose of showing\nthe leading varieties in the computation of the date of the Nativity\nfrom Creation, and of bringing before our readers, at a single glance, a\ncondensed view of the result of our investigations in the preceding\npages. As the Samaritan text comprehends only the chronology of the\nfirst two ages, the extent of the remaining four ages is borrowed from\nthe Hebrew.\n\n                               TABLE XVII.\n        AGES OF THE WORLD.          HEBREW.    SEPTUAGINT.   SAMARITAN.\n                                     Years.       Years.       Years.\n 1. Antediluvian age                      1656         2262         1307\n 2. Postdiluvian age                       427         1147         1017\n 3. Patriarchal age                        430          431          430\n 4. Critarchal age                         480          612          480\n 5. Monarchal age                          424          439          424\n 6. Hierarchal age                         583          585          583\n                                          \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    Birth of Christ          A.M.         4000         5476         4241\n    Error in the Sixth age                   2            0            2\n    Error in the Vulgar date                 2            2            2\n                                          \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    Extent of the Six ages                4004         5478         4245\n\nIn the preceding Table we have reckoned the date of the Birth of Christ\nin current years, and included the year of Abraham\u2019s sojourning in Egypt\nin the Patriarchal age of the Septuagint computation.\u2014See page 66 of\nthis Dissertation.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n       HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUE SYSTEM OF CHRONOLOGY.\n\n  Testimonies of the ancient chronographers and historians before\n      and after Christ, in favour of the chronology of the\n      Septuagint\u2014Demetrius, Eupolemus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, and\n      all the early fathers of the first three centuries\u2014Theophilus,\n      Hippolytus, Africanus, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius,\n      Epiphanius, Ambrose, Ephrem Syrus, Augustine, Chrysostom,\n      Sulpicius Severus, Annianus, Syncellus, Eutychius, the author\n      of the Paschal Chronicle, and the Council called \u201cSynodus in\n      Trullo\u201d\u2014Probable cause of minute variations among the ancient\n      chronographers.\n\n\nIn confirmation of the true epoch of the birth of Christ, and the\naccuracy of the Septuagint chronology, we select the following examples\nof ancient testimony, for which we are chiefly indebted to the learned\nworks of Russell and Clinton, \u201cConnection of Sacred and Profane\nHistory,\u201d vol. i., pp. 113\u2013120, and \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i., pp.\n286\u2013291. Demetrius, who lived B.C. 220, and is cited by Eusebius and\nPolyhistor, states that \u201cfrom Adam to the Eisodus, were 3624 years; from\nthe flood 1360; and from the Call of Abraham 215.\u201d It follows, that he\nreckoned the _Antediluvian_ age 2264 years, and the _Postdiluvian_ 1145;\nadding two years to the former, and taking them from the latter by\nmistake, but preserving the correct sum of both 3409 years, and the true\nepoch of the Eisodus A.M. 3624, see Tables VII. and VIII. Eupolemus, who\nlived B.C. 174, and is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, states that \u201cfrom\nAdam to the 5th year of Demetrius [Poliorcetes], the 12th of Ptolemy\n[Soter], were 5149 years.\u201d If to this number, as Dr. Russell remarks, we\nadd 296, as the date B.C. of the 5th of Demetrius, the epoch of the\nnativity is, according to Eupolemus, A.M. 5445. From the works of\nJosephus, who flourished A.D. 90, both Russell and Jackson have\ndetermined the same epoch at A.M. 5481. Justin Martyr, who wrote A.D.\n140, speaking of the prophecies concerning Christ, says, \u201csome were\ndelivered 5000 years before his appearing, some 3000, some 2000; and,\nsome again 1000, and others 800 years.\u201d[29] Ignatius, Clemens Romanus,\nIren\u00e6us, Polycarp, Tertullian, and all the early fathers of the first\nthree centuries, held similar opinions respecting the antiquity of the\nprophecies, and the appearance of the Saviour of the world in the sixth\nmillennium.\n\nTheophilus, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 180, placed the epoch of the\nNativity in A.M. 5507, according to Kennicott; and Clemens Alexandrinus,\nwho lived A.D. 194, placed the same epoch in A.M. 5444, according to\nClinton and Cuninghame, on the supposition that he follows Eupolemus.\nMr. Cuninghame, however, has shown, in his \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d Part\nii. pp. 59, 60, that by correcting an error of thirty-four years, the\nepoch of Clemens is A.M. 5478; and, by the most indefatigable scrutiny\nof his numbers, that the epoch of Josephus is A.M. 5472, the difference\nof _six_ years arising from his well-known error of this amount in the\n_Antediluvian_ age. Hippolytus, A.D. 200, states that \u201cthe first advent\nof our incarnate Lord took place in the 5500th year of the world.\u201d\nJulius Africanus (apud Syncellum) A.D. 220, says that \u201cthe Jews have\ntransmitted to us, from the extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500\nyears from creation to the epiphany of the Saviour,\u201d\u2014a conclusion,\nwhich, as Syncellus remarks, was received by all the learned Christians\nof his day. It is also remarkable, that although both Theophilus and\nAfricanus seem to omit the second Cainan in the Postdiluvian age, yet\ntheir dates of the foundation of Solomon\u2019s temple agree with that of Mr.\nCuninghame to a year or two; thus showing that an error of 130 years in\nrelation to an epoch so generally known, was wholly inadmissible into\nany system of chronology pretending to be founded on the sacred\nwritings. Origen, A.D. 230, states that \u201cour Lord descended from Heaven\nfor the salvation of man, 6000 years after the Almighty had formed the\nfirst of the human race.\u201d Cyprian, A.D. 250, says that \u201c6000 years are\nalready almost accomplished since the devil made his first assault on\nman.\u201d Lactantius, A.D. 300, says, \u201cphilosophers who calculate the\nthousands of ages from the beginning of the world, must know that the\n6000th year [that is, the sixth millenary,] is not yet finished.\u201d\nEpiphanius, A.D. 368, says \u201cthe preaching of Christ began in the\nfifteenth year of Tiberius C\u00e6sar, in the 30th year of his age, which was\nin the 5509th year of the world\u2019s creation.\u201d This date differs only by\n_one year_ from that which we have assigned to the same epoch.\nHesychius, a contemporary of Jerome, says, \u201cthe incarnation of the\nRedeemer took place nearly 6000 years from the foundation of the world.\u201d\nAmbrose, bishop of Milan, A.D. 375, says, \u201cbut now more than 6000 years\nare counted from the foundation of the world.\u201d Ephrem Syrus, A.D. 378,\nsays, \u201cthe Saviour was to appear after 5500 years, [from creation,] to\ndeliver man.\u201d Augustine, A.D. 398, says, \u201csince from the first man, 6000\nyears are not yet completed.\u201d Chrysostom, his contemporary, says, \u201cafter\n5000 years and more, Christ came as the substitute of our race.\u201d\nSulpicius Severus, A.D. 400, makes the date of the Nativity A.M. 5469,\naccording to Clinton. Annianus A.D. 405, Syncellus A.D. 792, Eutychius\nA.D. 937, and a host of later writers, adopt the epoch A.M. 5500,\nfollowing Africanus. The author of the \u201cPaschal Chronicle,\u201d makes the\nepoch A.M. 5507; and the meeting of the council, called \u201cSynodus in\nTrullo,\u201d A.D. 691, reckoned it A.M. 5508, which is the same as our date\nof the Epiphany. In short, the epochs of the Nativity, the Epiphany, and\nthe Resurrection, (\u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) appear to\nhave been so inseparably connected in the minds of the ancient writers,\nas to make them sometimes put the one for the other; a circumstance,\nwhich may account for not a few of the small varieties in their\ncomputation of the year of the world which was the commencement of the\nChristian era.[30]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n              REDUCTION OF THE MUNDANE ERA OF REDEMPTION.\n\n  Errors of Eusebius, Jerome, and the Western churches\u2014Consistency of\n      the Eastern and Southern churches to the latest period\u2014Chronology\n      of the Russians and Armenians that of the Septuagint\u2014Testimony of\n      Abulpharajius\u2014Chronological innovations of the Venerable Bede\u2014His\n      denouncement as a heretic on this account\u2014Chronology of the Roman\n      church different from that of the Latin Vulgate\u2014The chronology of\n      the Masoretes an abridgement of the true\u2014The chronology of the\n      Roman Martyrology preserved by Pontifical authority to the present\n      day\u2014Extract from Strauchius\u2014An important testimony in favour of\n      the true chronology.\n\n\nHaving shown by incontestable evidence, that the computation of the\nSeptuagint was universally received as the true chronology of the Church\nof Christ from the earliest periods of its history, and that it was also\nreceived by the Jews themselves, at least _two_ centuries before the\nChristian era; let us now shortly inquire how it came to be abandoned,\nand the chronology of the Masorete Hebrew text adopted in its stead.\nEusebius of Cesarea, A.D. 325, or some one for him, acting under Jewish\ninfluence, reduced the era of Redemption from A.M. 5478 to A.M. 5200, by\nthe exclusion of the _Postdiluvian_ Cainan, the adoption of the forged\n_period_ for the _Critarchal_ age, and the omission of _fifteen_ years\nin the _Monarchal_. In these errors, he was followed by Jerome,[31] A.D.\n378, and some of the Western churches; but his system was resolutely\nopposed by all the Eastern and Southern churches, in which the\nchronological authority of Africanus and Epiphanius prevailed. This\nopposition has indeed preserved the true chronology in some countries to\na very late period; for we find that the Russians, who received it from\nthe Greeks, still reckon that the Christian era commenced in A.M. 5509,\nas may be seen by reference to their native historians. The remoter\nEastern churches, with some slight variations, also adhered to the\nlonger chronology; as testified by Abulfarajius, the celebrated Armenian\nhistorian, who flourished in the thirteenth century, and who reckoned\nthe same epoch at A.M. 5586, apparently to adjust it to the birth of\nPeleg, in A.M. 2793, the former number being just double the latter;\nfor, \u201cin his days was _the world_ divided,\u201d at the command of (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd) the God of the ages, or the worlds. The Western Churches indeed,\ncan scarcely be said to have followed the chronology either of Eusebius\nor of Jerome, till the time of the venerable Bede, A.D. 720; and the\ninnovations of the latter were so ill received by his contemporaries,\nthat he was denounced as a heretic, because he dared to assert, in\nopposition to all the fathers of the Church, that Christ was _not_ born\nin the sixth millenary of the world; see Usher\u2019s \u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d p.\n50. The chronology of the Roman Church appears to have remained in this\nstate during the dark ages till the meeting of the Council of Trent,\nA.D. 1563, when the Protestants, under the double influence of prejudice\nagainst the errors of the Church, and overweening confidence in the\nHebrew text, adopted the modern and corrupted chronology of the Jews!\nThe Roman chronologists had, however, abridged the true computation of\nthe ancient Church of Christ only by 278 years; while the Masoretes and\ntheir followers had abridged it by no less than 1474 years! The system\nof the former continues to prevail in the Church of Rome, though\ncontrary to the Latin Vulgate, and the system of the latter in the\nReformed Churches, even to this day. In the \u201cRoman Martyrology,\u201d\npublished by the authority of Pope Gregory XIII., in A.D. 1582, and\nrevised by command of Pope Urban VIII., in A.D. 1640, we find the\nfollowing statement, which according to Strauchius, \u201cBreviarium\nChronologicum,\u201d p. 382, is read in the churches every year on the 25th\nof December:\u2014\u201cIn the 5199th year from the creation of the world, when\nGod created heaven and earth; and the 2957th after the deluge; the\n2015th from the birth of Abraham; the 1510th from the time of Moses and\nthe Israelites leaving Egypt; and the 1032nd from the time of David\nbeing anointed king; in the 65th annual week of Daniel; in the 194th\nOlympiad; in the 752nd year since the building of Rome; in the 42nd year\nof the Emperor Octavius Augustus, when the whole world was blessed with\npeace; in the _sixth_ age of the world; Jesus Christ, Eternal God, and\nSon of the Eternal Father, conceived from the Holy Ghost, was born of\nthe Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea.\u201d[32] There are several\ncontradictions among the synchronisms contained in this statement, which\nare acknowledged by Roman Catholic writers themselves, as may be seen in\nthe works of Baronius and Petavius; but, it is a noble public testimony\nto the true faith of the Church of Christ, and an important public\nevidence in favour of its ancient chronology.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n         CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY ERRONEOUS.\n\n  Chronology of the English Bible erroneous\u2014Usher influenced by the\n      Masoretes\u2014Tradition of the House of Elias\u2014Its complete refutation\n      both from Scripture and fact\u2014Utility and application of Mr.\n      Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cChart of Chronology\u201d\u2014Reasons assigned by the Jewish\n      Rabbis why their expected Messiah is not yet come\u2014Their curse upon\n      all who calculate the Times.\n\n\nFrom the whole of the preceding testimony and argument, it must appear\nevident that the chronology of Usher, which places the Christian era in\nA.M. 4004, which is adopted in all the larger editions of the English\nBible, and which is still strenuously maintained by English divines, is\nbut of comparatively recent origin, and rests upon a very unsound\nfoundation. We have no doubt that the pious and learned Archbishop was\ninfluenced in his determination to adopt the Masorete chronology,\ncontrary to his better judgment, by a tradition current among the Jews\nfrom a very early period, which appears to be only a corruption of the\nmore ancient one referred to at the beginning of this Dissertation.\nAfter their rejection of Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, the Jews, in\norder to cover their retreat from the truth, gave out in their Talmud\nthe following gloss on the universal belief of the Church:\u2014\u201cTraditio\nDomus Eli\u00e6: Mundus sex millibus annis durabit; duobus millibus inanitas;\nduobus millibus lex; duobus millibus tempus Messi\u00e6;\u201d\u2014the meaning of\nwhich is, that according to the tradition of the house of Elias, the\nworld shall last 6000 years; of which 2000 shall pass without the law;\n2000 under the law; and 2000 under the Messiah. It is proper to observe\nthat the inventor of this tradition was neither Elijah the Tishbite, nor\nhis antitype, John the Baptist, but a certain famous doctor of the\nJewish schools, who flourished after the Messianic age; and, that not\nthe slightest trace of the tradition itself is to be found in the Holy\nScriptures! As some writers, however, consider it a confirmation of the\nmodern Hebrew chronology, we may show that it is not only quite\nerroneous, but inconsistent with itself, even in its details. Referring\nto Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cChart of Sacred Chronology,\u201d in which he has\narranged the Hebrew and Septuagint chronologies in parallel columns, and\nexhibited the most remarkable events in ancient history, both according\nto the years of the world and before Christ, we see that according to\nthe Masorete text, the law was delivered on Mount Sinai in A.M. 2513,\nmore than 500 years after the time said to be predicted by Elias! Hence,\nit follows that the interval from that epoch till the end of the next\n2000 years, is less than 1500 years, and terminated in A.M. 4000, when,\naccording to the tradition, the Messiah was _expected to appear_! With\nrespect to the 2000 years allotted to the reign of the Messiah, they\nare, on their own showing, nearly past; inasmuch as 1844 years of this\nperiod have already elapsed, and yet, according to their opinion, _he is\nnot come_! The reason assigned by the Jewish Rabbis for this long delay,\nis that their sins have prevented his coming! This grievous\nfalsification of their famous Doctor\u2019s prediction, has made them so\nashamed of their traditions, that they have pronounced a curse upon all\nwho dare to calculate the times: \u200f\u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u200e\u2014\u201cAnimam\nexhalent illi qui supputant terminos.\u201d On this and other curious matters\nrelating to the Hebrew chronology, see Father Le Quien\u2019s \u201cDefense du\nTexte H\u00e9breu et de la Vulgate,\u201d reprinted in the \u201cCours Complet,\u201d vol.\niii. pp. 1525\u20131586.[33]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n                CYCLICAL CHARACTER OF THE MUNDANE TIMES.\n\n  1. The Revolutions of the Heavenly bodies appointed for Cycles\u2014Origin\n       of the cycles of the year and the month\u2014The subject of Enoch\u2019s\n       prophecy\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of the cycle from the\n       Creation to the Era of Redemption\u2014Scriptural Cycles of frequent\n       occurrence\u2014The numbers of Jubilee and of Pentecost\u2014of Pilgrimage\n       and Persecution\u2014of Omnipotence, glory, and wisdom; and of\n       mystery, vengeance, and forgiveness\u2014The prophetic numbers of\n       Daniel\u2014Discovery of their connection with the Higher Cycles of\n       Astronomy, by M. de Chesaux and Mr. Cuninghame\n\n\nThe true system of chronology receives its grandest confirmation from\nthe cyclical character of the times appointed by (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd)\nthe Father of the ages. In Genesis i. 14, the word of God created two\nluminaries in the firmament of Heaven, for giving light upon the earth,\nand for separating day and night; and, _for signs, and times, and days\nand years_! Thus early were the phenomena of the sun and moon appointed\nto indicate the arrangements of Divine providence, as well as to\nregulate the ordinary periods of time. Before man, however, could\nunderstand the nature of these periods as they were gradually unfolded\nby the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, or by the still higher cycles\nof prophecy which were afterwards revealed to God\u2019s chosen people, the\n_natural_ division of the day, and the _sacred_ division of the week\nwere appointed for his observance. The origin of the year is considered\nby the learned as involved in obscurity; but we think there is a\nstriking indication of its length in the life of Enoch. This favoured\nPatriarch lived a year of years on earth, that is, a year of 365\nprophetic days; and he himself was a prophet, who, by the Spirit of God,\nwas enabled to see far into the womb of futurity. It is also very\nremarkable that, according to Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s singular discoveries, the\nbirth of Him, who was the great subject of Enoch\u2019s prophecy, took place\nat a period of _fifteen_ years of years, or _fifteen_ years of prophetic\ndays from the creation! The origin of the month is referable to the same\nage; for we recognize the month of _thirty_ days in the account of the\nyear of the Deluge; and, a period of four prophetic months, or 120\nprophetic days, is visible in the 120 years of grace before that awful\ncatastrophe. The sacred period of _seven_ days also assumed a prophetic\ncharacter. In Pharaoh\u2019s dream, the _seven_ years of plenty, and the\n_seven_ years of famine, were vividly depicted. After _seven_ days\nprevious warning, the Diluvian rain descended in torrents for _forty_\ndays. After Jericho was encompassed _seven_ days, the last day _seven_\ntimes, by _seven_ priests with _seven_ trumpets, the walls were levelled\nwith the ground. The number _forty_ is prophetic; the Israelites\nwandered _forty_ prophetic days, that is, _forty_ years, in the\nwilderness; Moses was in the mount _forty_ days; and, Christ was tempted\n_forty_ days. In _forty_ days, Nineveh was to be destroyed; Christ was\nseen of his disciples _forty_ days after his resurrection; and, in\n_forty_ years, after his baptism, was Jerusalem destroyed. The number of\n_seven_ days and _seven_ years, with their multiples and higher powers,\nperpetually recur in the Mosaic institutes; and the period of _seven_\ntimes _seven_, or _forty-nine_ days and _forty-nine_ years, is\nparticularly signalized in the feasts of the Jews. Balaam, who knew the\nsacredness of the number _seven_, in the divine institutions, at _three_\ndifferent times and places, built _seven_ altars, and slew _seven_ oxen\nand _seven_ rams, in order to propitiate the favour of God. In the land\nof Canaan, _seven_ nations were destroyed in _seven_ years. Solomon\u2019s\ntemple was _seven_ years in building, and in 430 years after the\ncelebration of the first passover within its walls, it was destroyed.\nThe latter number, as we have seen, is highly prophetic, corresponding\nto the 430 prophetic days of Ezekiel, and having a mysterious reference\nto the 430 years of promise to Abraham, the 430 years of Gentile\npersecution, and the _three_ times 430 days, or 1,290 years of Daniel.\nBut time would fail us to speak of the _seven_ spirits of God, the\n_seven_ eyes, the _seven_ lamps, the _seven_ stars, the _seven_ golden\nlamp-stands, the _seven_ churches, the _seven_ angels, the _seven_\nseals, the _seven_ vials, the _seven_ plagues, the _seven_ heads, the\n_seven_ crowns, the _seven_ mountains, and the _seven_ kings; the\n_seven_ times, yea and the _seventy_ times _seven_\u2014the perfect numbers\nof omnipotence, glory and wisdom; and, of mystery, vengeance and\nforgiveness!\n\nWe have already seen the prophetic nature of Daniel\u2019s _seventy_ weeks,\nand it now only remains to notice his other prophetic periods. In Dan.\nxii. 14, mention is made of \u201ca time, times and half a time,\u201d which\nshould be accomplished, before the wonders he had seen should come to an\nend. This period is clearly shown by writers on the prophecies, to\nsignify _three and a-half_ prophetic years, _forty-two_ prophetic\nmonths, or 1260 prophetic days; and this view is confirmed by the\nmention of 1290 and 1335 prophetic days, in the context. Again, in Dan.\nviii. 14, we read of 2300 prophetic days, after the lapse of which, \u201cthe\nsanctuary shall be cleansed.\u201d That these periods are all connected with\neach other, and that they each signify so many years, has been long\nknown and generally admitted; but, that they are connected with the\nrevolutions of the heavenly bodies, appears to be but a very recent\ndiscovery! Mr. Birks, of Trinity College, Cambridge, in his \u201cElements of\nProphecy,\u201d just published, has very properly remarked, in p. 368, that,\n\u201cIt seems to have been first unfolded by M. de Chesaux, a French writer,\npurely as a curiosity of science; but it is Mr. Cuninghame who has\nrevived attention to this interesting topic.\u201d The fact is, that the\noriginal work of M. de Chesaux might have lain for ever on the shelves\nof the library of the University of Lausanne, had not Mr. Cuninghame\nsearched it out with his wonted industry, and republished the author\u2019s\ndiscovery anew in his work on the \u201cJubilean Chronology.\u201d We shall\nendeavour to give our readers some idea of this curious discovery.\n\n  2. Lengths of the tropical year and the synodical period of the moon,\n       according to Sir John Herschel\u2014Application of the method of\n       _continued fractions_ to the determination of their approximating\n       ratios\u2014Various lunisolar cycles\u2014The Octa\u00ebteris of the Greeks\u2014The\n       cycle of nineteen discovered by Meton, but probably known to the\n       Hebrews\u2014The period of Calippus\u2014Proof that the numbers of Daniel\n       are lunisolar cycles\u2014Remarks of Mr. Birks in his \u201cElements of\n       Prophecy\u201d\u2014Observations of Mr. Cuninghame in his \u201cScientific\n       Chronology\u201d\u2014Proof that the prophetic month and the jubilean\n       period are lunisolar cycles.\n\nThe latest determinations of the lengths of the tropical year, and the\nlunar month, or synodical period of the moon, are, according to Sir John\nHerschel, 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 49\u00b77 seconds; and 29 days, 12\nhours, 44 minutes, 2\u00b787 seconds. \u201cAstronomy,\u201d pp. 205, 224. By the\nmethod of _Continued Fractions_,[34] we find that the continually\napproximating ratios of these periods are represented by the following\nseries of fractions:\n\n Numbers,  (1)   (2)   (3)   (4)    (5)     (6)      (7)       (8)       (9)\n Ratios,  \u00b9\u2044\u2081\u2082, \u00b2\u2044\u2082\u2085, \u00b3\u2044\u2083\u2087, \u2078\u2044\u2089\u2089, \u00b9\u00b9\u2044\u2081\u2083\u2086, \u00b9\u2079\u2044\u2082\u2083\u2085, \u00b3\u00b3\u2074\u2044\u2084\u2081\u2083\u2081, \u00b3\u2075\u00b3\u2044\u2084\u2083\u2083\u2086, \u2076\u2078\u2077\u2044\u2088\u2084\u2089\u2087, &c.\n\nwhere the numerators represent the numbers of years, and the\ndenominators the numbers of lunations, necessary to bring the sun and\nmoon again into the same relative position, very nearly at the same\npoint of time in the tropical year. Of these ratios, some have been long\nknown; the _fourth_ is the Greek cycle called _Octa\u00ebteris_, discovered\nB.C. 600, and is a very rude approximation: the _sixth_ is the famous\ncycle re-discovered by _Meton_ B.C. 432, but probably known to the\nHebrews from the earliest ages, as the lives of Seth, Methuselah and\nNoah are exact multiples of this cycle, as well as the _Antediluvian\nage_ itself, and is a remarkably near approximation to the truth; _four\ntimes_ this ratio gives the period of _Calippus_, which was rectified by\nthe omission of _one_ day in _seventy-six_ years. These approximations,\nhowever, are much inferior in accuracy to the higher terms of the\nseries; from which, in fact, any number of approximate ratios may be\ndeduced by the following principle:\u2014If a series of fractions be all\nequal to each other, the sum or difference of the numerators and\ndenominators of any pair will constitute a new fraction equal to each;\nand the same is true of fractions whose numerators and denominators are\nequi-multiples of those of any of the given or derived fractions. Hence,\nfrom the terms of the preceding series, we derive the following\nadditional ratios, whose degree of approximation, of course, depends on\nthat of the fractions of which they are composed. From the _eighth_ and\n_ninth_ ratios, by addition, we obtain the ratio \u00b9\u2070\u2074\u2070\u2044\u2081\u2082\u2088\u2086\u2083, which is so\nremarkably correct, that the approximation is within about\n_three-quarters of an hour_ of the truth. From the _sixth_ and _seventh_\nratios, by subtraction, we obtain, the ratio \u00b3\u00b9\u2075\u2044\u2083\u2088\u2089\u2086 = \u00b9\u00b2\u2076\u2070\u2044\u2081\u2085\u2085\u2088\u2084,\nwhich shows that the prophetic period of 1260 years is a scientific\nlunisolar cycle. From the two new ratios thus obtained, by addition, we\nhave a third new ratio \u00b2\u00b3\u2070\u2070\u2044\u2082\u2088\u2084\u2084\u2087, which proves that the prophetic\nperiod of 2300 years is another scientific cycle, in which the\napproximation is nearly _twelve hours_.\n\nMr. Birks, in his \u201cElements of Prophecy,\u201d pp. 368\u2013372, distinctly\nacknowledges the \u201cCyclical character of the Prophetic Times,\u201d and gives\nthe numerators of the above series of ratios. He adds a very ingenious\nexplanation of these cycles, and remarks that, \u201cthe highest prophetic\nperiod, 2300 years, is perhaps the only _secular_ cycle, composed of\ncenturies, known to exist!\u201d The _secular_ cycle of 5200, though not, as\nfar as we are aware, a prophetic period, is \u201ccomposed of centuries;\u201d and\nbeing _five times_ the cycle of 1040 years, is so close an approximation\nto the truth, that it is within about 3\u00be hours, and is therefore\nconsiderably more accurate than the cycle of 2300 years! What then does\nMr. Birks mean in this passage? Perhaps the following sentence from Mr.\nCuninghame\u2019s \u201cScientific Chronology of the year 1839,\u201d will supply the\nanswer: \u201cMoreover, 2300 years is the only centurial number, which is an\noriginal cycle in astronomy; for though we have a cycle of 5200 years,\nit is only as the multiple of the perfect one of 1040 by 5.\u201d From the\n_fifth_ and _sixth_ ratios in the series, we obtain those of \u00b3\u2070\u2044\u2083\u2087\u2081 and\n\u2074\u2079\u2044\u2086\u2080\u2086, which shows that _thirty_ years, the prophetic month, and\n_forty-nine_ years, the jubilean period, are also scientific cycles, but\nnot possessing such close approximation to the truth as the larger\ncycles. In the same way, it may be easily proved, that the periods of\n1290 years and 1078 years are scientific cycles; the former being _three\ntimes_ the prophetic period of pilgrimage and trial, namely 430 years,\nwhich is also a cycle of an inferior degree of approximation; and the\nlatter being exactly _twenty-two_ jubilees.[35]\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n                    DISCOVERY OF NEW MUNDANE CYCLES.\n\n  1. Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of the mystical signification of the\n       Seventy years\u2019 Captivity\u2014Its connection with the Era of the\n       French Revolution\u2014Confirmed by the sentiments of the modern\n       Jews\u2014Prediction of Rabbi Joseph Crool\u2014Prediction in the Hebrew\n       Tract, \u201cExplanation of the Times,\u201d published in 1794\u2014The latter\n       prediction not fulfilled\u2014Hope concerning Israel.\n\n\nBesides developing the original views of M. de Chesaux, and applying\nthem in a very remarkable manner to the great epochs of the Septuagint\nchronology, Mr. Cuninghame has suggested and confirmed the important\ndiscovery, that the period of seventy years\u2019 captivity in Babylon \u201chas a\nmystical signification,\u201d as well as a literal one, \u201cand probably\nrepresents the whole period of the captivities and dispersions of Judah,\nuntil the final redemption of the nation.\u201d[36] He has more fully\ndeveloped his ideas on this subject, in his \u201cChronology of Israel,\u201d and\nin his \u201cFulness of the Times;\u201d in which he shows, that the mystical\ninterpretation is a period of _seventy_ jubilees, or 3430 years in\nSpiritual Babylon, at the expiration of which \u201cthe Redemption of Israel\ndraweth nigh.\u201d Reckoning this period to commence at the epoch of the\nfirst Redemption of Israel, the Exodus from Egypt, he finds that it\nterminates at the era of the French Revolution, A. D. 1792. This opinion\nis strongly confirmed by the sentiments of the modern Jews. Thus, in a\nbook entitled \u201c_The Restoration of Israel_,\u201d published in 1812, by Rabbi\nJoseph Crool, Teacher of Hebrew, in the University of Cambridge, the\nauthor says, p. 59, \u201cBy this calculation we may learn that the _Jubilee_\nof the Restoration of Israel has begun already these _twenty_ years\nback, that is, just when the Revolution began in France; at that very\ntime, the seventy jubilees were at an end.\u201d The following is still more\ncurious, p. 60:\u2014\u201cThere are yet _thirty-six_ years to the end of the\nJubilee of Israel, _and before the end of these thirty-six years, Israel\nwill be restored, and the Messiah will take possession of his empire_;\u201d\nthat is, in A. D. 1848! Mr. Cuninghame, in his \u201cChronology of Israel,\u201d\np. 69, refers to a Hebrew tract, published in 1794, entitled\n\u201cExplanation of the Times,\u201d in which the Advent of the Messiah is placed\nat the end of 112 jubilees from Creation, an epoch which, according to\nthe true chronology, was A.M. 5488, and corresponded exactly to the\n_fourteenth_ year of Christ, when, according to the law, he first\nappeared in his own person in the Temple, and was no longer a child. It\nis also worthy of remark, that, if this period be reckoned according to\nthe curtailed system of Jewish chronology,\u2014which is even shorter than\nthat of the modern Hebrew text, placing the birth of Christ in A. M.\n3760,\u2014the advent of their Messiah was expected in A. M. 5600, that is,\naccording to them, in A. D. 1840! The Jews, in this calculation,\nerroneously reckon the Jubilee at _fifty_ years instead of _forty-nine_;\nfor 50 multiplied by 112, gives the product 5600. The epoch being now\npast, which, according to the latter computation was to be the era of\ntheir Redemption, let us hope that they will no longer look for the\n_first advent_ of the Messiah, seeing that it has long since taken\nplace; but that, embracing the religion of the New Testament, which is\nvirtually the same as that of the Old, they will turn with their whole\nheart to seek \u201cthe angel of Jehovah\u2019s presence, who saved them;\u201d who,\n\u201cin his love and pity redeemed them;\u201d and, who \u201cbare them and carried\nthem all the days of old.\u201d\n\n  2. Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of seven streams of time, of seventy\n       jubilees each, in the true system of chronology\u2014This test wholly\n       inapplicable to any other system\u2014His discovery of five streams of\n       time of different jubilean periods\u2014Utility of his \u201cFulness of the\n       Times,\u201d where these discoveries are developed\u2014Notice of his more\n       recent works.\n\nMr. Cuninghame proves that the periods of all the great eras in the\nhistory of the Israelites and Jews, are measured by great jubilean and\nastronomical cycles. In his \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d he demonstrates\nthe existence of _seven_ streams of jubilean time from the era of the\nExodus and establishment in Canaan, each containing a period of\nseventy jubilees, in the true system of chronology; and that these\nseven streams are marked at their beginning and end, and at several\nintermediate points, by great eras in history. He shows also that all\nother schemes of chronology, particularly those of Usher, Hales, and\nthe Jewish Rabbis, cannot stand this test of accuracy and perfection,\nand consequently, none of them can be the true system. To these great\nstreams of jubilean time, he adds other five streams, consisting of\ndifferent periods of jubilees, which he has discovered in the true\nsystem, all marked, in like manner, by remarkable historical events.\nIn the course of his laborious investigations, in order to establish\nthese general streams of cyclical time, he touches on many interesting\nand disputed facts both in sacred and profane history, which renders\nthe work a complete storehouse of information on chronological\nquestions; while the Supplements, Prefaces, Dissertations, and\nAppendixes, to which we had such frequent occasion to refer, partake\nso much of the same general character, as to make it a work of\nuniversal reference. In the general preface to the second edition, the\nauthor announced some new discoveries in regard to the cyclical\ncharacter of the mundane times. These he has more fully developed and\napplied with the most extraordinary industry and ingenuity, in the\nfollowing recent works:\u2014\u201cThe Scientific Chronology of the year 1839;\u201d\n\u201cA Supplement to\u201d the preceding work, \u201ccomprising the Arithmetical\nSolution, and Chronological Application of the Number 666;\u201d \u201cThe\nSeason of the End;\u201d \u201cA Chart of Sacred Chronology,\u201d with an \u201cEssay to\naccompany\u201d it; \u201cA Dissertation on the Apocalypse,\u201d with \u201cA Supplement\nin two Parts:\u2014I. On the Scientific Chronology, as a Test of\nApocalyptical Interpretation;\u2014II. On the Scientific character of the\nGreat Numbers of Daniel;\u201d also \u201cA Discourse on the Scientific Measures\nof the Mundane Times, and the Reasons for the Greek Chronology;\u201d and,\n\u201cA Table of the Greek and Hebrew Chronologies from Creation to the end\nof the Jewish War,\u201d 4th Edition. We shall now endeavour to give a\nshort notice of these discoveries.\n\n  3. Various cycles which enter into the true system of chronology\u2014Mr.\n       Cuninghame\u2019s discovery of the _trinal fraction_\u2014Its explanation\n       and application by an Algebraic formula\u2014Original form in which it\n       was discovered\u2014Its superiority to the formul\u00e6 of the _figurate\n       numbers_\u2014Remarkable instance of its application to Scriptural and\n       other numbers, and to lunar and solar cyclical numbers\u2014Mr.\n       Cuninghame\u2019s definition of the trinal fraction the most\n       correct\u2014The series deduced from its formula possesses curious\n       properties.\n\nIt has been already shown that according to the will of Him, who (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) _constructed the ages_, the septenary cycle, with its\nmultiples and higher powers, and the lunisolar cycles, with their sums,\ndifferences and multiples, including the Metonic, the Jubilean, the\nProphetic and the Secular, enter into the structure of the true\nchronology. To these, Mr. Cuninghame adds the Duodenary cycle, and its\nmultiples and higher powers; the Undenary cycle, which is also\nLunisolar; the Quinary cycle, which is indicated no less than _four_\ntimes in the formation of man; and the _Trinal fraction_, which alone\nseems to require explanation. The author was led by circumstances\ndetailed in \u201cThe Scientific Chronology\u201d pp. 5\u20138, to give the name of\n\u201cTrinal fraction\u201d to the general term of a series of numbers of which\neach is composed of the root, its square, and unity, that is, in\nAlgebraic language, _n_^2 + _n_ + 1; an expression, in which _n_ may be\nzero, unity, or any whole number whatever, and giving, by the\nsubstitution of 0, 1, 2, 3, &c. as roots, the series itself, namely, 1,\n3, 7, 13, 21, 31, 43, 57, 73, &c. To the discovery of this series, as\n_new in mathematics_, of course, he makes no claim; because, a mere tyro\nin that science could write out a hundred such in as many minutes; see\n\u201cDissertation on the Apocalypse,\u201d fourth edition, pp. 522, 523; but, to\nthe discovery of its application to the cyclical character of the\nmundane times, he has a decided claim, and we think he has fully\nsubstantiated it by a reference to chronological facts.\n\nAs to the formula itself, its most general form is (_n_^3 + _n_^2 +\n_n_)/(_n_) as originally discovered by the author; and in this form it\nis manifestly more simple and general than any of the formul\u00e6 of the\n_figurate numbers_; for, if _n_ be taken equal to zero, in any of the\nlatter, the value of the vanishing fraction is always equal to _zero_;\nbut, in the former, it is equal to _unity_, the first term of the\nseries, and the basis of all numerical calculation. Let us take some\nother examples of its application: the _sacred_ number 3, is the trinal\nfraction of unity, and although it includes the higher powers of the\nroot, is only the sum of _three_ units, mysteriously indicating a\ntrinity in unity. The _sacred_ number 7, is the trinal fraction of 2,\nwhich is the basis of the binary system of numeration so natural to man.\nThe number 13, is the trinal fraction of 3, and is a lunisolar cycle of\nyears, the hebdomadal measure of the seasons of the year, and the actual\nnumber of the tribes of Israel. The number 21 is the trinal fraction of\n4, and the product of the sacred numbers 3 and 7, the trinal fractions\nof 1 and 2. The number 31, is the trinal fraction of 5, the basis of the\nQuinary scale so incorporated with the human frame, and is the measure\nof the life of the _first man_. The number 57, is the trinal fraction of\nthe sacred number 7, and three times the Metonic cycle of _nineteen_\nyears, being an element of the Mundane Times. Lastly, the number 73, is\nthe trinal fraction of 8, a lunisolar cycle of years, and gives, when\nmultiplied by 5, the number of days in the solar cycle.\n\nThe trinal fraction has been compared also with the formula _n_^2 \u2212 _n_\n+ 1, which is only a particular case of it, namely, where _n_ is\nnegative. It is true, that if in this formula, \u22121, \u22122, \u22123, &c., be taken\nfor values of _n_, it will still give the series of trinal fractions;\nbut it does not therefore follow that the two formul\u00e6 are the same; for,\nif in the latter, _n_ be taken equal to zero, it will give the same\nresult as when _n_ is taken equal to \u22121! The definition given by Mr.\nCuninghame, is therefore the most accurate, simple, and general, and one\nwhich can be easily comprehended without any reference to the formul\u00e6 of\nthe _Figurate Numbers_. Moreover, the author has shown in the works last\nreferred to, that the series of trinal fractions possess higher\nproperties of science, mathematically, astronomically, and\nchronologically, than the triangular numbers, from which it is pretended\nthat they have been derived. To some very curious properties and\napplications of the trinal fractions, the author has added a \u201cTable of\nthe Trinal Fractions from 1 to 85, showing the sums of the Roots and\nFractions at each Pentad,\u201d p. 519 of the \u201cDissertation;\u201d and he has\nshown how these numbers enter so extensively and so mysteriously into\nthe whole structure of the Mundane Times!\n\n  4. Application of the Theory of the Trinal Fraction to the discovery\n       of the meaning of the _Number of the Beast_ in the Revelation of\n       John\u2014Proof that the number 666 is the number of a Man\u2014Its\n       indication of _Spiritual_ and _Secular_ dominion\u2014Of Tyranny and\n       Persecution\u2014Recent efforts to raise the Beast again to power\u2014A\n       warning to Protestants.\n\nWe may just give another example of the application of this theory to\nthe discovery of the meaning of a very much disputed number both in\nchronology and history. If we look into Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s table, we find\nthat the number 111 is the trinal fraction of 10; and if it be\nmultiplied by the _mathematically perfect_ number 6, the number of\nblessing and cursing (Deut. xxvii. 12, 13) it will give the product 666,\nthe number of the Beast (Rev. xiii. 18). Now, we have seen that the\nnumber 10, or 5 + 5, is a number indicated in the formation of man; it\nis also the base of the Denary system of numeration employed by all\nmankind; it is plain, therefore, that the number of the Beast, to which\nwas also given \u201c_a mouth_ speaking great things and blasphemies,\u201d is\nthus discovered to be \u201c_the number of a man_;\u201d the _two fives_\nindicating _both hands_, with which this human beast grasped at both\n_spiritual_ and _secular_ dominion over the saints of God. But, we know\nthat when he attempted to use a _third_ and a _fourth_ five, by putting\nhis feet upon their necks, and trampling them under him, his wrath was\nmercifully restrained by a higher Power, and he lost _one five_, that\nis, _one hand_, even the _secular_ dominion! Nevertheless, we find that\n_now_ he is endeavouring to use _both hands_, and is making a mighty\neffort to recover strength in the \u201cwithered hand.\u201d He has, however, been\ncompelled to abandon the use of _the foot_, and to declare aloud to\nChristendom, not only that it is perfectly innocuous at present, but\nthat it shall never be used again! Let Protestants beware; if once he\nrecovers the use of the _lost hand_, he will be sure again to employ the\n_sleeping foot!_ The solution of the problem is due to the author, the\ncommentary upon it is ours. For an extensive and curious application of\nthis number in the true system of Chronology, see the \u201cSupplement to the\nScientific Chronology of 1839.\u201d[37]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n              DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY.\n\n  1. Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s application of the Lunisolar cycles and Septenary\n       periods to the settlement of chronological questions\u2014The\n       Septuagint proved to be the _exact truth_ by a complex harmony of\n       scientific time\u2014His \u201cSynopsis of Chronology\u201d recommended.\n\n\nIn his \u201cSynopsis of Chronology,\u201d Mr. Cuninghame very fully developes the\nnature of the Lunisolar Cycles and Septenary Periods, settles several\nimportant chronological questions by means of this touchstone of\naccuracy, and gives a great many remarkable series of historical events,\nwhose intervals are all measured by complete cycles from the era of\nCreation, from the births and deaths of the Ante and Postdiluvian\nPatriarchs, and from the Exodus and occurrences in the life of David the\nKing. In this manner, he shows that the Septuagint chronology \u201cis proved\nto be the exact truth by such a complex harmony of scientific time, or\nin other words, of great astronomical periods, which do, as the web and\nthe woof, intersect and intertwine each other with multiplied and\nvariegated harmony of arrangement, knitting together all the great eras\nof the world, and the most ancient antediluvian periods with the events\nof our times, as to make it manifest that it is the workmanship, not of\na finite mind, but of Him who set forth the sun and moon in their\ncourses;\u201d[38] see page 25. The author next recapitulates the series of\ngreat periods to the birth and death of Christ, shows the use of the\nscientific chronology in refuting false dates, &c.; and gives\nastronomical evidence of the near approximation of the larger lunisolar\ncycles to the exact truth. He then terminates this work with a series of\nthe most valuable tables of chronology from Creation to A. D. 1837,\nincluding a curious table of the great periods which expire in that\nyear.\n\n  2. Evidence in favour of the Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies\n       compared and tested by Mr. Cuninghame\u2014His detection of the Scheme\n       of Fraud invented by the Jewish Rabbis for shortening the\n       chronology of the Scriptures\u2014His exposition of this Scheme in\n       _three distinct Acts_, and the result of the whole.\n\nIn his work, entitled \u201cThe Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies Tried,\u201d he\nvery carefully sifts the evidence in favour of both systems, by a minute\nanalysis of the Jubilean series from the Greek era of Creation B. C.\n5478, and from the Hebrew era, B. C. 4004, and demonstrates, by a\ncomparative estimate of both series, that the former must be the true\nchronology; he then applies the test of the lunisolar cycles to the same\nera in both systems, and to other eras of marked importance,\nillustrating the whole in a tabular form; establishes the accuracy of\nthe Greek series in the most irrefragable manner; and, finally, detects\nthe scheme adopted by the Jewish Rabbis in shortening the chronology of\nthe Scriptures, showing that, though it be one of deep and artful\ncontrivance, it will not stand the test of scientific investigation. The\nfollowing is their scheme of fraud which the author has detected, and\nwhich they have employed for this nefarious purpose. The _first_ act of\nthe Rabbis in corrupting the chronology, was to determine the total sum\nof years to be annihilated. The _second_ act was to divide it among the\ngreat subdivisions of the Mundane Times. The _third_ act was to\ndistribute it among the reigns and administrations so as most\neffectually to conceal the fraud. They _first_ determined to place the\nMundane era at the birth of Lamech B. C. 4005. This comes out at the 1st\nof Nisan, of his first year B. C. 4004. Thus they annihilated 1474\nyears. Their _second_ act was to divide this sum of 1474 years, by\nabstracting periods equal to the following from the great subdivisions\nof the Mundane ages:\u2014\n\nI. Before the Deluge; 1st, A period equal to that from Noah\u2019s birth B.\nC. 3817, to the flood B. C. 3217, namely 600 years: 2nd, From the death\nof Methusaleh to the Deluge, six years; making the total curtailed from\nthe Creation to the Flood, 606 years.\n\nII. From the Flood to Abraham; a period equal to the interval from the\ndeath of Noah B. C. 2867, to the year before the birth of Abraham B. C.\n2146, (\u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p. 138), 721 years.\n\nIII. From the Exodus to the foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple; a period\nequal to the interval from the Exodus B. C. 1639, to the administration\nof Ehud B. C. 1506, 133 years.\n\nIV. From the foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple to the Captivity; a period\nequal to the interval from the Captivity of Jehoiachin B. C. 598, to the\ncarrying away the last remnant of the people B. C. 584, (Jer. lii. 30;\n\u201cDissertation on the Apocalypse,\u201d p. 504,) 14 years.\n\nThe total sum of all the years thus abstracted in these four periods is\n1474; for in the\n\n                       1st Period are  606 years.\n                       2nd     \u201e       721   \u201e\n                       3rd     \u201e       133   \u201e\n                       4th     \u201e        14   \u201e\n                                      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                           Total sum  1474   \u201e\n\nand the effect is, as above stated, to make the era of Creation, B. C.\n(5478\u20131474) = B. C. 4004.[39]\n\n  3. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cSeptuagint and Hebrew\n       Chronologies Tried\u201d\u2014His description and Table of the Great\n       Periods of 1838\u2014His table of both Chronologies\u2014His appeal to the\n       disciples of Usher\u2014His view of their chronological difficulties\n       and paradoxes\u2014His call to them to produce their evidence in\n       favour of their system.\n\nThis work concludes with a description and Table of the Great Periods\nwhich terminate in and mark the year 1838, as the point of time which\nsums up and concentrates, as in a focus, the chronology of past ages.\nThese he divides into four great classes, viz., Mundane, Patriarchal,\nMosaic, and Intermediate Eras, illustrating the whole with tables and\narguments, and ending with \u201cA Comparative Table of the Septuagint and\nHebrew Chronologies from the Creation to the accession of Uzziah, B. C.\n810, showing their Jubilean difference to the Christian era at each\ndate.\u201d The inconceivable labour which the author has undergone to find\nout the true system of chronology, and his triumphant success in\nestablishing it on the double evidence of Scripture testimony and\nMathematical and Astronomical Science, entitle him to make the following\ndecided appeal to the disciples of Usher, \u201cSeptuagint and Hebrew\nChronologies Tried,\u201d pp. 88, 89.\n\n\u201cThey, it seems, possess the true chronology! incumbered indeed with a\nfew awkward difficulties and paradoxes; as that the people, whose sins\nSt. Paul declares to have been filled up, who had crucified the Messiah,\nand were the persecutors of his Church, and are the chronological\nforgers who have corrupted the times of Daniel\u2019s prophecy of the seventy\nweeks, telling us in their almanacs, as I see from that of their year of\nthe world 5598, answering to 1837\u20138, now open before me, that from the\ndestruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar, to that of the second\nby the Romans, were only 490 years, the true chronology being 657 years,\nare yet more worthy of credit than the apostles of the Lord, and the\nfirst churches, and the text of St. Luke!\u2014As that Abraham was born only\ntwo years after the death of Noah, and was the contemporary of Shem,\nArphaxed, Salah, Eber, the last of whom actually survived him; and thus\nthat there were different and discordant economies of the world\nco-existent and co-etaneous!\u2014As that, it is better to twist, and\ncrucify, and reject the chronological testimony of the whole book of\nJudges, than expressly to admit that the immaculate Rabbis have\ninterpolated in a single text, 1 Kings vi. 1., a single false\nnumber!\u2014Yet, notwithstanding these few and awkward difficulties,\u2014we\nrepeat it\u2014the disciples of Usher can have no difficulty, seeing they\npossess _the truth!_ in producing from their _hidden treasures_, greater\nand more stupendous concentrations of the true chronology, at some given\npoint of time, than has now been evolved from the Septuagint!\u201d\n\n  4. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s later works\u2014Summary of the\n       remarkable and original subjects of which they treat\u2014His remarks\n       on the Theories of modern Geologists recommended\u2014Their large\n       demands upon time not warranted by the simplicity of the Mosaic\n       narrative\u2014The authority and authenticity of the Inspired Record\n       endangered by their speculations\u2014Another mode of solving\n       Geological difficulties recommended\u2014A boon of 1500 years\n       additional granted to Geologists\u2014Recommendation of Mr. Morison\u2019s\n       \u201cReligious History of Man\u201d\u2014Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s discoveries\n       concentrated in his \u201cChart of Chronology\u201d and \u201cEssay,\u201d and in the\n       Appendices to the fourth edition of his \u201cDissertation on the\n       Apocalypse.\u201d\n\nThe views developed by Mr. Cuninghame, in the preceding work, are still\nmore fully exemplified and applied in his later works. In these, he\ngives, 1st, A Table, accompanied with numerous cyclical demonstrations,\nof the great periods which expire in 1839; a further elucidation of the\nfour great classes of Eras, the Mundane, the Patriarchal, the\nEcclesiastical, and the Prophetical; and remarks on the great periods\nwhich expire in 1840 and 1841. 2nd.\u2014Tables of the whole Eras from\nCreation to the last year of Christ\u2019s personal ministry, and of years\nsubsequent to that event, from which simple Trinal Fractions being\nreckoned, terminate in 1839. 3rd.\u2014Table of the Great Periods which\nexpire in 1840, with remarks and illustrations; Division of the Mundane\nperiod from Creation to 1840, into eleven subordinate periods or ages,\nmarked by perfect cycles of scientific time; the arrival of the time of\nthe End, and of the Restoration of Israel.[40] To the latter work, he\nprefixes some pertinent and pungent remarks on the modern Theories of\nGeology as opposed to the Scriptures, in which we entirely coincide;\nand, though our space will not permit us to enter into any discussion,\nwe cannot avoid remarking, that the principle of interposing, between\nthe first and second verses of Genesis, chap. i.\u2014\u201c_millions of\nages_\u201d\u2014\u201c_unlimited drafts upon antiquity_\u201d\u2014\u201c_an unutterable\nperiod_\u201d\u2014\u201c_unnumbered ages_,\u201d &c.,\u2014is wholly unwarranted by the truth\nand simplicity of the Mosaic narrative, and extremely dangerous to the\nauthority and authenticity of the Inspired Record. Instead of demanding\n\u201cmillions of ages,\u201d therefore, we would seriously advise\nGeologists\u2014Christian Geologists, at least,\u2014to be content with the\nextraordinary rapidity of chemical operations and electrical\ndevelopements, within a very limited period of time, and to endeavour to\nexplain their Geological phenomena in a manner more in accordance with\nthe known chronology of the world, to the common estimate of which _must\nnow be added_ nearly 1500 years on the authority of Scripture! But on\nthis subject we must refer to the author\u2019s work, \u201cSeason of the End,\u201d\npp. viii-xiii., and to Morison\u2019s \u201cReligious History of Man,\u201d ch. ii. pp.\n25\u201346. In fine, we observe, that the results of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s labours\nand discoveries are concentrated in the \u201cChart of Chronology\u201d and\n\u201cEssay,\u201d and in the fourth edition of the \u201cDissertation on the\nApocalypse.\u201d\n\nNOTE A.\n\n\n  The number and variety of the author\u2019s proofs of this general\n  proposition are so great, that we can scarcely dip into a page of his\n  chronological works without meeting them; the following are some of\n  the most remarkable instances.\n\n  _From Creation_ B. C. 5478,\u2014to the birth of Enoch B. C. 4357, are 1121\n  years, _a number_ which is 59 times the cycle of 19 years,\u2014to the\n  Deluge B. C. 3217, are 2261 years, which is 119 times or 17 weeks of\n  the cycle of 19,\u2014to Noah\u2019s Egression from the Ark B. C. 3216, are 2262\n  years, which is a Lunar cycle, the moon fast 15 hours,\u2014to the birth of\n  Arphaxad B. C. 3215, are 2263 years, which is the product of the\n  Trinal Fractions 31 and 73,\u2014and _from the death of Adam_ B. C. 4548,\n  to the birth of Arphaxad, are 1333 years, which is the trinal fraction\n  of 36, and the product of the trinal fractions 31 and 43.\n\n  _To the Dedication of Solomon\u2019s Temple_ B. C. 1019,\u2014from Creation, are\n  4459 years, which is 91 Jubilees or 13 cubes of 7, or the product of\n  the cube of the trinal fraction of 2 by the trinal fraction of 3;\n  otherwise, it is 13 weeks of the Jubilee, 91 and 13 being both trinal\n  fractions, as well as 343 the week of the Jubilee,\u2014from the birth of\n  Arphaxad, are 2196 years, which is 12 times the trinal fraction\n  183,\u2014from the birth of Abraham B. C. 2145, are 1126 years, which is\n  the sum of the trinal fractions 993 and 133,\u2014from the birth of Isaac\n  B. C. 2045, are 1026 years, which is 54 times the cycle of 19,\u2014from\n  the birth of Ishmael B. C. 2059, are 1040 years, which is a perfect\n  Lunar cycle,\u2014and from the Exodus B. C. 1639, are 620 years, which is\n  20 times the trinal fraction 31.\n\n  _From Creation_,\u2014to the foundation of Rome B. C. 753, are 4725 years,\n  which is 15 times the Lunar cycle of 315 years,\u2014to the taking of\n  Babylon by Cyrus B. C. 538, are 4940 years, which is 260 times the\n  cycle of 19,\u2014to the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey B. C. 63, are 5415\n  years, which is 15 times the square of the cycle of 19,\u2014to the death\n  of Christ A. D. 33, are 5510 years, which is 290 times the cycle of\n  19,\u2014and from the Deluge to the death of Christ, are 3249 years, which\n  is 9 times the square of the cycle of 19, or the product of the\n  squares of 3 and 19.\n\n  _From the death of Noah_ B. C. 2867, to that of Shem B. C. 2715, are\n  152 years, which is 8 times the cycle of 19; thence, to that of\n  Arphaxad B. C. 2677, 38 years, which is 2 times the cycle of 19; and\n  thence, to that of Cainan II. B. C. 2620, 57 years, which is 3 times\n  the cycle of 19,\u2014to the birth of Abraham, are 722 years, which is 2\n  times the square of the cycle 19,\u2014to the death of Joseph B. C. 1784,\n  are 1083 years, which is 3 times the square of the cycle of 19,\u2014to the\n  birth of David B. C. 1100, are 1767 years, which is 93 cycles of\n  19,\u2014and to the French Revolution of A. D. 1789, are 4655 years, which\n  is 245 cycles of 19, or 95 Jubilees. From the flood to the death of\n  Salah B. C. 2517, are 700 years; and from the death of Noah to the\n  same, are 350 years.\n\n  From the birth of Judah B. C. 1903, to the attempt to establish a\n  Christian church at Jerusalem A. D. 1842, are exactly 3744 years,\n  which is two times the square of 12, added to 3 times the cube of 12.\n  From the capture of Jerusalem by David B. C. 1063, to A. D. 1842, are\n  exactly 2904 years, or 2 times the square of 11, added to 2 times the\n  cube of 11. Hence, from the birth of Judah to the capture of\n  Jerusalem, are 840 years, which is the product of 70 and 12, or of 7\n  and 120. From the Exodus B. C. 1639, to the capture of Jerusalem, are\n  576 years, which is 4 times the square of 12, and to A. D. 1842, are\n  3480 years, which is 2 times 12 added to 2 times the cube of 12; and\n  from the entrance of Israel into Canaan B. C. 1599, to A. D. 1842, are\n  3440 years, which is 8 times 430, (see Exodus xii. 40.)\n\n\n                                NOTE B.\n\n\n  It is utterly impossible to give our readers any correct idea of the\n  extraordinary labour which the author must have had in the\n  construction of these Tables, or of the astonishing coincidences which\n  he has discovered in the cyclical periods of time which connect remote\n  events in the history of the world with those which are passing under\n  our own eyes in these latter days; we must positively refer our\n  readers to the works themselves, particularly the \u201cSeason of the End.\u201d\n  We shall take however one event from this work, as an example of the\n  rest, namely, the \u201cAccession of Victoria,\u201d A. D. 1837, and show how he\n  connects it with past history in the true system of Chronology. From\n  the birth of Seth, B. C. 5249, are 7085 years, which is the sum of the\n  trinal fractions 6973, 91, and 21; the corresponding epochs being a\n  Grand conjunction of the Planets in A. D. 1725, the first year of\n  General Peace in A. D. 1816, and the Accession; or, the sum of the\n  trinal fractions 6963, 91, and 31, the corresponding epochs being the\n  Rebellion of A. D. 1715, the fall of Prussia in A. D. 1806, and the\n  Accession.\n\n  From the birth of Enos B. C. 5044, are 6880 years, which is the sum of\n  the trinal fractions 6807 and 73. From the death of Seth B. C. 4337,\n  are 6173 years, which is the sum of 5932, or 4 times the fraction\n  1483, and the fraction 241; the corresponding epochs, being the Divine\n  defeat of the Spanish Armada in A. D. 1596, and the Accession. From\n  the birth of Methuselah B. C. 4192, are 6028 years, which is the sum\n  of the fractions 6007 and 21, the corresponding epochs being the\n  General Peace in A. D. 1816, and the Accession. From the birth of\n  Japhet B. C. 3317, are 5153 years, which is the sum of 4820, or 20\n  times the fraction 241, and 333, or 3 times the fraction 111. From the\n  Egression of Noah from the Ark B. C. 3216, are 5052 years, which is\n  the sum of 4995, or 45 times the fraction 111, and the fraction 57 or\n  3 times the cycle of 19.\n\n  From the death of Eber B. C. 2416, are 4252 years, which is the sum of\n  the fractions 4161 and 91, the corresponding epochs being the defeat\n  of the Pretender at Culloden in A. D. 1746, and the Accession. From\n  the Call of Abraham B. C. 2070, are 3906 years, which is the sum of\n  3885 or 35 times the fraction 111 and the fraction 21, the\n  corresponding epochs being the General Peace in A. D. 1816, and the\n  Accession. From the beginning of the 3rd servitude of Israel B. C.\n  1426, are 3262 years, which is the sum of 3219, or 29 times the\n  fraction 111, and the fraction 43, the corresponding epochs being the\n  fall of Robespierre A. D. 1794, and the Accession. From the captivity\n  in Babylon B. C. 606, are 2442 years, which is 22 times the fraction\n  111, and terminates at the epoch of the Accession. From the birth of\n  Christ B. C. 3, are 1839 years, which is the sum of 1776, or 16 times\n  the fraction 111, and 63, or 3 times the fraction 21, the\n  corresponding epochs being the Accession of Louis XVI. in 1774, and\n  the Accession of Victoria I. But we must stop here, having cited only\n  12 instances out of 30 given by the author, in which the latter event\n  is shown to be linked to great events in the former history of the\n  world by curious and remarkable cycles of time.\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n\n                              DISSERTATION\n\n                                   ON\n\n                       THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n\n\n\n                               =Part II.=\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n             THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.\n\n  Primeval prophecy concerning the Messiah\u2014Errors in the translation of\n      it, in different versions\u2014Correct in the Septuagint\u2014Tradition of\n      this prophecy in the Ante and Post Diluvian ages\u2014Its clearer\n      development in the Patriarchal Age\u2014Dr. Lamb\u2019s explanation of the\n      word _Shiloh_\u2014Prophecy of Balaam in the Critarchal Age\u2014Predictions\n      of Moses and Hannah\u2014The glorious revelations of the Monarchal\n      Age\u2014The testimony of the Psalms to the Messiah\u2014Explanation of the\n      last words of David from Kennicott\u2014Application of the term _Sun_\n      to Jehovah\u2014Testimony of the Prophecies to the Messiah\u2014Isaiah, the\n      Evangelical Prophet\u2014The predictions at the close of the Monarchal\n      and the commencement of the Hierarchal Age\u2014Testimony among the\n      Heathen.\n\n\nIn the Introduction to the first part of this Dissertation, we very\nshortly alluded to the tradition and prophecies concerning the first\nAdvent of the Messiah, which were prevalent in the world before the era\nof Christianity. That, in consequence of the prophecies, traces of such\na tradition, from a very remote period, should be found among all\nnations, will not be deemed improbable by those who attentively read and\nsincerely believe the records of Inspiration. There indeed, we find that\nthe first sweet note of Jubilee which sounded in the ears of Fallen Man,\nwas the distant promise of Redemption by the hands of a Mediator,\nannounced in the Divine prediction of the punishment to be inflicted on\nthe Author of Sin by the Seed of the woman:\u2014\u201cHE shall bruise thy _Head_,\nand thou shalt bruise his _Heel_;\u201d Gen. iii. 15. The meaning of this\nvery remarkable passage is greatly obscured in our vulgar translation by\nthe use of the neuter pronoun _It_ (Ipsum), instead of the masculine\n_He_ (Ipse), which clearly refers to the _Seed_ of the woman, who is\n_Christ_. The Seventy Interpreters have correctly employed the masculine\npronoun _He_ (\u1f04\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) in the Greek Version; while, in the Latin Vulgate,\nthe feminine pronoun _She_ (Ipsa) has very absurdly been inserted, as if\nthe prediction referred to the _Woman_ herself and not to her Seed! Some\nhave attributed this error to Josephus; but we do not think it is at all\nborne out by the passage referred to in his Antiquities, although it is\nquite evident that he was utterly ignorant of the true meaning of the\nprophecy.[41] To us, it appears to savour more of a Rabbinical or Roman\nCatholic gloss; be this, however, as it may, it is evident that had the\ntranslators or editors of the Latin version remembered that \u201cthe\ntestimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,\u201d they would not have\ncommitted such an egregious mistake.\n\nWith the reign of sin, began the reign of mercy. Thus early was it\ndeclared that the Messiah should come to destroy the _works_ of the\nDevil; and thus early was it announced that the Christ should _suffer_\nand enter into his glory! All the attempts of the Wicked One for ages\nhave never been able to obliterate this first and glorious prophecy of\nGod from the remembrance of the human mind. Onward it has passed from\nfather to son, and from patriarch to patriarch, gathering fresh vigour\nand clearness in its descent; brightly did it beam, even in the\nAntediluvian age, through the righteous preaching of Enoch and of Noah;\nand having survived the deluge, anew did it shine forth in the\nPostdiluvian age, in the glorious anticipations of the ancient Idumean\nprince, and in the Divine revelations vouchsafed to the great Father of\nthe Jewish nation. \u201cI know,\u201d said Job (xix. 25), \u201cthat my Redeemer\nliveth, and that he shall stand at the _latter day_ upon the earth.\u201d\nAgain, \u201cto Abraham and his seed were the promises made;\u201d for, God said\nnot \u201c_And to seeds_, as of many; but as of one, _And to thy seed_, which\nis Christ.\u201d See Genesis xiii. 15; xv. 18; xviii. 7; xxii. 18; and\nGalatians iii. 16.\n\nThe divine predictions concerning the person and work of the Messiah\nwere more clearly developed in the Patriarchal age. To Isaac and to\nJacob, they were at first announced in terms very similar to those in\nwhich they were conveyed to Abraham; Genesis xxvi. 3; xxviii. 13; and\nxxxv. 10. But to Israel, was it given, to declare to the Twelve\nPatriarchs, while uttering his dying benediction, the celebrated\nprophecy concerning _Shiloh_, which was fully verified in the Advent of\nour Saviour, whatever may be deemed the true interpretation of the name;\nGenesis xlix. 10. Although we cannot agree with Dr. Lamb, in his theory\nof the existence of a Hieroglyphic language previous to a Phonetic one,\nwe think that he has struck out the real meaning of this term _Shiloh_,\nwhen he says, \u201cThe word is literally \u200f\u05e9\u200e, \u2018who\u2019 or \u2018who is\u2019\n\u200f\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u200e(Jelovah), the very same word as \u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e \u2018Jehovah,\u2019 with the\noriginal \u200f\u05dc\u200e restored. Thus Jacob points out the Messiah by a title\nwhich could be applied to no other individual, and declared the Divinity\nof our Saviour about seventeen hundred [1838] years before his birth.\nThe three words, (omitting \u200f\u05d9\u05e1\u200e which implies an attribute of omniscience)\n\n                  \u200f\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u200e Alovah, The Creator,\n                  \u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e Jehovah, The God of Israel,\n                  \u200f\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u200e Jelovah, The Promised Messiah,\n\nare one and the same. We need no farther comment upon the 58th verse of\nthe 8th chapter of St. John: \u1f08\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f08\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9. \u201cVerily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I\nam.\u201d See his work entitled \u201cHebrew Characters derived from\nHieroglyphics,\u201d p. 86.\n\nDuring the Critarchal Age, the predictions concerning Christ were less\nnumerous; but it commenced with the brilliant prophecy of the Star which\nwas to come out of Jacob, and terminated with the first announcement in\nScripture of the name of the Messiah. To Balaam it was permitted to\nforesee in splendid vision, the glory of Israel in the latter days, and\nthe rise of a Sceptre or King who should possess universal dominion; see\nNumbers xxiv. 17. Dr. Gill, in his comment on this passage, seems to\nthink that the Star which the Eastern Magi saw at the birth of Christ,\nis here clearly foretold, and that the Jews themselves were at that\nperiod in expectation of such a phenomenon. That this universal King was\nto be a Jew, is manifestly the opinion held by the Seventy Interpreters;\nfor in their version, the prophecy is thus rendered, \u201cA star shall arise\nout of Jacob, and _a man_ shall be raised up, or shall raise himself up,\nout of Israel.\u201d How strongly does this passage remind us of our\nSaviour\u2019s own words, when speaking of his Mission, he said, \u201cI have\npower to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again;\u201d John\nx. 18. Moses, who had so often spoken to the children of Israel\nconcerning Jehovah their God, and the \u201cAngel of his presence,\u201d was at\nlast commissioned to predict the Advent of Christ in the following\nwords: \u201cI will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like\nunto thee, and will put my words in his mouth;\u201d Deuter. xviii. 15. To\nthis prophecy is added an awful sanction, to which our Saviour plainly\nalluded when speaking of the unbeliever he said, \u201cthe word that I have\nspoken, the same shall judge him in the last day;\u201d John xii. 48. But to\nthe mother of Samuel, the prophet, was it first given to announce in\nholy prayer and song, the name of the Messiah, the anointed of the Lord;\nfor she said \u201cJehovah shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall\ngive strength unto our king, and exalt the horn of his _Messiah_;\u201d 1\nSamuel ii. 10.\n\nThe clearest revelations of this divine personage, however, were\nreserved for the glory of the Monarchal Age, the acme of the Levitical\ndispensation, which all along prefigured the good things to come. In the\nPsalms written by David the king, \u201cthe sweet Psalmist of Israel,\u201d we\nfind the brightest anticipations of the happiness and universality of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom, accompanied with the most distinct intimations of his\nestate of humiliation and exaltation. We refer particularly to the 2nd\nPsalm, which speaks of him by name as the Messiah; the 8th, of his\nassumption of our nature; the 16th, of his resurrection and ascension;\nthe 22nd, of his words and his feelings on the cross; the 24th and 68th,\nof his reception and glory in heaven; the 40th, of the union of his\ndivine and human nature; the 45th and 72nd, of the eternity and glory of\nhis reign; the 91st of his temptation; the 97th of his adoration by the\nangels; the 102nd and 110th, of his divinity, perpetual priesthood, and\neternal duration; the 118th, of his rejection by the Jews; the 132nd, of\nhis name and office as the Messiah; and, the 146th, of his final and\neverlasting dominion. Moreover, in the last words of David, as\nelucidated by the critical industry and acumen of Dr. Kennicott, we have\na remarkable prophecy of the coming of Christ, couched in one of the\nmost splendid and pleasing figures which can be drawn from the phenomena\nof the natural world: \u201cAnd as the light of the morning, shall arise\n_Jehovah_ the Sun, a morning without clouds, with the glittering of the\ndew on the tender herb of the earth;\u201d 2 Samuel xxiii. 4. In this passage\nof the printed Hebrew text the word _Jehovah_ has been omitted; but the\ncorresponding words \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2 have been preserved in the\nSeptuagint; and Dr. Kennicott found the word \u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e Jehovah, which is\nwanting in the printed text, in one of the oldest Hebrew MSS. in the\nBodleian library, marked by him No. 2; see his \u201cDissertation\u201d entitled\n\u201cThe Printed State of the Hebrew Text, &c.\u201d vol. i. pp. 468\u2013471. As \u200f\u05e9\u200e\n_Shin_ or _Sin_, in the Hieroglyphics of Dr. Lamb, signifies the _Sun_,\nbeing the first and last letter of the Hebrew word \u200f\u05e9\u05de\u05e9\u200e, _Shemesh_, the\nSun, it is possible that even the term \u200f\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e _Shiloh_, which he has so\ningeniously explained, may have originally signified the _Sun Jelovah_:\nand hence, the origin and propriety of some of the figurative and\nprophetical expressions to be found in the Psalms and the Prophets.\nThus, in Psalm lxxxiv. 11, \u201cThe Lord God is a _Sun_ and shield:\u201d in\nIsaiah xix. 18, \u201cOne shall be called the City of the _Sun_;\u201d xxx. 26:\n\u201cthe light of the _Sun_ shall be sevenfold, as the light of _seven_\ndays, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people;\u201d lx.\n20: \u201cthy _Sun_ shall go no more down, neither shall thy moon withdraw\nitself, for the Lord shall be thine everlasting _light_;\u201d and, in\nMalachi iv. 2, \u201cBut unto you that fear my name, shall the _Sun_ of\nrighteousness arise with healing in his wings.\u201d\n\nAlmost all the predictions concerning Christ to be found in the writings\nof the prophets, were delivered to the Jews during the Monarchal age;\nand so clearly and distinctly have some of the prophecies, particularly\nthose of Isaiah, pointed out his generation, his person, his office, his\ncharacter and his sufferings, that rather than yield to conviction,\ninfidels have even dared to assert that the descriptions which they\ncontain were written _after_ the events took place! This Evangelical\nprophet first unfolded the true meaning of the primeval prophecy, by\nannouncing, in the 7th chapter, that he should be born of a Virgin, and\nthat his name should be called _Immanuel_, or _God with us_; by\nascribing to him, in the 9th, the names and attributes of Deity; by\ndeclaring, in the 11th, his descent from David according to the flesh;\nby describing in the 11th, 32nd, and 61st, his offices as a prophet,\npriest and king; by foretelling, in the 40th, the words and the office\nof his Forerunner, John the Baptist; in the 11th, and 49th, the calling\nof the Gentiles to his kingdom; and, in the 49th, 60th, and 65th, their\nwillingness to receive him as the Messiah; in the 52nd, and 53rd, his\nexternal appearance and circumstances; in the 6th, 8th, and 28th, his\nunbelieving reception and final rejection by the Jews; in the 53rd, the\ngracious design of his sufferings, and the striking manner of his trial,\ndeath and burial: and by declaring in the 35th, 40th, and 55th, his\nglory as the Almighty conqueror, the compassionate Saviour, and the\nrighteous Judge of all; in the 9th, his heirship to the throne of\n_David_, as the _beloved_ king of all the true Israel of God; and in the\n35th, 62nd, and 65th, his glorious reign in the new Jerusalem above, in\nthe heavenly and eternal Zion, as the King of kings and Lord of Lords,\nthe Omnipotent Creator, the everlasting Ruler, and the immortal\nPreserver of Angels and of Men.\n\nTowards the close of the Monarchal age, during the Babylonish captivity,\nand near the beginning of the Hierarchal age, many splendid predictions\nof the Messiah, were vouchsafed to the Prophets, for the comfort of\nthose who mourned in Zion for the abominations of the land and the sins\nof Judah, and for the solace of those who piously submitted to the\nrighteous judgments of God. Thus, in the 23rd chapter of Jeremiah, we\nhave a prophecy of the future elevation of a king of the house of David,\nwhose name should be called _The Lord our Righteousness_; and in the\n33rd, of the _perpetual humanity_ of the final heir to David\u2019s throne;\nin the 34th and 37th, of Ezekiel, of the _ultimate accession_ of the\nAntitype _David_ as the Shepherd and Prince of his people; in the 7th of\nDaniel, of the everlasting dominion of the _Son of Man_ over all the\nkingdoms of the world, given to him by the _Ancient of Days_; in the 8th\nand 12th, of the _opposition_ to the kingdom of the Prince of Princes,\nand of the _Time of the End_ disclosed by the _Wonderful Numberer_; in\nthe 9th, 10th, and 12th, of the coming of the _Messiah_ the Prince, and\nof the Defence of his people by _Michael_ the great and sole Archangel;\nin the 2nd of Haggai, of the Advent of the _Desire_ of all nations, and\nthe _Glory_ of the Second Temple; in the 3rd and 6th of Zechariah, of\nthe springing up, in due time, of the righteous servant of Jehovah,\ndenominated _The Branch_; in the 13th, of the mystery of the\n_Incarnation_, and the circumstances attending the _Crucifixion_; and,\nin the 3rd and 4th of Malachi, of the Mission of John the Baptist, and\nthe unexpected appearance of the \u201cAngel of the Covenant\u201d in the Temple\nat Jerusalem.\n\nIn the midst of all these glorious predictions from the fall of Adam to\nthe close of the Old Testament Canon, comprising a period of more than\n5000 years,[42] we cannot suppose that the Heathen were left utterly\nignorant of their existence and their meaning; or, that the people of\nGod did not, in some way or other, make known to the nations by whom\nthey were surrounded, the glory of his grace and the manifestations of\nhis eternal power and Godhead. It is certain, indeed, that Jehovah never\nleft himself without a witness to his truth, his mercy and his goodness,\nin any age of the world; and we shall now proceed shortly to enquire by\nwhat means this testimony was begun and carried on among mankind, by the\nperpetual exhibition of the natural and supernatural phenomena, which\naccompanied the revelations of his will to his chosen people in all\nages.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n   TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO THE SUBJECT OF PROPHECY.\n\n  1. Object of the Disposition of the Cherubim at Eden\u2014Its disappearance\n       from the earth\u2014The remembrance of its glory transmitted to the\n       Postdiluvians\u2014Its occasional re-appearance to Abraham, to Moses,\n       to Israel, to Elijah, and to Isaiah\u2014Identity of the visions of\n       Isaiah, Ezekiel, and John\u2014Similarity of the visions of Daniel,\n       John, the Three Disciples, and Paul\u2014Object of these glorious\n       representations in heaven and on earth\u2014Known among the Heathen,\n       and grafted on their religious worship\u2014Origin of Zabaism, and its\n       spread over the world.\n\n\nThe setting up of the Cherubim, and a Flaming Fire, likened to a sword,\nas the emblems of the Divine glory and presence, in the garden of Eden,\nafter the expulsion of Adam, was an evidence of God\u2019s mercy and favour\nto fallen man, and a symbolical indication of the ultimate fulfilment of\nthe primeval prophecy; Gen. iii. 24. As God set the _Bow_ in the cloud\nto be a memorial of his covenant with all flesh regarding the future\npreservation of the earth from the waters of a flood, so he set the\n_Shechinah_ in paradise to be a memorial of his covenant with man\nregarding the future destruction of his implacable enemy, and the future\nrestoration of himself and his posterity to innocence and happiness,\nthrough the Almighty power of Him who dwelt between the Cherubim. That\nman was appointed to reside in the vicinity of Eden, and to worship\nbefore this supernatural evidence of the divine glory, is manifest even\nfrom the very short notices of the history of the Antediluvian world,\nwhich now remain. The sacrifice of Abel is supposed to have been\nconsumed by _fire_ from the Shechinah, as a proof of its acceptance\nthrough faith in the promised Saviour; and the punishment of Cain\nappears to have consisted chiefly in his banishment from the face or\npresence of the Lord at Eden. There, indeed, did men first begin to call\non the name of Jehovah; and thence, no doubt, was Enoch first translated\nto the kingdom of glory.\n\nThe flood at last came, and the Shechinah disappeared from the earth;\nbut the remembrance of its supernal glory was preserved in the family of\nNoah. There was nothing, however, in nature with which it could be\ncompared, for beauty and for dazzling brightness, but the _Sun_ itself,\nor a _Flaming Fire_ most terrible to the beholders. Such, indeed, have\nalways been the terms of comparison used by those whom God hath favoured\nwith the heavenly vision; and such, no doubt, was the description of the\nappearance of the Edenic Cherubim, given by the sons of the great\nAntediluvian to their posterity. In the appearance of Jehovah to Abraham,\nthe divine presence was accompanied by a _flame_, a smoking furnace, and\nlamps of _fire_, Gen. xv. 17; to Moses in Horeb, by a flame of fire out\nof the midst of a bush, Exodus iii. 2; and to Israel, in the wilderness,\nby a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of _fire_ by night, xiii. 21;\nat Sinai, by thunders and lightnings, devouring _fire_, and smoke as the\nsmoke of a furnace, xix. 16, and xxiv. 17; and at the setting up of the\ntabernacle of the congregation, by cloud and _fire_, and the _glory_ of\nthe Lord, the Insessor of the Cherubim, lx. 34. At the destruction of\nthe priests of Baal, God answered Elijah[43] by _fire_, 1 Kings, xviii.\n38; at the dedication of Solomon\u2019s Temple, the _glory_ of the Lord\nappeared with cloud and _fire_, 2 Chronicles vii. 1; and, in the year\nthat King Uzziah died, Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and spake of Him;\nthen was the house filled with smoke, and His _glory_ filled the temple\nand the whole earth; and then was that glorious _Trisagium_ pronounced\nby the Seraphim, in the hearing of the prophet, and afterwards repeated\nby the four Living Creatures in that of the beloved disciple, which\nestablishes for ever in the mind of the believer, His eternal power and\nGodhead, Isaiah vi. 1\u20134; John xii. 41; and Rev. iv. 8.\n\nIn the land of Chaldea, by the river of Chebar, and in the Temple of the\nLord at Jerusalem, Ezekiel saw the _glory_ of the God of Israel,\naccompanied with a great cloud and a _fire_ infolding itself, and a\nbrightness about it like the rainbow; the appearance of the _Living\nCreatures_, which he knew were the _Cherubim_, was like burning coals of\n_fire_, like the appearance of lamps, and out of the _fire_ went forth\nlightning; and the voice of the Almighty was like the noise of many\nwaters, and the earth _shined_ with his _glory_, Ezek. i. x; lxiii. In\nhis night visions at Babylon, Daniel beheld the _glory_ of the Ancient\nof Days, having a throne like the _fiery_ flame, wheels as burning\n_fire_, and a _fiery_ stream issuing from before him, vii. 9; and by the\nside of the river Hiddekel, he saw a man whose face had the appearance\nof _lightning_, and his eyes as lamps of _fire_, his arms and feet like\npolished brass, and his voice like the voice of a multitude, x. 6.\nPeter, James, and John saw the _glory_ of Christ on the mount of\ntransfiguration, when his face did shine as the _Sun_, and his raiment\nwas white as the _light_, and a bright cloud overshadowed them, Matthew\nxvii. 2, 5; Paul, at mid-day, saw his _glory_ as a light from heaven\nabove the brightness of the _Sun_, Acts xxvi. 13; and he declared to the\nHebrews of that age, as Moses did to the children of Israel 1700 years\nbefore him, in language of the strongest metaphor, that Jehovah our God\nis a consuming _fire_, Heb. xii. 29, and Deut. iv. 24. John, who said\nthat God is _light_ and in him is no darkness at all, and that Christ is\nthe _Light_ of the World, saw, in the Isle of Patmos, his eyes as a\nflame of _fire_, his feet like unto fine brass, as if they _burned_ in a\nfurnace, and his countenance as the _Sun_ shineth in his strength, and\nheard his voice as the sound of many waters, Rev. i. 14\u201316; he beheld\nthe mighty angel clothed with a cloud, and a rainbow over his head, and\nhis face as it were the _Sun_, and his feet as pillars of _fire_, x. 1;\nand he saw the _Faithful and True Witness_, whose eyes were as a flame\nof _fire_, and on whose head were _many crowns_, who possesses _the\nIncommunicable Name_, and who is called _the Word of God_, the KING OF\nKINGS, and the LORD OF LORDS, xix. 11\u201316.\n\nFrom all the splendid and glowing imagery, which is thus employed in\nScripture, to shew forth the glory of Christ, and under which human\nlanguage, though the gift of God, seems to labour and groan as under an\ninsupportable burden, it is manifest that He, who is the brightness of\nhis Father\u2019s _glory_ and the express image of his person, hath, by\nsymbolical representations of himself, both under the Old and the New\nDispensations, declared the being and attributes of God from the\nbeginning of the world. The Angel of Jehovah has, in fact, in all ages,\nmade the heavens declare the _glory_ of God, and the firmament shew\nforth his handy work; in them, he hath set a tabernacle for the _Sun_,\nto demonstrate the wonders of his grace; and, he hath ordained the moon\nand the stars, not only to rule the night and direct the seasons, but to\nutter all his _praise_ in a universal language, which he has imparted to\nall nations under the whole heaven; Deut. iv. 19; Psalm viii. 3; and\nxix. 3. Thus it appears, that even among the heathen, the remembrance of\nthe true God and his Son the Redeemer, was kept up by tradition and by\nsymbol; and that traces of the grand truth first announced in the\nprimeval prophecy, and afterwards gradually developed to God\u2019s chosen\npeople at sundry times and in divers manners, are to be found in the\nhistory of the religious worship of mankind in all ages, and from the\nremotest times. Before the flood these traces are no doubt very obscure,\nbut they are not altogether obliterated. Soon after the deluge, however,\nwas the light of the _Sun of Righteousness_ bedimmed in their gross\nminds by that of the natural emblems of his glory; and soon was _\u201cthe\ntruth of God\u201d changed into \u201cthe lie\u201d of the devil_; for they began to\nworship and serve the _creature_ more than the _Creator_, who is God\nover all, and blessed for ever. Hence, arose the earliest and the most\nextensive system of idolatry ever known in the world, the worship of the\n_Sun_, and the _Moon_, and all the _Host of Heaven_; with this also was\nconnected the worship of _Fire_, _Light_, and _Ether_, and of all those\nsymbolical representations of these natural phenomena, which are to be\ndiscovered in the ancient records of the Babylonians, Assyrians,\nChaldeans, Egyptians, Phenicians, and Persians, as well as in the early\nhistories or traditions of the Chinese and the Hindoos or Eastern\nIndians of the Old Continent, the Britons, and the Celts or Gauls who\noverspread Europe, and the Peruvians and Mexicans or Western Indians of\nthe New World.\n\n  2. The Sun worshipped by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans,\n       under the names of Baal, or Beelsamen\u2014By the Egyptians, under the\n       names of Orus and Osiris\u2014Connection between the Sun and\n       Sirius\u2014The Sun and his Satellite worshipped by the Israelites,\n       under the names of Molech and Remphan, Baal, and Ashtaroth,\n       during the Critarchal age\u2014The Zabian idolatry set up at Jerusalem\n       in the Monarchal age\u2014The partial Reformation of Josiah\u2014The\n       ancient Persians, Sun and Fire worshippers\u2014Origin of Mithras\u2014The\n       gods of Phenicia, Elioun, and Adonis or Tammuz.\n\nIt is of some importance to our general argument, to refer to a few of\nthe evidences of this universal species of idolatry, which are still to\nbe found in the names ascribed to the gods which these different nations\nworshipped. Among the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans,\nthere existed from the age of Nimrod to the destruction of Nineveh and\nBabylon, the worship of _Baal_, in Hebrew \u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u200e _Lord_, which signifies,\nastrologically speaking, _Lord of the Ascendant_; this term is in fact\nthe same as \u200f\u05d1\u05dc\u200e, _Bel_, or _Belus_, \u03b2\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, or \u1f29\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and\nsignifies the _Sun_, who is called in Chaldee \u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e, \u03b2\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, or\n_Beelsamen_, the Lord or _Master of the Heavens_, and Leader of the\nHeavenly Host. Among the Egyptians arose, at a period perhaps prior to,\nor, at least, coeval with the age of Nimrod, the worship of _Orus_ and\n_Osiris_, and at a later period, their attendant or identical gods,\n_Isis_, _Apis_, _Serapis_, _Anubis_, &c.; yea, \u201call the gods of Egypt.\u201d\nThe earliest of these is _Orus_, from the Hebrew \u200f\u05d4\u05e8\u05e1\u200e _Eres_, or \u200f\u05d7\u05e8\u05e1\u200e\n_Heres_, the _Sun_; or from \u200f\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e _Aur_, or \u200f\u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e _He Aur_, the\n_Light_, or _Fire_, a term also applied to the Sun; whence, evidently\ncomes the Greek \u1f61\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,[44] and \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1, or _Horus_, _Hora_, and _Era_, Time,\na period of Time, and the beginning of Time, all of which are measured\nby the revolutions of the _Sun_. Next comes _Osiris_, from the Hebrew\n\u200f\u05d4\u05e8\u05e1\u200e, _Eres_[45] inverted, that is _Sere_, the Sun, or from \u200f\u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u200e and\n\u200f\u05d4\u05e1\u05e8\u200e, _He Ser_, _the Prince_ or _Chief_; whence also, \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1 and \u1f41\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _the Sun_, or _Sirius_ (and the English terms _Sir_, or _Sire_,\nand _Sirrah_), the former denoting the _Chief_, or _King_ of Heaven, and\nthe latter, his _Satellite_ or _Companion_, in Hebrew \u200f\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u200e, _Seris_, a\n_Double_, or _himself_, as in Hesiod, \u201cOpera et Dies\u201d line 417, where he\nis called \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2; otherwise, the terms \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1 and \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 may be\nderived from \u200f\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8\u200e _Zeer_, _Light_; \u200f\u05e9\u05d7\u05e8\u200e _Seher_, _Morning_; or \u200f\u05d6\u05e8\u05d7\u200e\n_Zereh_, the East or Sun-rising. All these terms, both in Hebrew and\nGreek, have evidently an intimate connection with each other, and\nindicate that there was originally some astronomical relation between\nthe _Sun_ and _Sirius_, the largest and brightest of all the stars in\nthe firmament. The term \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _Sirion_, indeed, derived from \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n_Sirius_, is applied indiscriminately to every star, because all the\nstars were either supposed to follow the Sun in his daily course, or to\nborrow their light from that luminary. From this source, there can be\nlittle doubt that the Israelites, during their period of bondage in\nEgypt, borrowed their \u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200e, _Moloch_, or \u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05db\u05dd\u200e, _Molekem_ and\n_Milcom_, that is, their _king_, and the Star of their god _Remphan_ or\n_Chiun_ \u200f\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df\u200e; whence comes \u039a\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, or _Canis_ and _Canicula_, the\nDog-star or Sirius, idols of which they made to themselves figures to\nworship in the wilderness, Amos v. 26; Acts vii. 43.\n\nThis kind of idolatry appears to have been pursued with more or less\nobstinacy by the children of Israel, during the whole period of the\nCritarchal and Monarchal ages; notwithstanding the strict prohibitions\nof the _First_ and _Second Commandments_, and the awful sanctions with\nwhich their promulgation was accompanied at Mount Sinai. Passing over\nthe rebellion of the _Golden Calf_ and the sin in the matter of\n_Baalpeor_, in the wilderness, we find that the Israelites forsook\nJehovah, after the death of Joshua and of all the elders who outlived\nhim, and served _Baalim_, or _Baal_ and _Ashtaroth_, \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b1\u03bb and \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b1\u03bb,\nthe _King_ and _Queen_ of Heaven; and as often as they repeated this\niniquity, so often were they punished for it, by subjection to the yoke\nof their enemies; Judges ii. 13; iii. 7; vi. 30; and ix. 46. After the\nworship of the true God was set up in all its magnificence and glory in\nthe Temple at Jerusalem, how soon, alas! was it forgotten, and that of\n_Moloch_ or _Milcom_, _Chemosh_ and _Ashtaroth_ adopted in its stead;\nand how consoling must it have been to the real worshipper of Jehovah,\nto be informed, that even in the worst of times, there were 7000 in\nIsrael who had not bowed the knee to _Baal_; 1 Kings, xi. 5; and xix.\n18. Nevertheless, Israel was at last cut short for his idolatry, in\nmaking images and groves, worshipping all the _Host of Heaven_, and\nserving _Baal_; and Judah, being seduced by Manasseh to commit precisely\nthe same abominations, was threatened with a similar captivity; 2 Kings,\nxvii. 16; and xxi. 3. A temporary suspension of this sentence, however,\ntook place; and a respite of _forty_ years was granted to the house of\nJudah, because of the reform which was effected in the days of King\nJosiah. For, he put down them that burned incense to _Baal_, to the\n_Sun_, and to the _Moon_, and to the _Planets_, and to all the _Host of\nHeaven_;[46] and he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had\ngiven to the _Sun_, and burned the chariots of the _Sun_ with fire; but,\nafter his death, they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his\nwords, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose\nagainst his people, and there was no remedy: until, in fact, Jerusalem\nwas destroyed, and Judah carried captive into Babylon; 2 Kings xxiii. 5;\nand 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 16.\n\nAmong the ancient Persians, the worship of the _Sun_ and _Fire_ appears\nto have existed from a period so remote, that no record remains of its\ncommencement, though there can be no doubt that it was an offshoot from\nthe Babylonish idolatry. For ages, it appears to have existed in Persia,\nin a state of greater purity than in Chaldea, if such a term can be\napplied to a corruption of the worship of the true God; and to have been\nmingled with more intellectual notions of the being and attributes of\nDeity, than were to be found among other heathen nations. The Persians,\nindeed, appear to have had a more distinct idea, though still a very\nobscure one, of the method by which the human race were finally to be\nrescued from the power of the Evil One, and raised to a condition of\npurity and bliss. They worshipped the _Sun_ under the name of _Mihr_,\n_Mithr_, or _Mithras_; the latter term, according to Mr. Morrison,[47]\nsignifying _the wounder or bruiser of the head_, and if derived from the\nHebrew \u200f\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05be\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u200e, _Muthras_, _Lord of Death_, conveying a beautiful\nallusion to the primeval prophecy, and to him who, long afterwards was\ndeclared in apocalyptic vision, to have the keys of hell and death, and\nwho \u201copeneth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth\u201d the\ngates of Paradise. Among the Phenicians, we find, according to a\nfragment of their ancient historian, Sanchoniatho, preserved by\nEusebius, that one of their earlier gods was called _Elioun_, from\n\u200f\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df\u200e, _the Most High_, who was also considered _Man_; and that\n\u1f48\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0393\u1fc6, _the Heavens and the Earth_, were generated or created\nby him. They also worshipped the _Sun_, under the names of _Adonis_ and\n_Tammuz_; the former evidently from the Hebrew \u200f\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, _Adonai_,\n_Lord_; and the latter from the name of the Hebrew month appointed for\nthe celebration of his orgies. In the weeping for the absence, or\neclipse of _Tammuz_, Selden sees the lamentations for _Osiris_, which\noriginated in Egypt, and were observed in Phenicia; and in the rejoicing\nfor his return or resuscitation, Parkhurst discovers a prelude to the\njoy of the nations at the advent of the promised Saviour, the true\n_Adonai_, or Lord of all;[48] Ezekiel viii. 14; and 1 John ii. 8.\n\n  3. The gods of the Hindoos, Vishnu, Buddha, Brahma, and Seeva, form no\n       Trinity\u2014The theft of their names and attributes from the Hebrew\n       evinced by their meaning\u2014Buddha an avatar of Vishnu\u2014Origin of\n       Fohi, the god of the Chinese\u2014Druidical, Peruvian, Mexican, and\n       Parsee worship\u2014Origin of Surya, Suras, and Asuras\u2014Russell\u2019s\n       citation of Macrobius on the worship of the Solar god\u2014The\n       concentration of Paganism.\n\nProceeding farther eastward, to nations whose origin is so remote and so\ninvolved in darkness, that all traces of their derivation from the\nNoachian stock is lost, we find in their ancient traditions similar\nevidences of the truth, buried under a mass of the grossest and most\ndebasing idolatry. In the avatars, or transformations of _Vishnu_ and\n_Buddha_, the gods of the Hindoos, we perceive the awful perversion of\nthe primeval prophecy, and its stupid admixture with more recent\nrevelations concerning the Messiah, which have been purposely mystified\nand defaced by the agents of the Evil Spirit, in order that poor\nbesotted mortals might be led away from the truth as it is in Jesus. But\ntheir own traditions testify against the Hindoos, and show, that in not\nseeking to know him who had placed his witness in the physical heavens,\nthey were without excuse; for when they knew God, they glorified him not\nas God. The names of their chief gods, _Brahma_, _Vishnu_ and _Seeva_,\nplainly indicate their Hebrew origin and meaning. _Brahma_ signifies the\n_great Creator_, and is evidently derived from the word \u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e _Bra_, _He\ncreated_, which occurs in Genesis i. 1, and \u200f\u05d0\u05dd\u200e or \u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, _Am_ or\n_Aim_, _terrible_; and _Vishnu_ or _Veeshnu_, _the Preserver_, from the\ncopulative \u200f\u05d5\u200e _Ve_ or _Vau_, and \u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e, _Aishnu_ or _Ishnu_, _the Man\nfor us_; these two, therefore, constitute a _Binity_ or _Duad_, by\nreason of the copulative particle between them, and not a _Trinity_ or\n_Triad_ in conjunction with _Seeva_, as is generally supposed by\nmythologists. As to the latter name, which signifies _the Destroyer_, it\nis derived from \u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, _Seevah_, _Storm_, or _Destruction_, or from\n\u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u200e, _Seeva_, the _noise_ which accompanies it, thus exemplifying the\nidea of the poor untutored Indian, who sees God only in the fearful\nstorm, and hears Him only in the thunder\u2019s dreadful roar; or, perhaps,\nfrom \u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u200e, _Seeva_, a _dream_ or _vain error_, an \u201cinsubstantial\npageant,\u201d or even an _idol_, which is _nothing_ in the world. The\nexhibition of this triple absurdity in the temples of Hindoostan, not\nlike _Janus_ at Rome, with _two_ faces, but like _Cerberus_ in Hell,\nwith _three_ faces, shows not a _Trinity_, or _Sacred_ _Three in One_,\nin which Christians believe, but a threefold exhibition of the same God,\nas the _Creator_, the _Preserver_, and the _Destroyer_, in which the\nHindoos, like the devils, believe and tremble. These are, in fact, the\nattributes of the _true Deity_; for He is Jehovah, and there is none\nelse; there is no God besides him; he forms the light and creates\ndarkness; he makes peace and creates evil; but, inasmuch as \u201cthey had\nnot the sense to acknowledge God (literally to have God in\nacknowledgment), God gave them over to a senseless mind, to do those\nthings which are not lawful (i. e. not appointed by God)\u201d; Romans i. 28.\n\nIn the name of _Boodh_ or _Buddha_, an avatar of Vishnu, the principal\nGod worshipped in the Transalpine, or Ultra-Gangetic regions and islands\nof Asia, we again trace the early idea of a Saviour of celestial origin.\nThis name is evidently derived from the Hebrew \u200f\u05e4\u05d3\u05e2\u200e or \u200f\u05e4\u05d3\u05d4\u200e, _Phudah_,\n_to deliver or redeem_, by interchange of the labials \u200f\u05d1\u200e and \u200f\u05e4\u200e; and\nfrom the same roots are derived a variety of words, signifying either\nRedemption, or the Price of Redemption, and reminding us delightfully of\nHim, who, by his own blood entered _once for all_ into the holy place,\nhaving obtained eternal Redemption for us; Heb. ix. 12. In the name of\n_Fohi_, the chief god, worshipped in China from the earliest times, we\ndiscover also, by its Hebrew origin from \u200f\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e, _Phohe_, _Prince_ or\n_Governor_, the foreshadowing of Him whom God sent to be a _light_ to\nlighten the Gentiles, and the _glory_ of his people Israel; Luke ii. 32.\nThe Druids of ancient Europe were worshippers of the _Sun_ and _Fire_,\nand the name of their god was _Hesus_, most probably derived from the\nHebrew \u200f\u05d4\u05e9\u05e9\u200e, _Hesus_, _burns up_ or _consumes_, emblematic of the\nphysical objects of their devotion, but still prefiguring the advent of\nHim whose _fan_ is in his hand, who will thoroughly _purge_ his floor,\nand _burn up_ the chaff with unquenchable fire; Matt. iii. 12; and Isa.\nv. 24. Among the Peruvians and the Mexicans were found similar traces of\n_Sun_ and _Fire_ worship, accompanied with the apparatus of the _Incas_\nor _Children of the Sun_, and the _Vestal_ or _Solar_ virgins, as in\nancient Rome. Nor should we omit that the _Parsees_, the most learned\nsect among the Hindoos, are worshippers of the _Sun_, which is called in\ntheir language _Surya_, evidently of a similar origin with the Greek\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1 and \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; moreover, in their fabulous histories of the \u201cWar\nbetween the Gods and the Giants,\u201d the spirits, who were the worshippers\nor children of _Light_ or the _Sun_, are called _Suras_, and the demons\nof darkness, _Asuras_, _A_ being evidently privative in Sanscrit as in\nGreek. In fine, the names of the gods which were worshipped among the\nGreeks and the Romans, as every classical reader knows, carry abundant\nevidence of their having been borrowed from the earlier systems of\nidolatry already described. Dr. Russell remarks, that \u201cin the 1st book\nof the Saturnalia, from the 17th to the 23rd chapters inclusive,\nMacrobius establishes, from the writings of the philosophers, as well as\nof the poets, that all the gods of Assyria, Egypt, and Greece, were mere\npersonifications of the _Solar_ influence; and, moreover, that all their\nnames, however varied, might be resolved into some attribute of the\n_Sun_.\u201d He further states, that all the nations of the East acknowledged\noriginally but one deity, the _Sun_, and he ingeniously accounts for the\nrise of _Hero-worship_ and _Polytheism_; he also observes that, however\nthe titles of the gods may be separated and distinguished from each\nother, they are all plainly resolvable into those of the _Solar_ deity.\nThe same is to be observed of the gods of the Romans. Indeed, it is well\nknown that the magnates of the Pantheon, Apollo, Ph\u0153bus, Bacchus,\nJupiter, &c.,[49] were all severally addressed by the poets, as\npossessing the power supposed to reside in the _Sun_, to direct the\nseasons of the year, to give success to the operations of agriculture,\nto decide the fates of nations, and to influence all the affairs of men.\n\n  4. Origin of the Greek and Latin names of the Supreme God\u2014Ingenious\n       derivation by Dr. Hales\u2014Confutation of that given by Francoeur in\n       his \u201cUranographie\u201d\u2014Origin of the New Testament titles of\n       Christ\u2014Citation of Theophilus on this subject\u2014Irrefragable proof\n       of the Divinity of our Lord\u2014Original temple of the Sun\u2014Connection\n       of Religious worship and Astronomical observation\u2014Antiquity of\n       the Hindoos and Chinese.\n\nThus it appears, that the heathen nations have, in all ages and\ncountries, borrowed the names and attributes of Jehovah, the God of\nIsrael, and applied them to the absurd creations of their own\nimagination, the physical objects of the world around them, or the\nstupid fabrications of their own hands. The origin of the name \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 or\n\u0394\u1f76\u03c2 in Greek, and _Jupiter_ in Latin, as applied to the supreme God,\nappears to be distinctly traceable to the Hebrew. Dr. Hales endeavours\nto deduce the former of these from the Phenician form of \u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e,\n_Jehovah_, or _Jahoh_, which in Greek letters is \u0399\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9, or \u0399\u03b1\u03c9; and he\ncites the answer of the oracle of the Clarian Apollo, to the enquiry\n\u201cWhich of the gods is he to be reckoned, who is called \u0399\u03b1\u03c9?\u201d\u2014\n\n             \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u0399\u0391\u03a9.\n\n               Learn this, that JAH is greatest God of all.\n\nThis derivation is ingenious; but it is more specious than solid. The\nname \u0394\u1f76\u03c2, which gives its oblique cases to \u03a3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, is evidently derived\nfrom the Hebrew \u200f\u05d3\u05d9\u200e, _Di_, _the Sufficient_, or _Self-sufficient One_,\nor, with the relative, \u200f\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u200e, _Sdi_ or _Shaddai_, _He who is\nSelf-sufficient_, _the Almighty_, a Scriptural name of God; Genesis\nxvii. 1. From the former comes \u0394\u1f76\u03c2, and from the latter \u03a3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2,[50] by the\naddition of the Greek terminations. The derivation of _Jupiter_ from\n_Jah pater_ is obvious; while the oblique cases _Jovis_, _Jovi_, &c.,\nclearly show their descent, or rather theft from the Hebrew word\n_Jehovah_. These observations on the origin of the Greek and Latin names\nof the Supreme Being are rendered the more necessary, in consequence of\nthe following most extraordinary attempt on the part of an eminent\nFrench writer, to give a different, and we hesitate not to say, a very\nabsurd account of their derivation. M. Francoeur, in his very curious\nand useful work on Astronomy, entitled \u201cUranographie,\u201d p. 382, 5th\nedition, says, \u201cEach PLANET was denoted by a letter; arranging these\nbodies in the order of their supposed distances, these representative\ncharacters were:\u2014\n\n       Saturn. Jupiter. Mars. The Sun. Venus. Mercury. The Moon.\n         \u03a9,       \u03a5,     \u039f,      \u0399,      \u0397,      \u0395,       \u0391.\n\nThe Sun seemed to be placed in the middle of the motions, in order to\nregulate their march; thus he governed the universe. It was supposed\nthat the planets revolved round the earth in crystalline concentric\nspheres. The world was denoted by the extreme letters \u0391 and \u03a9; the\nletter \u0399, of the Sun, united to these, formed the name \u0399\u0391\u03a9, of the god\nof light, of Bacchus, of Osiris, &c.; whence was derived the words\n_J\u00e9vo_, _Jeova_, _Jovis_, _Jovis pater_, or _Jupiter_!!\u201d It is a\nsufficient refutation of this learned derivation, that the name of\nJehovah was known among the Hebrews at least 1000 years before the\ndoctrine of the crystalline spheres was invented; and that the answer of\nthe Clarian oracle itself, instituted before the fall of Troy, testified\nits well-known antiquity. The Latin term _Deus_, _God_, is evidently\nderived from the Greek \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, by interchange of the dentals \u0398 and \u0394, and\nnot from \u0394\u1f76\u03c2 or \u03a3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; and the term \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 itself, from \u03a4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9, _Pono_, _to\nplace, order, or arrange_, the old form of which, \u0398\u03ad\u03c9, signifies _to\ndispose_ or _create_. This appellation, \u0398\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, _the Disposer_ or\n_Creator_, is peculiarly applicable to Him into whose hands the Father\nhath delivered all things, and who of old created and arranged the\nuniverse; John i. 3; and iii. 35. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, has\ngiven the same derivation in the following eloquent passage, to which we\ncan never give the spirit of the original: \u201cBut God is called \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2,\nbecause he hath _reposed_ all things on his own _infallibility_, and\nbecause he _created_ [all things]; for to _create_, is to originate, and\nput in motion, and work upon, and put together, and prepare, and direct,\nand put life into, all things; and he is called \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, because he rules\nover the whole universe, &c.\u201d[51] Now, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ\nis perpetually called in the New Testament, \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, _the Lord_,\n_the Disposer_ or _Creator_; hence, his _Divinity_ is established beyond\ndispute; his _Unity_ with the Father is demonstrated; and his _claim_ to\nthe title of the _Sun of Righteousness_, is placed on the triple\ntestimony of the Heavens, and the Earth, and the Everlasting God.\n\nFrom the observations of this chapter, we draw the conclusion that all\nthe various kinds of idolatry which have existed in the world, can be\ntraced to a common source, namely, the Satanic substitution of the\nworship of the _Sun_, _Fire_, or _Light_, which was the emblem of the\nglory of God, for the worship of the Great Insessor of the Cherubim, who\n_dwelleth in the Light_ which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath\nseen, nor can see; and who only hath immortality. We further conclude,\nthat the tradition respecting the _Shechinah_, or glorious emblem of his\nDivine presence, passed through the family of Noah, and on it was\ngrafted the idolatrous scheme which raised a temple to the _Sun_ at\nBabel; that traces of the existence of this worship among Europeans and\nAsiatics, and Indians of both hemispheres, from the remotest times, are\nto be found in their traditions respecting the heavenly bodies, and in\nthe names and attributes ascribed to their false divinities; and that\nthe antiquity of the Hindoos and Chinese, as nations, within the limits\nof the true system of Chronology, is no more to be doubted than that of\nthe Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. In fine, the astronomical\nobservations and religious worship of the former appear to have been so\nintimately connected, that, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, a\nhigher degree of credence must be yielded to the ancient records or\ntraditions of both, than they have hitherto received among the learned\nworld.[52]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n              TRADITIONARY AND POETICAL AGES OF THE WORLD.\n\n  1. Tradition concerning the Seventh Age\u2014Prophecy of the Universal\n       Saviour\u2014Traditions of the Jews\u2014Opinion of Iren\u00e6us and\n       the Christian Church in his time\u2014Dr. Russell\u2019s opinion\n       confuted\u2014Testimony of the Heathen to the Tradition of the _Seven\n       Ages_\u2014Digression on the Corruptions of the Septuagint and the\n       Hebrew text\u2014Arguments against the numerical accuracy of\n       the latter\u2014Remarkable prophecy contained in the names of\n       the _Antediluvian_ Patriarchs\u2014Opinions of Augustine and\n       Abulfarajius\u2014Notion of Dr. Isaac Barrow\u2014Important admission of\n       Eusebius\u2014Opinion of Ephrem Syrus.\n\n\nThe idea that the improvement and the happiness of the human race is\nprogressive, and that the succeeding age is always to be superior to the\npresent, appears to have prevailed in every clime and in every age of\nthe world. Such a sentiment seems indeed to be interwoven with our very\nnature and constitution; and the words of the Poet are true, not only of\neach individual of the species, but also of every successive\ngeneration:\u2014\n\n               \u201cHope springs eternal in the human breast,\n               Man _never is_, but _always to be_ blest.\u201d\n\nWhen we take an extensive review of the past, we also find that there\nhave been ages of the world previous to our own, in which mankind\nenjoyed a length of days, and a degree of innocence and happiness, now\naltogether unknown. All have, in fact, heard of the blessedness of the\nParadisaical state, and all sigh for its return. The restoration of man\nto this state, has been the subject of promise, and the theme of\nprophecy and song; the sentiment has been found in all countries, and\nunder every Dispensation; and many of the Divine appointments, both of\nnature and of Providence, seem to have had an express reference to the\naccomplishment of this glorious and benignant purpose. The Septenary\ndivision of time was impressed on the human mind from the era of\ncreation; it was perpetuated in the Mosaic institutions; and a constant\nsuccession of Septennial changes in the frame of man himself from his\nbirth to his death, has tended to keep alive the idea that the Great\nperiod of the Restoration of all things is measured by the number\n_Seven_. Hence, arose the universal opinion, corroborated by tradition,\nthat the World was to continue for _Six_ successive ages, appointed ages\nof trial and probation, and that the _Seventh_ age would be a state of\nnever-ending felicity and joy. Poets and philosophers, always the most\nsanguine of our race, have in every nation seized upon this idea, and by\nthe splendid efforts of their genius, engrafted it upon the early\nhistory of their respective countries. Thus, compositions which were at\nfirst admired only as the production of superior intellect, became early\nincorporated with the popular creed, and were at last admitted by all as\nthe true records of antiquity.[53]\n\nThe Jews, with whose forefathers no doubt the true ideas concerning the\nvarious ages of the world originated, had, as we have seen, divided the\nGrand Interval from Creation to the time assigned by prophecy for the\ncoming of the Messiah, into _six_ subordinate periods, the true extent\nof which we have already determined. More than a _thousand_ years,\nhowever, before the latter event took place, the great Hebrew Warrior\nand King prophesied in Sacred Song, concerning the only begotten Son of\nGod, who was to receive the Heathen for his inheritance, and the\nuttermost parts of the Earth for his possession; concerning Him who was\nto be fairer than the children of men, and whose throne, like that of\nthe Eternal, was to be for ever and ever; whose dominion should be from\nsea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth; and before whom\nall kings should fall down and worship, and whom all nations should\nserve and call the _Blessed and only Potentate_; Psalms ii., xlv.,\nlxxii. About _three centuries_ later than the time of David, Isaiah\nreceived his Divine Commission to deliver the prophecy concerning Him of\nwhom Moses and the Prophets did write, in which He was described as \u201cthe\nWonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, and the\n_Father of the Future or Everlasting Age_.\u201d[54] During the _Fifth_ or\nMonarchal Age, therefore, the idea had spread abroad, not only among the\nJews, but among all nations, that the Renovation of the World would be\naccomplished in the _Sixth_ or succeeding age, and that the Great King,\ncalled in Scripture, \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 or Saviour, would then set up his kingdom in\neternal justice, and establish his dominion with everlasting peace; and\nnation should no longer lift up the sword against nation, neither should\nthey learn the Art of War any more.\n\nAccording to the Jews, however, who lived in the time of our Saviour,\nthe grand object of the mission of the promised Messiah was not to be\nconsummated till the _Seventh_ age, when should commence, to use the\nwords of the Apostle, who applied them very differently, the keeping of\nthe eternal \u201cSabbatism which remaineth for the people of God.\u201d This\nnotion of a _Seventh_ age was not entirely unknown to the Heathen, for\nwe find some traces of it in their writings; but it seems to have\noriginated in the mysticism or glosses of those who at that period, had\nmade \u201cthe word of God of none effect through their traditions.\u201d It is of\ngreat importance to our argument, to give some instances of this\nmysticism, as it incidentally proves that the Jews originally held the\nlonger computation. One of the reasons assigned by their Rabbins for the\ntradition of the _Seven ages_, from time immemorial, is that because the\nHebrew letter \u200f\u05d0\u200e _Aleph_, which (pointed) stands with them for a\n_thousand_, is found to occur _six times_ in the 1st verse of the 1st\nchapter of Genesis; therefore, the world is to last in its corrupt or\nfallen state for _six thousand_ years; and that then it is to be\nrestored and purified as at the beginning! Another reason, to which\nindeed, we have already adverted in our First Part, is that because God\nemployed _six days_ in the work of Creation, and rested on the _Seventh\nday_; therefore, there are to be _Seven ages_ of the World, each\ncontaining a _thousand years_! Such notions as these appear to have been\ncurrent among both Jews and Christians in the days of the Apostles; and\nwe find them transmitted with even a higher degree of mysticism, to the\nfirst age of _Apostolical Succession_! Iren\u00e6us, who flourished A. D.\n170, in commenting on the number of the Beast, endeavours to connect the\n_Six_ ages of the world, with the number _Six_, which occurs in the\nunits, tens, and hundreds of that number, and adds, \u201cFor in as many days\nas the world was made, in so many thousand years is it being brought to\nan end\u201d. And on this account, the Scripture says\u2014and the heavens and the\nearth were finished and all their garniture; and on the _Sixth day_, God\nfinished the works which he made; and on the _Seventh day_, God ceased\nfrom all his works\u2014but this is a narration of the prototypes of things,\nand a prophecy of things that shall come to pass; for the day of the\nLord is as a _thousand years_: but in _Six days_ the creation was\nfinished; it is manifest, therefore, that its consummation is the _six\nthousandth year_.[55] In this curious passage, it is evident that the\ndisciple of John, the beloved Apostle, has followed the ideas of the\nJews rather than those of his inspired Master, and has mingled up the\nmystical notions of the Rabbins with the sacred truths of Revelation.\n\nWhile we admit, however, that the followers of Christ and his Apostles\nhad erroneous views respecting the Jewish tradition, which we have thus\ntraced to its real source, we cannot adopt the opinion of Dr. Russell,\np. 103, vol. i. of his \u201cConnection,\u201d that the apostles themselves\n_wrote_ under the influence of such views, or that it formed any part of\n_their theological system_, although it entered deeply into those \u201cof\nthe age which witnessed the introduction of our holy faith.\u201d They wrote\nunder the influence of that Spirit which Christ promised to send, in\norder to lead and to guide them into _all the truth_; it is impossible,\ntherefore, to imagine, that the Apostles Paul and John in their\nwritings, \u201cpartook of those impressions relative to the speedy arrival\nof the first resurrection, and the beginning of the Messiah\u2019s reign,\nwhich prevailed among their countrymen;\u201d nor, can we agree, as he does,\n\u201cwith Grotius, who hesitates not to state that St. Paul thought it\npossible that he might be alive at the time of the general judgment,\u201d as\nwe see no evidence for such a statement in any part of the New\nTestament. The reply of our Saviour, while yet on earth, to the inquiry\nput by his disciples,\u2014\u201cWhen shall these things be, and what the sign of\nthy coming, and of the end of the world?\u201d\u2014sufficiently points out their\nmistake in supposing, as the unbelieving Jews did, that the first advent\nof the Messiah and the consummation of all things, were contemporaneous\nor approximate events: and clearly shows that instead of the \u201cgeneral\njudgment\u201d after or upon his advent, there would only be a particular\none, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and that it\nwould be fulfilled in the experience of that generation, for their\nrejection of the true Messiah, as the filling up of the measure of the\niniquities of their fathers. So much hold, however, had the tradition in\nquestion taken on the minds of the Jews as a nation, that we find the\nwords of Paul, in 1 Thess. iv. 15\u201317, respecting the resurrection of the\ndead, and the Second Advent of Christ, were either misunderstood or\nmisinterpreted by some of those to whom they were addressed. Hence, he\nwas obliged to address them a second time, in the following words; 2\nThess. ii. 1: \u201cNow we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord\nJesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not\n_soon_ shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor\nby _letter_ as from us, as that the _day of Christ_ is at hand.\u201d The\nrest of the Apostle\u2019s warning advice in this chapter, plainly indicates\nthat many ages were to elapse before the epoch of the Second advent, and\nthe arrival of the end of the world. The time, indeed, necessary for the\nfulfilment of the prophecies, of both the Old and New Testament,\nespecially those contained in the books of Daniel and the Revelation of\nJohn, must have clearly evinced to the minds of well-informed\nChristians, as well as those of the Apostles themselves, that many\npredicted events had yet to receive their accomplishment; and, that\nGod\u2019s controversy with the nations, and particularly with his ancient\npeople Israel, required a longer interval than that which the Judaizing\nteachers among them had dared to assign, and which, to give it greater\ncurrency, it appears that they were desirous to father upon the great\nApostle of the Gentiles.\n\nNevertheless, it cannot be denied that a very considerable degree of\nplausibility might attach to such sentiments among the early Christians,\nfrom the occurrence of such expressions as the following in the writings\nof the Apostles: 2 Peter iii. 8, \u201cOne day is with the Lord as a thousand\nyears, and a thousand years as one day.\u201d This expression, however,\nmerely exhibits in words suited to our ordinary conceptions, the great\ntruth which should ever be present to our minds, that all time appears\nbut as a single moment to the eternal Jehovah, who sees the end from the\nbeginning, and to whom the ideas both of space and time, as they exist\nin our finite understandings, are altogether unknown. The same sublime\nsentiment, similarly expressed, is also to be found in one of the\nPsalms, the authorship of which is ascribed to Moses, the man of God:\nthus, \u201ca thousand years in thy sight, are but as yesterday, when it is\npast, and as a watch in the night.\u201d It is evident, therefore, from the\nextreme generality of the expressions employed, that no specific\nconclusion can be drawn from these and similar passages of Scripture,\nrespecting the true period of the world\u2019s duration. Their simple intent\nis to convey to our minds an idea of the eternity of the Almighty, and\nthey are of the same import as the following, which proves the eternal\nDivinity of our Lord; namely, \u201cJesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day,\nand for ever.\u201d Hence, it is plain that the idea, entertained by many\ndivines, of the duration of the world for a period of only _Seven\nthousand_ years, (a period, which, in fact, as we have shown in our\n_First Part_, it has already passed) is a figment of the human\nimagination, which has no foundation in real tradition or prophecy, and\nwhich is contrary to the express revelations of Scripture. In a note to\nthis paragraph, consisting chiefly of references to the authors who have\ntreated of or touched upon the opinion of Iren\u00e6us and the whole\nChristian church after the Apostolic times, the learned reader will find\nsufficient ground for the belief that the longer or Septuagint\nchronology was universally held by ancient writers both before and after\nthe Christian era.[56] We proceed to notice the evidence on this point,\nwhich may be gathered from the testimony of the Heathen.\n\n\u201cThe belief of this singular notion, concerning the _Seven ages_,\u201d says\nDr. Russell, p. 76, vol. i. of his _Connection_, \u201chas been detected in\nthe writings of Heathens, Jews, and Christians. It is traced in the\nSybilline oracles, in Hesiod, in the work ascribed to Darius Hystaspes\nthe King of the Medes, and in Hermes Trismegistus, the celebrated\nfounder of Egyptian learning and science. Plato quotes from Orpheus the\nsame mystical doctrine; handing down to more recent times the persuasion\nof the first generations of the human race, that the earth, which was\ngiven to them for a habitation during _Six ages_, was doomed in the\n_Seventh_ to be consumed by fire.\u201d[57] Dr. Russell discovers in the\nprevalence of these opinions and expectations, however ill-founded and\nabsurd they may seem, the principal motive which actuated the Jews about\nthe beginning of the Second century, in their attempt to vitiate the\nmost ancient of their chronicles. \u201cTheir rejection of Christ,\u201d says he,\n\u201crendered necessary an extensive change in their dates and calculations;\nand if we may trust to the assertions of Justin Martyr and other\nprimitive apologists for our holy faith, we cannot doubt that their\nfraudulent purpose was realized to a considerable extent. \u2018I entreat you\nto remember,\u2019 says the Father now named, when addressing Trypho the Jew,\n\u2018that your Rabbis have taken away entirely many texts of Scripture from\nthat version which was made by the Elders who were at the court of\nPtolemy, in which it was declared, that Jesus who suffered death upon\nthe cross was both God and man: and wherein it was also predicted that\nhe was to be crucified and submit to the power of the grave. These\ntexts, because I know that your nation now rejects them, I will not\ninsist upon in the course of our inquiries, but shall content myself\nwith appealing to those prophecies and descriptions respecting the\ndivine power, which are still allowed to remain in your sacred books.\u2019\nAfter quoting a passage from Jeremiah, which the Christian author\napplies to the point in discussion, as an argument in favour of the\nviews adopted by the Church, he reminds his antagonist, that the text\nnow in question was still found in certain copies of the Old Testament\nwhich continue to be read in the Synagogues; for, says he, this portion\nof Holy Writ has been but lately expunged by your doctors; and that on\naccount of the unanswerable demonstration founded upon it, in regard to\nthe conduct of the Jews towards Christ, against whom it was predicted\nthat they would take counsel, and afterwards put him to death.\u201d\nArchbishop Usher, in reference to this passage of Justin Martyr, says,\nin his \u201cSyntagma,\u201d pp. 44, 45, that this Father produces _four_\ntestimonies concerning Christ the Saviour which he affirms were\nabstracted from the version of the Seventy Elders: the _second_ of which\nis still found entire in all our books, namely, Jeremiah xi. 19. But the\n_first_, abstracted from the book of Ezra, chap vi., which is testified\nby Lactantius, lib. 4. Institut. cap. 18, is as follows: _And Ezra said\nunto the people, This passover is our Saviour and our Refuge; and if ye\ndid consider, and it came up into your heart, that we shall humiliate\nhim in a sign, and if afterwards ye shall believe upon him, this place\nshall never be left desolate, saith the Lord of Hosts; but if ye will\nnot believe on him, nor hearken to his preaching, ye shall be a\nlaughing-stock to the Heathen_. The _third_ testimony, which is found in\nIren\u00e6us, lib. 5, cap. 26, is said to have been cut out of Jeremiah: _But\nthe Lord God of Israel remembered his dead who slept in the land of\nheaps, and descended to them to declare unto them the good news of his\nsalvation_. The _fourth_ and last is taken from Psalm xcv. (or xcvi.\naccording to the Hebrew) v. 10, where the reading should be, _Declare\namong the Heathen, The Lord reigned from the tree_; the words \u201c_from the\ntree_\u201d are said to have been erased by the Jews, although they are to be\nfound in the ancient editions of the Latin Psalter, and are cited by\nseveral ancient authors whose names and works the Archbishop enumerates.\n\nThe best proof, however, that the Jews have tampered with some passages\nof Scripture, is to be found in the discrepancy which exists between\nmost of the passages which are cited in the New Testament out of the\nOld, and which agree more nearly with the Septuagint, mutilated as it\nhas been, than with the present Hebrew Text. The most striking case of\nthis kind is to be found in the passage cited by Paul, Hebrews x. 5,\nfrom Psalm xl. 6; where instead of the words \u201cmine ears hast thou\nopened\u201d as in the Hebrew, we have \u201cA body hast thou prepared me,\u201d as in\nthe Septuagint. The straining of commentators to make these totally\ndifferent readings signify _exactly_ the same thing is perfectly\nastonishing, when we consider that the simple admission of the\ncorruption of the Hebrew text in this passage at once solves the\ndifficulty! Another remarkable case is the passage cited by the same\nApostle, Romans iii. 10\u201318, from Psalm xiv. 3, where the greater part of\nthe quotation, from v. 13 to v. 18 inclusive, is entirely omitted in the\npresent Hebrew text, but is to be found verbatim in the Septuagint,\nVatican edition. The reason assigned by Dr. Wall for its insertion in\nthis edition, and its omission in the Alexandrine MS., is not at all\nsatisfactory; because it does not in the least account for the full\nquotation of the passage by the Apostle; it does not at all answer the\nquestion, where did St. Paul get the verses? A third case is that of the\ncelebrated passage in Psalm xxii. 17, where, instead of the words \u201cthey\npierced my hands and my feet,\u201d as in the Septuagint, the Hebrew has to\nthis day, the reading \u201cas a lion my hands and my feet;\u201d but as this\npassage had no sense or meaning, the English translators were fain to\navail themselves of the reading of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.\nBut it is unnecessary to multiply discrepancies of this kind; enough has\nbeen adduced to show that implicit reliance is not to be placed on the\npresent Hebrew text. As to the discrepancy in Gen. ii. 2, between the\nHebrew and Septuagint, regarding the day on which \u201cGod ended his work,\u201d\nit can only be accounted for on one or other of the following\nprinciples: either a mistake has been committed in transcribing the\nHebrew text; or, a change has been wilfully introduced into that text.\nFor it is quite inconsistent with the fact, and with the preceding\ncontext, to say that God _ended_ his work on the _Seventh_ day! In that\ncontext, Gen. i. 31, we are told that \u201cGod saw ALL that He had made, and\nbehold it was very good; and the evening and the morning were the _Sixth\nday_.\u201d It is manifest that to _end work_ on the _Seventh day_, would be\nto perform a _part_ of it on _that day_; and, consequently, the _whole_\nof the Sabbath could not be said to have been _devoted to rest_, nor\n_wholly_ blessed and sanctified _on this account_. It is easy to see\nthat a loop-hole is thus given, by an error in that text and in our\ntranslation, we fear more wilful than accidental on the part of the\nJews, to the _partial_ observance of the Sabbath, and to the _notion_\nacted on by many in former ages, and by multitudes in the present, that\nit is only _that part_ of the Sabbath devoted to religious services in\npublic, which is to be accounted _sacred_; the remainder of the day\nbeing devotable either to work, to literary pursuits, or to sensual\nenjoyment. Mankind, both Jews and Christians, has in all ages been too\nanxious to throw off the strict and unalterable obligation of keeping\nthe Sabbath holy to the Lord; but the true Christian, he who is a \u201cJew\ninwardly,\u201d though \u201cnot outwardly,\u201d feels his highest enjoyment in the\nScriptural employment of that Holy Day, considering it as a foretaste\nand an earnest of the glorious and eternal Sabbath in Heaven.\n\nA strong argument against the accuracy of the present Hebrew text, is\nderived, as we have seen, from the different accounts of the census of\nthe Hebrew Patriarchs and their families, at the epoch of their\nmigration into Egypt, to be found in the Old and New Testaments. In Acts\nvii. 14, we find that the martyr Stephen, in his defence before the High\nPriest of the Jews, gives this census, including the grandsons and great\ngrandsons of Joseph, who, as well as his sons, had previously migrated\nin their father\u2019s loins, as amounting in all to \u201cthreescore and\nfifteen,\u201d or \u201c75 souls.\u201d On referring to the Mosaic narrative, Gen.\nxlvi. 27, we find, according to the _Hebrew text_, that this census\namounts only to \u201cthreescore and ten,\u201d or \u201c70 souls;\u201d but, according to\nthe _Septuagint_, that it amounts to \u201c75 souls.\u201d Here, assuredly, the\nauthority of the Septuagint must be reckoned superior to that of the\nHebrew text, inasmuch as that version not only perfectly agrees as to\nthe census with the reckoning of St. Stephen in the place now cited, but\nin the same chapter, it enumerates the names of the _three_ grandsons\nand the _two_ great grandsons of Joseph, making up the _five_ persons\nwhose names are totally omitted in the Hebrew. The census of the\nSeptuagint also agrees with that of the New Testament, in other places\nwhere Moses has occasion to remind the Israelites of the smallness of\ntheir number when their fathers went down into Egypt; see Exodus i. 5;\nand Deuteronomy x. 22. It is proper to remark, however, that the number\nin the latter citation agrees with the Hebrew, in the _Vatican edition_\nof the Septuagint; but, not in the _Alexandrine codex_, or the Grabian\nedition, where it is correctly given as in the other places which have\nbeen cited. Dr. Hales, in his \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. ii. p. 159, has\ngrievously mistaken the composition of the census in question; for, he\nincludes in it, the wives of Jacob\u2019s sons, amounting to nine persons in\nall, according to his account. The Sacred text, however, includes Jacob,\nand Joseph with his two sons, in the number 70; now if the nine _wives_\nwere also included, the census would amount to the number 79; because\nthe names of the 70 _men_ are all distinctly enumerated even in the\nHebrew text itself. In order, therefore, to get rid of this difficulty,\nand reduce the number from 79 to 75, the Dr. excludes the _four men_\njust mentioned, and includes the _nine women_, whether they are _kindred\nor not kindred_! His solution, however, does not agree with the express\nwords of Scripture, which, in fact, _excludes the women_, the words\nbeing according to the Septuagint, \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u201cwithout the\nwives;\u201d and _includes the men_, in the number 75, the words of Stephen\nbeing \u201chis father Jacob, and all his kindred,\u201d descended, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u201cout of his loins.\u201d\n\nIn reference to the numerical statements of the Hebrew text, the\ndisingenuity of modern commentators renders the following remarks\nnecessary, for the sake of truth and common sense. It is well known that\nthe numbers which occur in the Old Testament are always expressed in\nwords at length, and not in abridged characters or arithmetical symbols;\nhence, the possibility of transcribers mistaking one character or symbol\nfor another, in consequence of the similarity of the letters, is\ncompletely removed. It is an unfair inference, therefore, to say,\nbecause the Jews employed the letters of their alphabet to denote\nnumbers in their later writings, or to indicate chapters and verses in\nthe sacred writings, and because some of these letters are extremely\nsimilar, though they denote very different numbers; that numerical\nerrors might arise from this cause in those parts of the Scriptures\nwhere no such arithmetical characters or symbols were ever used. Among\nunfair reasoners of this class, may also be placed those who maintain\nthat all knowledge of the ancient Hebrew is lost, because forsooth it\nhas been preserved in Chaldaic characters, and mystified by the\nMasoretic points! It does not follow, however, that the language itself\nis lost, because the characters are changed in their form, even\nsupposing this to be the fact. If so, then we might as well assert that\nthe English language is lost, because we have changed the Old English\ncharacter for the Roman; that it has become utterly unintelligible to us\nby the change; or that the accented, punctuated and misspelt words of\nOrtho\u00ebpists must render every genuine English word of doubtful meaning!\nMoreover, it has likewise been gravely said that because some Hebraists\nchoose to assert that the same word in Hebrew signifies both _to bless_\nand _to curse_; therefore, all or most of the words of that language may\nbe translated so as to mean any thing you please; this is at least the\nconclusion which would be drawn from such random assertions on the part\nof Lexicon writers and compilers of Hebrew dictionaries. We ask such\npersons, if they know any thing at all of Hebrew, to arrange the names\nof the Antediluvian Patriarchs in one line, so as to form a Hebrew\nsentence, and to try whether, among the \u201cthousand and one\u201d varieties of\nrendering of which it is affirmed the words are capable, it will not\nbear the following translation, demonstrative of the fact that the\nAntediluvians were, during the days of God\u2019s grace, and in addition to\nthe tradition of Enoch\u2019s prophecy, taught the knowledge of a Divine\nSaviour, even by the symbolical names which the Patriarchs were directed\nby the Spirit of God, to impose upon their children:\u2014\n\n\u200f\u2018.\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e\u2014\u201cMan _was_ appointed miserable _and_ wretched, _but_ the blessed\nGod shall descend, teaching _that_ his death shall send to the\nafflicted, Rest.\u201d The consolation which a sentence like this was\ncalculated to give to the Patriarch Noah, and to his family, in the near\nprospect of the \u201cend of the world that then was,\u201d may be more easily\nconceived than described; nor let it be forgotten that in continuation\nof this Divine nomenclature, the Patriarch was instructed to call his\nson, who was to be the progenitor of the wonderful Being whose coming is\npredicted in this sentence, by the name of _Shem_, in prophetic\nanticipation of the future development of that glorious _Name_, in which\nboth Jews and Gentiles were afterwards to trust, and on which the\nsalvation of both worlds was suspended.\n\nTo return from this lengthened digression; it is manifest that there is\ngreat reason to suspect that the numbers contained in the Hebrew text\nwhich have reference to dates and to the age of the world, have been\nsystematically and extensively altered. Dr. Russell cites a passage from\nthe celebrated Abulfarajius, in which he asserts that the Jews,\nbelieving it to have been foretold that the Messiah was to have been\nsent in the _last times_, altered the chronology in order to be able to\nproduce a reason or apology for their rejection of Jesus Christ. Thus\nthey made it appear by their new computation, that Christ was manifested\nin the very beginning of the _fifth_ millennium, near to the middle of\nthe period to which the duration of the earth was to be limited, that\nis, according to their glosses upon Scripture, not more than 7000 years\nin all. But the computation of the Septuagint, he observes, showed that\nChrist did actually come in the _sixth_ millenary age of the world; the\nvery time at which the prediction of the Old Testament led mankind to\nexpect his advent. The learned Dr. refers also to the candid Augustine,\nwho states that the Jews were suspected of having corrupted their copies\nof the ancient Scriptures, and particularly of having altered the\ngenerations and lives of the Antediluvian patriarchs, out of dislike to\nthe Christians, and in order to weaken the authority of the Septuagint,\nwhich was used not only in their churches during divine service, but\nalso in their writings and controversies with the Jews. Though Augustine\nsaw that the temptation to vitiate the sacred text lay with the Rabbins,\nand that the Greek translators had no inducement to alter the original,\nhe was unwilling to believe that either party could have intentionally\naltered the Scriptures; thinking it more probable that the differences\nbetween the Hebrew and the Septuagint, had originated in the wish\nentertained by an early transcriber, to render the _generations_ of the\npatriarchs more natural, and less disproportioned to the total length of\ntheir lives.[58] This disproportion, as we have remarked in our First\nPart, was only partial in the Hebrew, and the discrepancy in this\nrespect is a strong argument in favour of the more natural proportion of\nthe Septuagint. But men in all ages have endeavoured to reduce the\nAntediluvian standard of human life and generation, without regard to\nthe actual record of Holy Scripture. Some curious specimens of reasoning\non this point will be found in Usher\u2019s \u201cSyntagma,\u201d cap. ii. p. 13 et\nseq. What, for instance, can be more ridiculous than the following\nremark on this subject by the learned Dr. Isaac Barrow? \u201cNo one,\u201d says\nhe, \u201ccan pretend to assert, as a certainty, that the age of Methusalem\n[Methuselah!] himself, who lived _a thousand years wanting one_, [999\ninstead of 969!] was really longer than that of a man, who now dies at\n_a hundred_! _Why might not the Sun, being then younger and more\nvigorous, have performed his periods ten times sooner than at this\ntime?_\u201d See his \u201cGeometrical Lectures,\u201d translated by Stone, 1735.\n_Credat Jud\u00e6us!_\n\nDr. Russell states that Augustine was not aware that 400 years had\nelapsed from the time when the Septuagint version was made, before any\ndiscrepancy between the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures was ever\nimagined to exist; and that there flourished in that interval, the\nchronographers Demetrius, Philo, Euphorus, Eupolemus, and Polyhistor, in\nwhose writings, compiled from the books of Moses, we find the events,\nnumbers, dates and proper names, agreeing with the Septuagint, but\ndiffering from the modern Hebrew. The ignorance of this early Father in\nreference to these writers, though it were admitted, for which however\nwe see no good reason, and his want of reference to the works of\nJosephus, form no ground of objection whatever to the facts of the case;\nnor can we conclude from his silence regarding their testimony that he\nwas not biassed in favour of the Jewish system of chronology in\nconsequence of the high authority of Jerome in the Christian Church. Dr.\nRussell gives a very full and clear account of the manner in which this\nsystem originated. He states that the publication of the _Seder Olam\nRabba_ in A.D. 130, may with certainty be regarded as the epoch at which\nthe Jews altered their genealogies and changed the dates of the great\nevents which are recorded in their Sacred Books; and that Theophilus,\nbishop of Antioch, was the first Christian chronologer who attempted to\ncompute the age of the world from the facts and dates only which are\ncontained in the Bible. He judiciously remarks that the bishop must have\npossessed a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures or at least of the Pentateuch,\nwhich had escaped the innovations of the Jews; for his dates of the\ndeluge and the birth of Abraham differ from both the Hebrew and the\nSeptuagint.[59] Moreover, we find that Eusebius, in the middle of the\nfourth century, who was well aware of the discrepancies between the\nHebrew and the Septuagint in the matter of chronology, still writes as\nfollows: \u201cOn all sides therefore the version of the _Seventy_, being\ndemonstrated to have been translated from an ancient, as it appears, and\na correct copy of the Hebrew, we have with reason made use of it in the\npresent chronography, and the more especially since the church of Christ\nspread through the whole world adheres to it alone, the Apostles and\ndisciples of our Saviour having from the beginning delivered that it is\nto be used.\u201d[60] Dr. Kennicott, in his \u201cDissertatio Generalis,\u201d Sect.\n83, p. 37, also cites the words of Ephrem Syrus, who flourished near the\nend of the same century, in which he charges the Jews with having\nabstracted 600 years from the generations of the Antediluvian patriarchs\nin order that their own books might not convict them concerning the\ncoming of Christ, who had been predicted to appear for the deliverance\nof mankind after 5500 years.\n\n  2. Description of the Ages of the World from Hesiod\u2014Error of\n       Newton\u2014The Golden Age corresponds to the Antediluvian\u2014The Silver\n       to the Postdiluvian\u2014The Brazen, Heroic and Iron ages, to the\n       Patriarchal, Critarchal and Monarchal\u2014These ages relate chiefly\n       to Greece\u2014References to Scripture history in all\u2014The Sixth or\n       Cum\u00e6an age corresponds to the Hierarchal\u2014Wisdom of the\n       Heathens\u2014Their expectation of a Divine Instructor\u2014Socrates,\n       Plato, Eupolis, Virgil, and others, anticipate his glorious\n       Advent\u2014The close of the _Sixth age_ indicates the arrival of the\n       _Seventh_, or the return of the _Golden age_.\n\nThe Greek and Roman Poets borrowed their sublime ideas concerning the\nAges of the World, from the Sacred writings and traditions of the Jews;\nand alas! they transmuted the fine gold of Mount Sion into the base\nmetal of Helicon and Parnassus. Hence arose the Poetical appellations of\nthe first _Six ages_ which are to be found in the most ancient and\ncelebrated writings of the Heathen. The distinct recognition of the\n_Seventh age_ appears not to have been very general, at least among the\npoets; or rather, it seems to have been frequently confounded or\nidentified with the _Sixth age_. The following, however, is an\nenumeration of the _Poetical_ ages which is clearly to be traced in the\nwritings of the oldest authors; to each, we have added the names of the\ncorresponding _Scriptural_ Ages, for the sake of comparison and\nconnection. _First_, the _Golden_ Age which corresponds to the\n_Antediluvian_; _Second_, the _Silver_ Age, to the _Postdiluvian_;\n_Third_, the _Brazen_ Age, to the _Patriarchal_; _Fourth_, the _Heroic_\nAge, to the _Critarchal_; _Fifth_, the _Iron_ Age, to the _Monarchal_;\nand _Sixth_, the _Last_ or _Cum\u00e6an_ Age, to the _Hierarchal_. In this\nenumeration, we do not mean, of course, to convey the idea that each of\nthe _Poetical_ Ages is precisely limited by the epochs which serve to\nfix and determine the _Scriptural_ Ages of the Jews; but merely to\nindicate that there is such a connection between them as serves to prove\ntheir common origin, and to establish the chronology of both on a secure\nand authentic foundation. There seems, however, to our mind, such a\nstriking analogy between the _real_ and the _feigned_ events ascribed in\nhistory to the different periods above mentioned, as to justify us in\ndrawing the parallelism close, and in allotting to the various ages of\nthe world, the appellations which have been ingeniously assigned to them\nby the poets and historians of Greece and Rome. One of the oldest\nHeathen writers, whose authentic works have reached our times, is the\npoet Hesiod, who, according to some authorities, was the contemporary of\nHomer, and who, according to Mr. Clinton, flourished from 859 to 824 B.\nC. His description of the _Six Ages_ contained in the poem entitled \u1f18\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, or _Works and Days_, is in many parts unquestionably\nborrowed from Scripture History. Dr. Hales has advanced and defended\nthis opinion in his \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. i. pp. 38\u201346; after having shewn,\nin pp. 35\u201338, that Sir Isaac Newton has mistaken, and consequently\nmisrepresented Hesiod\u2019s ages, in his \u201cChronology of Ancient Kingdoms,\u201d\nby confounding the word \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _a race_, employed by the poet to denote\n_an age_, with \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70, the usual word for _a generation_; and that this\nerror has not only deranged all his dates of Grecian history, but has\nvitiated his entire system of ancient chronology. With the opinions of\nDr. Hales on the subject of _Hesiod\u2019s Ages of the World_, we in general\ncoincide; but we think that he has neither carried out the above\nmentioned analogy sufficiently far, nor applied it in so clear and\ndistinct a manner as he might have done, to the illustration of the\nconnection between Sacred and Profane Chronology. It may be of some\nimportance, therefore, to enlarge a little upon this interesting point.\n\nThe description of the _First_ or _Golden Age_ given in the _Works and\nDays_, extends from v. 108 to v. 126,[61] and as Dr. Hales justly\nremarks, bears no relation at all to Grecian history. It refers to the\ntime when \u201cThe immortal gods and mortal men were as members of the same\nfamily, and (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd) partook of the same likeness; when Saturn (\u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nquasi \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Time) reigned in Heaven, and men lived as gods, with minds\nfree from care, without labour and sorrow, or the feebleness of old age;\nand always the same (\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) in strength and activity, they\nenjoyed continual feasting, free from all evils, rolling in wealth, and\nbeloved by the blessed gods; they died as overcome by sleep; to them,\nall things were good; and the fertile field spontaneously brought forth\nvaried and abundant fruit; seeking only their own ease, they mingled\ntheir operations with innumerable pleasures; and when (\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1) the green\nsod covered their bodies, they became good angels, by the will of mighty\nJove, and were confined to the earth, as the guardians of mortal men;\nthey became observers of good and bad actions, and inhabiting the aerial\nregions, they everywhere roamed through the earth, the dispensers of\nriches; such indeed was the royal honour which they obtained.\u201d This\ndescription is a curious admixture of the traditions concerning the\n_Antediluvian age_ to be found in the early history of all ancient\nnations, and of the lofty but extravagant imaginings of the Poet derived\nfrom the absurd mythology of ancient Greece. It evidently alludes to the\ncreation of man in the likeness of God, and to the Sacred communion\nwhich Adam held with his Creator in the garden of Eden; to the wonderful\nlength of human life, amounting in the case of the Patriarchs, in\ngeneral, to _nearly a thousand years_, when indeed _Time_ might be said\nto reign, and _Death_ for ages to be disappointed of his prey; to the\ngeneration of sons and daughters to a late period of the lives of\nmankind; and to the piety of the righteous generations of the line of\nSeth, who were called the \u201cSons of God,\u201d some of whom had communion with\nGod, and received peculiar marks of his favour. The description of the\n\u201croyal honour\u201d of the happy dead, seems to have had its origin also in\nthe Scripture record of the frequent appearance of angels in the\nlikeness of men in the _Postdiluvian_ and _Patriarchal ages_, and of the\npromises which God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, regarding the\nnumber, the wealth and the glory of their seed; and of the appearance of\nSamuel to Saul, when he predicted his speedy fall and admittance to\nHades: of the divine appearance to Solomon, when he was promised riches\nand honour, so that no king was like to him: and of the divine vision of\nthe young man in Samaria, who saw the mountain full of horses and\nchariots of fire round about Elisha: with many others of the very\nsingular and preternatural phenomena which were divinely vouchsafed to\nthe chosen people of God in all ages, before that in which the Poet\nhimself flourished. Hesiod is also cited by Josephus among the ancient\nwriters who before his time recorded that the men of the _first age_ of\nthe world lived a _thousand years_; but Dr. Hales observes that this\nstatement is \u201cno where to be found in his present [extant] works.\u201d\n\nThe description of the _Second_ or _Silver age_, extends from v. 127 to\nv. 142, and refers to the time after the flood, when as the Poet says,\n\u201cthe men were much inferior to those of the _Golden age_, being unlike\nthem both in body and mind; then, indeed, the boy of a _hundred years_\nwas brought up by his careful mother, as a child, passing much of his\ntime at home; but when he grew up and reached the age of puberty, his\nlife was speedily shortened, being embittered by ignorance; for they\nmanifested injurious pride towards each other, and refused to serve the\nimmortal gods, or to sacrifice at their sacred altars, which was the\ncustomary rite among civilized people; these, therefore, Jupiter the son\nof Saturn buried, being incensed because they honoured not the blessed\ngods who inhabit Olympus; and when the green turf had covered their\nbodies, then the blessed dead confined to the earth, were called\n_Secondary angels_; thus, they also had their share of honour.\u201d This\ndescription contains internal proof that it refers to the _Postdiluvian\nage_, in opposition to the sentiments of some modern writers, who have\nsupposed that the _Golden age_ referred solely to the _Paradisaical\nstate_, and the _Silver age_ to that which immediately succeeded it. The\n_Golden_ age must have evidently included the _Post-Paradisaical state_,\nbecause the Poet contemplates men as _mortal_, which they had become in\nconsequence of their loss of perfect innocence, and speaks of them as\nhaving increased in numbers, or in other words, become \u201cmultiplied on\nthe face of the earth,\u201d which took place only after the expulsion of the\ngreat progenitors of the race from Paradise. The _Silver age_ must have\nbeen after the flood, because the usual period of human life had not\nbeen diminished till after that event, but had in fact been rather\nincreased just immediately before it, as in the case of Methuselah; and\nNoah himself the connecting link of both worlds, was longer lived than\nAdam. Moreover, the Poet\u2019s account of the _Antepaidogonian age_ of\nmankind, corresponds in a very remarkable degree to the statements of\nthe Septuagint, the Samaritan Text, and Josephus, on this point, and\nproves almost to a demonstration that the Hebrew Text originally\ncontained the longer computation; for the traditions concerning the\n_Postdiluvian age_ were, of course, known to Hesiod, about _Six\ncenturies_ before the Septuagint was in existence. The causes assigned\nby the poet, for the shortening of human life, seem clearly to refer to\nthe breaking up of the ecclesiastical polity of Nimrod at Babel; and the\ndestruction of the impious, to the later event, the overthrow of the\n\u201ccities of the plain,\u201d and the formation of the Lake Asphaltites. The\ndistinction drawn between the fate of the good, and the fate of the bad\nin this age, evidently refers to the selection of a few among mankind,\nas the depositories of Sacred Revelation, and to the appointment of\nothers as the friends of God, and the Fathers of the faithful to all\ngenerations. Such statements as these plainly indicate a belief in the\nimmortality of the soul, or, at least, its existence after death in a\nseparate state, and forcibly remind us of the argument which our Saviour\nheld with the Sadducees, in proof of the resurrection of the dead: \u201cHave\nye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake to him,\nsaying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of\nJacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye,\ntherefore, do greatly err;\u201d Mark xii. 26. The conclusion was indeed\nmanifest; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, as to their souls;\ntherefore, their souls are immortal. Because God lives, they live also;\nfor he is still _their_ God. But life and immortality were brought to\nlight by the Gospel; and because Christ rose from the dead, they shall\nalso rise from the dead; for he has become the first-fruits of them that\nslept. From the preceding remarks, it is evident that Dr. Hales is in\nerror, both when he limits the \u201ctermination of the _Silver age_ to the\ndays of Peleg;\u201d and when he refers the latter clause of the Poet\u2019s\ndescription to the \u201cfirst and purest Patriarchs of this age;\u201d for the\nupright and blessed Job lived in the latter part of it; and the divinely\nhonoured Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees at its close.\n\nThat Hesiod\u2019s description of the three subsequent ages appears to relate\nentirely to the history of Greece, is the opinion of Dr. Hales. Without\ndisputing the general accuracy of this opinion, we still think that we\ncan perceive traces of the history of other countries. The allusions to\nScripture are, it is true, more obscure in this part of the poem; but\nthey are not wholly imperceptible. Indeed, the ingenuity of the\n\u201ccunningly devised fables\u201d which it contains, would not be deemed\ncomplete without the admixture of some sacred truth, without the\naddition of some egregious perversion of the Inspired records. The\ndescription of the _Third_ or _Brazen age_, extends from v. 143 to v.\n155, and refers to the time when the men, \u201cwholly unlike those of the\n_Silver age_, were strong and mighty in the use of the spear, rejoicing\nin war and deeds of rapacity; they ate not (\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) the food of culture,\nbut, unyielding in their disposition, they had minds as hard as adamant;\npossessing immense force and unpolished hands, nature furnished them\nwith powerful limbs, from the shoulders downwards; they had _brazen_\narmour, _brazen_ houses, and they worked in _brass_; for _iron_ was not\nyet in use; these, indeed, slain by their own hands, went to the dark\ndomains of gloomy Pluto, unrecorded in song; for sable death seized\nthem, though mighty in strength, and they left the shining light of the\nSun.\u201d This passage seems very clearly to describe the state of the world\nin the days of Abraham. The battle of the four kings against five in the\nVale of Siddim (Destruction), the slaughter of the kings and the sacking\nof their cities, the capture of Lot and all his family and property, as\nrecorded in Genesis xiv., is a sufficient proof of the warlike and\nrapacious character of this age; and then, no doubt, originated the\nmigration of those marauding parties which, proceeding from Assyria,\nPhenicia, and Egypt, spread themselves over Greece and her islands for\ncolonization and settlement, and founded the early kingdoms of Sicyon\nand Argos. The testimony of the Greek historians Herodotus and\nThucydides, respecting the state of society during this period, confirms\nthe description of the Poet; and, according to Dr. Hales, the rape of\nIo, the daughter of Inachus, which was followed more than a century\nafterwards by that of Europa, the daughter of Agenor, king of Tyre, are\ninstances of the wicked conduct of those whom Jove is reported to have\nsent a flood to destroy, at the close of the _Brazen age_. Dr. Hales,\nhowever, is in error when he refers this flood to the age of Deucalion;\nit appears more clearly to belong to that of Ogyges, who was earlier\nthan Deucalion by more than _two centuries_, and in whose reign,\naccording to Dr. Russell,[62] the inhabitants of B\u0153otia were compelled\nto leave the plains of their native country, which was that of our poet,\nand to seek an asylum in the mountains of Attica.\n\nThe description of the hardihood of the men of the _Brazen age_\ncorresponds also to that of the King of Egypt, when he expressed his\nfears concerning the increase of the children of Israel. The very weak\nargument of Sir Isaac Newton against the longer computation, which he\ndraws from the speech of Pharaoh, Exodus i. 9, respecting Egypt being\n\u201cthinly peopled\u201d before the birth of Moses, is very satisfactorily\nanswered by Dr. Hales in his explanation of the succeeding verse;\n\u201cAnalysis,\u201d p. 88. The correct translation, however, of the former\nverse, according to the Septuagint, which appears to have retained the\ntrue meaning of the passage, renders even Dr. Hales\u2019 explanation\nunnecessary. Thus, \u201cAnd he said to his nation, Behold the race of the\nsons of Israel is a great multitude, and their (bodily) strength is\ngreater than ours!\u201d This observation will appear both natural and just,\nwhen we consider that the Egyptians, as a nation, must have by this time\nreached a degree of luxury and refinement, the consequences of extensive\nempire and early civilization, which rendered them more effeminate or\nless robust than the hardy sons of Israel. The dread, therefore, of the\nincrease of such a nation, which they held in cruel bondage, and which,\nthough vastly fewer in numbers, was greatly superior to their own in\nindividual and personal strength, was a sufficient reason for the\nprecautionary policy announced from the throne, by which the rigour of\nthe bondage of the Israelites was to be increased, in the expectation of\nthus diminishing their numbers. This policy, however, having failed, the\nking resorted to one still more cruel and sanguinary; but the very cause\nwhich he had assigned as a reason for the adoption of cruel measures\ntowards an unoffending race, was wisely ordained, so as to render those\nmeasures completely abortive; and, we thus perceive, from its\nacknowledged truth, an additional force and beauty, in the simple\ndefence made before the king, by those heroic females who bid defiance\nto his wrath, by refusing to become the detestable instruments of his\ncruelty; Exod. i. 19.\n\nThat the Greeks from a very early period were distinguished from other\nnations by the use of _Brazen Armour_ is well known; and it is\nremarkable that in Scripture prophecy this characteristic is selected by\nthe Spirit of God to point out the nation to which it belongs, and to\npredict the rise of that Universal empire which it once maintained over\nall the kingdoms of the known world. In the description of the different\nparts of the great Image which King Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream,\nDaniel ii. 31\u201345, and which prefigured the four Great Monarchies or\nEmpires of antiquity, we find the _Assyrian_ or _Babylonian_ Empire\ndenoted by the head of _gold_, the _Medo-Persian_ by the breast and arms\nof _silver_, the GREEK or _Macedonian_ by the belly and thighs of BRASS,\nand the _Roman_ by the legs and feet of _iron_. Moreover, the Greeks are\ncommonly denominated by Homer in his Iliad, the \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03c7\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0391\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76, or\n_Brazen-coated Achaians_, that is, wearing brazen coats of mail; and\nthey are described in Herodotus, according to the words of the oracle,\nas \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, or _men glittering in Brazen armour_.\nHence, it may be truly said with the poet, that they lived in _brazen_\nhouses, and performed their works in _brass_; for, they spent all their\ntime in deeds of arms, perpetually seeking to increase their wealth, and\nto form new settlements, at the cost of the native inhabitants of the\nsoil, the natural consequence of such predatory incursions was premature\ndeath in battle; and until they had gained a complete footing in Greece,\nby a series of splendid victories, it could not be supposed that their\nnames would be transmitted to posterity with renown. Thus the hosts of\noriginal adventurers belonging to this age, according to the poet,\ndescended to the grave, \u039d\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 (pro \u1f08\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9,), without name and\nwithout fame, receiving no share of honour like the men of the former\nages, but sinking into irretrievable oblivion, both in this world, and\nin the world of souls.\n\nThe description of the _Fourth_ or _Heroic age_, which Dr. Hales remarks\nis included by Ovid in the Brazen age, extends from v. 157 to v. 174,\nand refers to the time when the men \u201cspread over the boundless earth,\nwere more upright and more just than those of the former age, and\nreceived the name of _Demigods_; these also, calamitous war and\ntremendous battle destroyed; some before the seven-gated Thebes, in the\nterritories of Cadmus, fighting for the wealth of \u0152dipus: but others\nbefore the walls of Troy, having been transported across the broad sea\nin ships, on account of the fair-haired Helen: to the former, death\nbrought final destruction; to the latter, father Jupiter, the son of\nSaturn, having granted life and a settlement apart from mankind, he\nplanted them at the ends of the earth, far from the immortal gods, where\nSaturn reigns their king; and these happy heroes, having minds free from\ncares, dwell in the Islands of the Blessed, near the deep deep Ocean; to\nthem, the fertile soil produces ripe fruit, as sweet as honey, three\nseasons of the year.\u201d In this description there seems to be a very\nconsiderable want of incident, when we compare it with the history of\nGreece during the _Heroic age_. For, it was in this age, that the\nKingdom of Athens was founded; that the flood of Deucalion took place;\nand that the chief founders of the Greek nation made their descent into\nthe country itself, namely, Danaus, Pelasgus, Cadmus and Pelops. It was\nin this age also, that the events most celebrated in history and poetry\ntook place; such as, the birth and the labours of Hercules; the\nexpedition of the Argonauts; the wars at Thebes and the fall of Troy,\nwhich the poet has particularly noticed; the Return of the Heraclid\u00e6;\nand the \u00c6olic and Ionic Migrations. The meagreness of detail in this\nportion of the poem, therefore, would lead us to adopt the opinion of\nmany critics, that it has not reached us in a perfect but in a\nfragmentary state; enough of it, however, remains to enable us to\ndetermine the limits of the poetical ages. We have seen that the flood\nof Ogyges was the event which, according to the testimony of the\nancients, terminated the _Brazen age_, and of course, formed the\ncommencement of the _Heroic age_; now, according to the testimony of\nJulius Africanus and others, this event was _coeval_ with the Exodus\nfrom Egypt; and, according to the testimony of Eratosthenes and others,\nas expiscated by Mr. Clinton, the Ionic migration was a few years\nearlier than the foundation of Solomon\u2019s temple, and may, therefore, be\nconsidered as the event which terminated the _Heroic age_, and not the\nfall of Troy, as stated by Dr. Hales, which, according to the best\nauthorities, occurred about a _century and a-half_ before the Scriptural\nera in question. No shorter period than this at least would be\nsufficient to settle all the mighty events which resulted from the \u1f30\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, or multitude of evils springing from the Trojan war, and the\nfinal catastrophe of the ancient city of Priam; and in no less a time,\nwould the heroes who survived this great event, and who went in quest of\nnew settlements and peace, far from the scenes of strife, be able, in\nthe name and power of their posterity, to build cities and plant\nvineyards, and to form new states and create dynasties in foreign lands.\n\n               \u201cTant\u00e6 molis erat Romanam condere gentem.\u201d\n\nThe description of the men of this age as \u201cdivine,\u201d and the idea of\ngiving to heroes the name of _Demigods_, thus commingling earth and\nheaven, seems to have originated in the Sacred history of the wars of\nthe Israelites in Canaan, at the beginning and during the progress of\nthe _Critarchal age_. The remarkable interpositions of Providence which\naccompanied this people, under the guidance of Moses in the wilderness,\nunder the command of Joshua in the promised land, and under the\ngovernment of the Judges when settled there, would lead all the Heathen\nnations around them to ascribe to their leaders _more than mortal\npower_; hence would naturally arise the title of _demigod_. Moreover,\nthe history of the transactions recorded in \u201cthe book of the wars of\nJehovah\u201d (Numbers xxi. 14), of which no doubt our poet had \u201cheard by the\nhearing of the ear,\u201d would inspire him with feelings and language\nsimilar to that which the Philistines uttered when they heard that the\nIsraelites had brought the ark of God into their camp: \u201cWoe unto us! who\nshall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods? these are the\nGods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues of the wilderness;\u201d\n(1 Sam. iv. 8). The extraordinary exertions of the Judges to deliver\ntheir countrymen from a foreign yoke, roused and assisted as they always\nwere by the hand of God, might well strike terror into the hearts of\ntheir enemies, and give rise to the name and the notion of their being\nof supernatural origin. For instance, the remarkable atmospheric and\ncelestial phenomena which occurred under the leadership of Joshua, when\n\u201cthe Lord cast great stones from heaven\u201d upon the enemy, and when, at\nthe voice of a man, the _Sun and Moon_ \u201cstood still\u201d in the heavens for\n\u201ca whole day,\u201d would not be soon forgotten among the Heathen; because\n\u201cthere was no day _like that_ before it or after it, for the Lord fought\nfor Israel;\u201d (Josh. x. 13, 14). Again, we are told in the song of\nDeborah and Barak, that \u201cthe stars fought from heaven; the stars in\ntheir courses, fought against Sisera;\u201d and when we consider that the\nHeathen worshipped the heavenly bodies, including the stars, as\ndivinities, we see how the idea of gods and demigods fighting the\nbattles of men, would naturally arise in their minds from the recital of\nsuch a song as this; and we can thus trace the origin of the\nmythological machinery which is so finely wrought and so eloquently\ndescribed in the pages of Heathen poesy.\n\nIn like manner, we find that the description of the settlement of the\n\u201cHappy Heroes in the Islands of the Blest,\u201d at the close of this age,\nsavours strongly of the lofty ideas and the poetic language to be found\nin the prophecies concerning the future happiness of God\u2019s chosen\npeople. The establishment of the Israelites in the promised land, so\nlong the subject of prophecy, was no doubt the great prototype, which\nthe Poet had in his \u201cmind\u2019s eye\u201d in this description; and the fame of\nGod\u2019s gracious dealings with them having spread abroad throughout the\nwhole world, was no doubt the inciting cause which led mankind in\ngeneral to think of improving their condition, and to make those\nfrequent descents and migrations into other countries, which were so\ncommon in this and the preceding age. Our Poet had no doubt heard of the\nblessing of Jacob, which predicted the coming of Shiloh and the\nhappiness of the tribe of Judah, who, as its representative, should\n\u201cwash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of grapes;\u201d and whose\n\u201ceyes should sparkle with wine, and whose teeth should be whiter than\nmilk;\u201d also, the felicity of the tribe of Joseph, who, in like manner,\nshould be blessed \u201cwith blessings of heaven above, and blessings of the\nearth beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the matrix, and blessings\nof his progenitors, which should prevail beyond the everlasting\nhills.\u201d[63] But the Song and the Blessing of Moses, which belonged to a\nlater age, and which heightened the expectations of the twelve tribes by\na clearer revelation, were still more likely to have reached the poet\u2019s\nears through the traditions of those early times. From the former, he\nwould learn that the \u201cLord\u2019s portion is his people;\u201d and \u201cJacob the lot\nof his inheritance;\u201d that \u201cthe Lord alone did lead them,\u201d and \u201cthere was\nno strange god with them;\u201d that \u201che made Israel ride on the high places\nof the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made\nhim to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;\nbutter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the\nbreed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and he\ndrank the pure blood of the grape;\u201d Deut. xxxii. 12\u201314. By the latter,\nhe would be informed that Jehovah \u201cwas King in Jeshurun, when the heads\nof the people, the tribes of Israel were gathered together;\u201d that \u201cthe\nland\u201d of Joseph was Blessed of the Lord, \u201cfor the precious things of\nheaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath; and for the\nprecious fruits of the changes of the _Sun_, and for the precious things\nproduced by the _month_, and for the chief things of the ancient\nmountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the\nprecious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will\nof him that dwelt in the Bush;\u201d that \u201cthere is none like unto the God of\nJeshurun, he who rideth upon the heaven thy helper, even the most\nglorious of the sky;\u201d and that \u201c_Israel should dwell alone_: the\nfountain of Jacob should be in a land of corn and wine; and his heaven\nshould drop down dew.\u201d In the contemplation of such a glorious prospect,\nhe might be led to say with the great lawgiver himself: \u201cHappy art thou,\nO Israel: who is like unto thee, O people, saved by the Jehovah, who is\nthe shield of thy help, and the sword of thy excellency!\u201d Deut. xxxiii.\n5, 13, 26. Truly as the poet said \u201cthe Eternal (\u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _Time without\nend_) now reigns their King.\u201d\n\nThe sudden transition of the Poet from the description of the _Fourth\nage_, to that of the _Fifth_, with his rapid glance at the _Sixth_,\nwhich extends from v. 174 to v. 201, shows that his mind must have been\nwrought up to a great pitch of feeling and sublimity, in reflecting on\nthe glorious deeds of the past age, and the splendid anticipations of\nthe future. With the description of the _Fifth_ or _Iron age_ in which\nhe himself lived, we cannot but deeply sympathise, feeling as we do that\nit has returned in our own days, and that its features are precisely the\nsame as those which now characterize this _age of Bronze_.[64] \u201cOh! how\nI wish,\u201d says he, \u201cthat I had not lived in the _Fifth age_ (\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd), but had either died before it, or lived after it; for, now\nindeed is the _Iron age_; and they will rest neither day nor night from\nlabour and misery, corrupting each other; but the gods shall give them\nunutterable sorrows; still even to these shall good and evil be\nintermingled; but Jupiter shall destroy the men of this age, for they\nshall become grey-headed soon after their birth; because the father will\nnot live in unity with his children, nor the children with the father;\nthe guest with his host, nor the friend with his companion; and the\nbrother will be no longer affectionate, as in former ages; and soon\nshall they dishonour their parents growing old; then also shall the\nwicked attack them, speaking cruel words, and not fearing the wrath of\nthe gods; nor shall the lawless then yield to their aged parents the\nrewards of their education; but one shall destroy the city of another;\nand no favour shall be shown to the pious, or the just, or the good; but\nthey will rather honour the evildoer, and encourage injustice; nor shall\nthere be any justice or modesty in their hands; and the wicked man shall\ninjure the good, addressing him with hard speeches, and even be guilty\nof perjury; and croaking envy of hateful countenance, rejoicing in evil,\nshall pursue the whole race of miserable mortals; and then shall\nblushing Modesty and indignant Virtue, clothed in their white robes,\nhaving forsaken mankind, pass from the spacious earth to Olympus, to\nmingle with the immortal gods; then shall they leave direful woes to\nmortal men; and there shall be no help for the evil.\u201d In this\ndescription, the Poet, who, according to the best authorities, lived\nabout the end of the first century of the _Iron age_, seems to have\npartly borrowed his description from the sacred poetry of the Jews, and\nhaving himself experienced the evils of injustice at the hands of his\nown kindred, to have partly anticipated the wickedness of the age, in a\nfine prophetic vein. Solomon, with whose glorious reign the _Monarchal\nor Iron age_ began, uttered sentiments concerning the wicked, to which\nthe ideas of our poet have a striking similarity: \u201cFor they,\u201d said he,\n\u201csleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken\naway, unless they cause some to fall. For they eat the bread of\nwickedness, and drink the wine of violence;\u201d Prov. iv. 16, 17. The\nfollowing passages in the book of Proverbs, to which we shall only\nrefer, with others which might be cited, would almost lead us to imagine\nthat Hesiod had been familiar with the writings of Solomon: Prov. i.\n11\u201319; v. 3\u201314; vi. 16\u201319; ix. 13\u201318; xxiii. 27\u201335; xxiv. 1, 2, 15\u201322;\nand xxx. 11\u201323; but in the psalms of David, we find a more vivid and\nsustained description of the wickedness of the wicked, and one to which\nthat of the Poet bears a more marked similarity than any of the passages\nyet cited: thus, \u201cThe fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They\nhave corrupted themselves, they have done abominable works, there is\nnone that doeth good, there is not even one. The Lord looked down from\nheaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did\nunderstand, or seek after God. They are all gone out of the way, they\nare together become useless, there is none that doeth good, no not one.\nTheir throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used\ndeceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of\ncursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction\nand misery are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known:\nthere is no fear of God before their eyes.\u201d Psalm xiv., according to the\nSeptuagint. When we consider that even on the lowest computation, the\npoet Hesiod must have preceded the prophet Micah, by at least 100 years,\nwe cannot but be struck also with the similarity of their descriptions\nof this age in which they both lived, and we cannot but admit that the\ndescription of the former written as it is in the future tense, partakes\nstrongly of the character of inspiration. \u201cThe good man,\u201d says the\nlatter, \u201cis perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among\nmen: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother\nwith a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince\nasketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he\nuttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is\na brier, the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy\nwatchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust\nye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of\nthy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the\nfather, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter-in-law\nagainst her mother-in-law; a man\u2019s enemies are the men of his own\nhouse;\u201d Micah. vii. 2\u20136.[65] This passage, which was frequently\nappropriated by our Saviour when on earth, as describing the effects of\nhis Mission upon the wicked, to whom the Gospel is the savour of death\nunto death, (Matt. x. 21, 35, 36; Luke xii. 53 and xxi. 16,) was\neminently descriptive of the _Iron or Monarchal age_, from its beginning\nto its end, Hesiod, Micah and Ezekiel, as well as all the prophets,\nbeing Judges; (Ezek. xxii. 6\u201313; and 29\u201331). The Poet\u2019s description of\nenvy is strikingly just, and is manifested in a powerful degree in every\nunregenerate human heart; and to their shame be it said, it is not\ncompletely rooted out of the hearts even of Christians, till death has\ndone its part: see the confession and exclamation of Paul, and the\npointed description of James, to which the heart of every one must fully\nrespond: Rom. 18\u201325; James iv. 1\u20135. The idea of the flight of Modesty\nand Virtue to heaven, leaving nothing but sorrows behind them, is also\nconceived in the finest vein of true poetry, which is always correct in\nits descriptions; nor is there any remedy for the evil until (as the\nPoet perhaps said, had we his works entire,) the return of the _Golden\nage_, when earth shall be as heaven.\n\nWith regard to the _Sixth age_, it is true, as Dr. Hales remarks, that\nHesiod does not expressly announce that it shall succeed the _Iron age_,\nnor that it should be a state of _regeneration_ or a revival of the\n_Golden age_; but his language strongly implies that it would be\nsuperior to the _Fifth age_, inasmuch as he earnestly expresses his wish\nthat it had been his lot to have lived after the latter, in the words \u1f24\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Moreover, in his address to his brother Persa, we find\na description of the happy effects which would result from doing\njustice, extending from v. 225 to v. 237; and this description\ncorresponds exactly to the language used by the poets of the succeeding\nage, in describing the return of the _Golden age_ at the close of the\n_Sixth_: thus, \u201cBut they who grant strict justice to strangers and\ncitizens, and depart not in the least from equity, shall have a\nflourishing city, and flourishing people within its walls; and peace,\nthe nurse of the young, shall dwell in the land; and Jupiter who sees\nafar, shall never bring upon them the horrors of war; neither shall\nfamine or destruction annoy men strictly just; to them also the earth\nshall bring forth plenteous subsistence; and on the mountains, the pines\nshall produce apples at the top, and honey at the middle; and the\nfleece-bearing sheep shall be laden with wool; and wives shall give\nbirth to children like their parents; and they shall flourish among the\ngood with perpetual bloom; and there shall be no need of navigation; for\nthe fertile ground shall produce all manner of fruit.\u201d\n\nIt is to the poets and other writers of the _Sixth age_ itself, however,\nthat we are to look for the prophetic anticipations of the glorious\nevent which was to illuminate its close. At the beginning of this age,\nflourished the _Seven Wise Men_ of Greece, whose laconic, but excellent\naphorisms, indicated the approach of better times. To them we owe,\naccording to Plato, the celebrated maxim \u0393\u03bd\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\u2014_Know thyself_;\nbut even to know himself was more than man could attain, without a\nrevelation from heaven;\u2014how much more necessary was it, therefore, that\nthe knowledge of the everlasting God should emanate from the same\nsource! Accordingly, we find in the Scriptures, the following maxim\nperpetually inculcated, which is as much above that of the Seven Sages,\nas the Heavens are above the earth. \u201cThe fear of the Lord is the\n_highest_ wisdom;\u201d[66] to which we may add, with Solomon, David, and\nJob, who all uttered the same aphorism\u2014\u201cAnd to depart from evil is\nunderstanding;\u201d (Prov. i. 7; Psalm cxi. 10; and Job xxviii. 28.) and it\nis easy to give it the laconic form, if this be any recommendation to\nthe admirers of the wisdom of the Heathen, who prefer to drink at their\nmuddy streams, and neglect the fountain of truth; for we have only to\nsay \u0393\u03bd\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd,\u2014_Know God_; and we concentrate in these two words, all\nthat is necessary for man\u2019s happiness, both in this world, and that\nwhich is to come: \u201cAnd this is life eternal, that they might know thee,\nthe only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;\u201d John xviii. 3.\nHe indeed, who knows God, knows himself also; for he knows that in the\nsight of God, he is \u201cwretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and\nnaked;\u201d and that he must buy of God, through Jesus Christ, \u201cgold tried\nin the fire,\u201d that he may be rich; and \u201cwhite raiment,\u201d that he may be\nclothed, and that the shame of his nakedness may not appear; and\n\u201ceye-salve\u201d to anoint his eyes, that he may see; Rev. iii. 17, 18.\n\nWhen a century and a-half of the _Sixth age_ had passed away, arose\nSocrates, the wisest of all the Greeks, who, as Cicero remarks, brought\nphilosophy down from heaven to earth, and taught all that man could know\nabout Divine things, which, according to his own confession, was\npositively nothing, with the exception of some obscure ideas which he\nhad learned from primitive tradition. He indeed appears to have had just\nviews of man\u2019s ignorance, and according to Plato, his illustrious\ndisciple, who survived his master half a century, he considered that\nthere was no real way of finding out the truth concerning God, but by a\nrevelation from Heaven, by the hand of a Divine Messenger. This appears\nevident, both from some passages in Plato\u2019s Dialogue, entitled the\n\u201cPh\u00e6do,\u201d and from the following remarkable passage in that entitled the\n\u201c_Second Alcibiades; or, of Prayer_,\u201d which we copy from the 2nd vol. of\nDr. Hales\u2019s \u201cAnalysis,\u201d p. 1231.\n\n\u201cSOCRATES.\u2014We must needs wait then, _Alcibiades_, until we can learn how\nwe ought to behave toward God and men. ALCIBIADES.\u2014When shall this time\ncome, _Socrates_? and who shall be the _instructor_? for I long to see\n_this man_ (\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd) whosoever he is. SOCRATES.\u2014He it is who\n_careth for thee_ (\u1fa1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5); and I think, that as _Minerva_ in\nHomer (Iliad 5, 127) removed the _mist_ from the _eyes_ of _Diomedes_,\nthat he might _well know_ both _gods_ and _men_; so it is necessary in\nthe first place, that He should remove _the mist_ from _your soul_ that\nis now attached thereto; and next that He should apply _the means_ by\nwhich you shall know both _good_ and _evil_ in future; for now indeed\nyou seem not to be able. ALCIBIADES.\u2014Let him remove the mist, or\nwhatever else it is, since I am prepared to decline none of his\ndirections, _whosoever this man is_, (\u1f41\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2),\nprovided I may be able to _become better_. SOCRATES.\u2014Truly _that same\nperson_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) _hath a wonderful regard for thee_. ALCIBIADES.\u2014I\nthink then, the best way will be to _postpone sacrificing_ until that\ntime. SOCRATES.\u2014You think right, for it is safer than to run so great a\nrisk [of sacrificing improperly.] ALCIBIADES.\u2014Then indeed, shall we give\nto THE GODS _crowns_ and other _legitimate offerings_, when I see that\nday coming, and _it will come in no long time_, THE GODS _willing_.\u201d\nFrom the same work, to which we have been so much indebted, we cannot\navoid extracting the following lines to the same purport, taken from the\nHymn of Eupolis, another disciple of Socrates, as translated by\n_Wesley_, not the founder of Methodism, but his father, Dr. Hales\nremarks:\u2014\n\n              \u201cAnd yet, a greater _Hero_ far\n              (Unless great _Socrates_ could err)\n              Shall _rise_ to _bless_, some _future day_,\n              And _teach_ to _live_, and teach to _pray_.\u201d\n\nDr. Hales has also given, at p. 1378, the following striking description\nfrom Plato, of the sufferings of the JUST ONE, and of the reception he\nshould meet with from a heedless and ungrateful world. \u201cHe shall be\nstripped of every possession, except his _virtue_; stigmatized as\n_wicked_, at a time when he exhibits the strongest proofs of _goodness_;\nendowed with _patience_ to resist every _temptation_, and _reverse of\nfortune_, but inflexibly maintaining _his integrity_; not _ostentatious_\nof his good qualities, but desiring to be _good_ rather than to _seem\nso_. In fine the recompense which the JUST ONE so disposed (\u03bf\u1f51\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), as I said, shall receive from the world is this;\nhe shall be _scourged, tortured, bound, deprived of his eyes_,\n(\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9), and at\nlength, having suffered all sorts of evils, _he shall be crucified_\n(\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9); [Works] vol. ii. p. 361, 362, Edit. _Serrani_.\u201d\nHe adds, \u201cPlato who travelled into _Egypt_, unquestionably collected\nthis singular _character_ and _sufferings_, of the JUST ONE, from the\nHebrew Scriptures, of the _Psalms_, _Isaiah_, _Daniel_, and _Zechariah_,\nwith the last of whom, he was nearly contemporary.\u201d\n\nAs the time, the long-expected, and eagerly-wished for time, drew nigh,\nwhen the Messiah was to appear, and as (the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) the\n_consummation of the ages_ hastened on, we find that the expectations of\nthe Heathen for this Divine Instructor, this mighty King and Saviour,\nincreased in magnitude and intensity,\u2014a certain proof that the arrival\nof the _Seventh_, or the return of the _Golden age_, was the subject of\ntheir calculation, as well as the theme of their song. On this subject\nwe need only refer to the works of Virgil, who flourished B.C. 40, in\nthe reign of Augustus C\u00e6sar, and particularly to the celebrated\n_Eclogue_ entitled \u201c_Pollio_,\u201d in which he gives a condensed summary of\nthe prophetic anticipations of all preceding poets and philosophers from\nthe days of Hesiod to his own. To those who may not have viewed the\n_fourth_ Eclogue in this light, the following extract of a poem so well\nknown, may not be unacceptable:\u2014\n\n          \u201cNow the last age of Cumic song has come:\n          A cycle vast of ages new appears;\n          Virtue returns, and Saturn\u2019s former reign:\n          Now a new race descends from lofty heaven.\n          O chaste Lucina, hail the coming prince,\n          Who shall the death of _Iron rule_[67] behold,\n          And resurrection of the _Golden age_:\n          For in this age, the Great Apollo reigns.\n          This glorious year, O Pollio, is thine;\n          And now the vast lunations are begun.\n          This year, if any trace of crime remain,\n          With its destruction, fear for ever flies.\n          That prince, on earth, the life of gods shall lead,\n          Heroes with gods in council he shall see,\n          And they with wonder shall behold his deeds:\n          While with paternal sway, the world he rules.\n          O, prince! to thee spontaneous earth shall bring\n          Her early fruits, and sweetest smelling shrubs,\n          On velvet flowers thy infant feet shall tread;\n          Before thy face, the serpent shall succumb,\n          And poisoned herbs their baneful power shall lose:\n          The Rose of Sharon everywhere shall spring.\n          In early youth thou shalt delight to read\n          The praise of heroes, and thy father\u2019s deeds,\n          And all that tends to form the virtuous mind;\n          Soon shall the fields be to the harvest white,\n          And prickly thorns be changed to blushing vines,\n          While honey sweet the knotty oak shall yield.\n          Yet traces of man\u2019s early sin shall rise,\n          And lead him to renew his toils at sea,\n          To wall his towns, and cultivate the ground.\n          Again, the Argonauts shall skim the main;\n          Again, the Theban war shall be begun;\n          Again, to Troy, shall Peleus\u2019 son descend.\u201d\n\nThis description has a manifest reference to Hesiod\u2019s account of the\ndifferent ages of the world, and forms a complete supplement to that\ninteresting relic of antiquity. Here we trace the _last_, or _Sybilline\nage_, in which Hesiod wished he had lived, the commencement of a great\nsuccession of ages, the return of the virgin _Nemesis_ or _Astr\u00e6a_, the\nGoddess of Justice, whom we have denominated _Virtue_, and who fled at\nthe close of the _Iron age_; the return of _Saturn\u2019s_ reign, which was\nto begin with the _Seventh_, or _Golden age revived_; and the reign of\n_Apollo_, who was the representative of the _Solar deity_, and the\nreviver of all things. The humanity and the divinity of the expected\nprince, is strangely shadowed forth by the poet, in his allusion to his\nintercourse with _gods_, _demigods_ and _heroes_, according to the Greek\nmythology. The misapplication, however, of the Cum\u00e6an or Sybilline\nprophecies, which were evidently borrowed or stolen from the Hebrew\nScriptures, to the expected son, of _Pollio_ according to some, or of\n_Augustus_ according to others, is a proof that the time of our\nSaviour\u2019s advent at the close of the _Sixth age_ was known to be near;\nand that while there were some who, like aged Simeon, waited for the\nconsolation of Israel; or, like Anna, the prophetess, departed not from\nthe temple at Jerusalem, in earnest expectation of Him who suddenly came\nto it, and gladdened their eyes; so there were some even among the\nHeathen who, like Virgil, had heard of the expected Saviour, and who\ngladly hailed his approach, although they were mistaken as to the signs\nof his coming, and were ignorant of the distinguishing characteristics\nby which he was to be known. It can scarcely be doubted indeed, that in\nthis Eclogue, Virgil had the prophecy of Isaiah in his mind, in which\nthe Messiah is described as a \u201crod out of the stem of Jesse, and a\nBranch out of his roots,\u201d and which he might have even read in the Greek\nversion of the _Seventy_. The following are some of its more striking\npoints of similarity: \u201cWith righteousness he shall judge the poor, and\nconvince the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the\nword of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the\nwicked. The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall\nlie down with the kid; and the young calf, and the bull, and the lion\nshall feed together; and a little child shall lead them. And the ox and\nthe bear shall feed together; and their young ones shall be together:\nand the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And an infant shall put his\nhand on the holes of asps, and on the nest of young asps. They shall not\nhurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of\nthe knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;\u201d Isaiah xi. 1\u20139;\ntaken partly from the Septuagint. In a similar passage of the same\nprophet, which is perhaps still more to be admired on account of the\nrichness of its promises to the people of God, and its striking\nresemblance to some passages in the book of Revelation, we find a very\nsingular remark which seems, to our dark and finite understandings, to\nmar the beauty of the description; we refer to Isaiah lxv. 17\u201325. At v.\n20, the prophet says, \u201cbut the sinner, being a hundred years old shall\nbe accursed;\u201d but for this sentence, we should have taken the whole\npassage for a figurative description of the happiness of the heavenly\nstate allotted for the righteous after death. In imitation, perhaps of\nthis singular passage, our poet introduces into his description of the\nrenewal of the _Golden age_, the acute remarks with which the preceding\nextract terminates, and in which it seems as if he had anticipated the\nwars which have since desolated Christendom.[68]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n                 ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.\n\n  1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the ancient\n       chronographers\u2014The testimony of the latter chiefly in\n       favour of the Septuagint\u2014The testimonies of Josephus,\n       Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal\n       Chronicle selected for examination\u2014Table I. Containing their\n       statements relating to the _First age_ of the world\u2014Errors of\n       Josephus\u2014Corruption of his text\u2014Mr. Cunninghame\u2019s detection of\n       his blunders in regard to the first age\u2014His discovery of the\n       truth from the titulary statements of the first and second books\n       of Josephus\u2014His explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this\n       author appears to have been accessory\u2014Error of Theophilus, and\n       accuracy of Africanus in this age\u2014Similar error of Eusebius and\n       Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the\n       Paschal Chronicle.\n\n\nAlthough the chronology of the Septuagint receives the strongest\nconfirmation from the writings of the ancient chronographers, it must\nnot be concealed that some of them have committed very strange and\nunaccountable errors in the computation of the different ages of the\nworld; while, the works of others have come down to us in such an\nimperfect and corrupted state, that implicit dependance cannot be placed\nin the chronographical statements which they now contain. The latter\nremark is peculiarly applicable to the writings of Josephus, whose\nauthority, notwithstanding all his errors, has been followed by many\nmodern chronologers in preference even to that of the sacred Scriptures.\nSurely the question of chronology lies between the Hebrew text and the\nSeptuagint version, and not between either of these and the works of the\nchronographers whether ancient or modern. By a fair examination,\nhowever, of their Sacred Chronology, we shall find that the testimony of\nthe oldest and best chronographers is almost entirely in favour of the\nchronology of the Septuagint, and that wherever they differ from it in\ntheir works, they commit errors which in general, can easily be detected\nand accounted for, unless the passages in question have been so entirely\nvitiated by the wilful mistakes of transcribers as to render it\nimpossible to determine what were the real and actual statements of the\nauthor. We shall select for this purpose, the names of five authors who\npossess the greatest influence among the learned on the subject of\nchronography, and whose statements are more or less followed by all\nlater writers on the same subject: namely, Josephus A.D. 90, Theophilus\nA.D. 180, Africanus A.D. 220, Eusebius A.D. 315, and the author of the\nPaschal Chronicle.[70]\n\nThe names of these chronographers have been particularly selected\nindeed, and their statements tabulated by Mr. Clinton himself, as the\nbest authorities, at least so far as regards the first two ages of the\nworld. We do not follow him, however, in placing their statements on a\nlevel with those of the ancient texts and versions of Scripture; but we\nclass them together as possessing the next claim to our attention. The\nfollowing table, which for the sake of comparison, is marked by the same\n_number_ as the corresponding table in our _first Part_, contains the\n_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Antediluvian Patriarchs_, and the\n_Extent_ of the _First age_ of the world according to each\nchronographer:\n\n                               TABLE I.\n    ANTEDILUVIAN   JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.\n     PATRIARCHS.                                              CHRON.\n                     A.P.    A.P. ages.  A.P. ages.   A.P.     A.P.\n                     ages.                            ages.   ages.\n   From Creation\n   Adam                  230         230        230       230    230\n   Seth                  205         205        205       205    205\n   Enos                  190         190        190       190    190\n   Cainan                170         170        170       170    170\n   Mahalaleel            165         165        165       165    165\n   Jared                 162         162        162       162    162\n   Enoch                 165         165        165       165    165\n   Methuselah            187        *167        187      *167    187\n   Lamech               *182         188        188       188    188\n   Noah                  500         500        500       500    500\n   To the Flood          100         100        100       100    100\n                        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014   \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n      FIRST AGE         2256        2242       2262      2242   2262\n\nBesides their respective statements above tabulated, these\nchronographers generally give in their works some additional statements\nwhich, with some exceptions, serve to rectify their errors, and to\ncorroborate and confirm the true chronology. Josephus, however, in the\npresent text, is made to say that the period from Adam to the flood is\n2656 years; whereas the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives\nonly 2256 years! On this point, some advocates of the Hebrew chronology\nargue that the original number was 1656 years, and that \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd has\nbeen put for \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd, or _two thousand_ for a _thousand_; but this is\nmere assertion; for it is just as easy to say that the original number\nwas 2256 years, and that \u1f11\u03be\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd has been put for \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd, or _six\nhundred_ for _two hundred_. Now the proof that the latter assertion is\nthe true one, is that the number 2256 agrees entirely with the summation\nof the numbers given in detail; whereas the number 1656 does not agree,\nand must consequently be erroneous. Moreover, there are some MS. copies\nof Josephus in which we find the true reading \u1f10\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f11\u03be, or _two thousand two hundred and fifty six years_; and\nthis reading is also to be found in some ancient authors who have\nfollowed Josephus in chronology, such as, Eutychius Alexandrinus,\nJosephus Christianus, Anianus Asceta, &c.[71] A few various readings\nrelating to the _Antepaidogonian ages_ are also to be found in the\ndifferent MSS. to which we have referred, but they are of minor\nimportance and not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the\ntabular numbers. The same may be said of his statements regarding the\n_Postpaidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_; but as the chronology does not\ndepend on these statements, it is unnecessary to make them the subject\nof discussion.\n\nIt is a very remarkable thing that Josephus differs here from the\nSeptuagint only in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, and that in this\npoint he agrees with the Hebrew text. Nor are we aware of the existence\nof any various reading which would lead us to suppose that it had been\notherwise in the text of Josephus. This circumstance alone, though there\nbe many others, would almost lead us to conclude, with Mr. Cuninghame,\nPreface to his \u201cSynopsis,\u201d p. vii., \u201cthat the corruption of the\nChronology must have taken place at an earlier period\u201d than is commonly\nsupposed by the learned. He believes \u201cit to have been in the interval\nbetween our Lord\u2019s death and the beginning of the Jewish war. This\nallows more than 30 years for the purpose, which is quite sufficient.\u201d\nHe also conceives \u201cthat it must have been well known to Josephus, and\nthe _end for which it was done_;\u201d and he adds, \u201cIt was, however, yet of\ntoo recent an origin for him to venture upon the bold experiment of\nopenly substituting it [the corrupted chronology] for the universal\nchronology of his own, as well as other nations, and the Christian\nchurch, and therefore he has introduced both schemes, namely, the _short\nand the long_ [_computation_], in such a manner as to perplex and\nutterly confuse the whole subject, and to draw from some of our most\nlearned men, the acknowledgment that his chronology is involved in\nhopeless obscurity.\u201d The following explanation of the discrepancy\nbetween Josephus and the Septuagint in regard to the _Antepaidogonian\nage_ of Lamech will be to the general reader more satisfactory than that\nto which we referred in our _first Part_, p. 23. \u201cJosephus, who in all\nthe other Antediluvian generations follows the Greek, does in this of\nLamech follow the Hebrew, and the effect of it is, that his Diluvian\nperiod from Creation is 2256, while that of the best copies of the\nSeventy, and of Demetrius, is 2262 years. This difference of 6 years,\ntherefore, goes through his whole Chronology. At the beginning of the\n1st book of his Antiquities [_that is in the Title to the Book_] he\ntells us, that it contains a period of 3833 years, to which, adding the\n6 years above mentioned to make it accord with the Greek chronology of\nDemetrius, the sum is 3839 years. If the reader will next turn to the\nTable in the Fulness of the Times, p. 34, he will see that this period\nof 3839 years, measures exactly the interval, from Creation, to the end\nof the year B.C. 1640, when the children of Israel left Egypt. Now as it\nis in the nature of things impossible that this most remarkable\ncoincidence should have been unknown to Josephus, the necessary and the\nlegitimate conclusion is, that the above period of 3833 years is his\nauthentic chronology from Creation to the Exodus. It divides itself as\nfollows:\n\n                                                    Years.\n             1st. To the Deluge                       2256\n             2nd. To the Birth of Abraham             1072\n             3rd. To the Exodus                        505\n                                                      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                  Total from Creation to the Exodus   3833\n\nIt, moreover, necessarily includes the disputed generation of Cainan,\nproving that it was in his text originally; and it excludes Usher\u2019s\naddition of 60 years to that of Terah. But the narrative of the 1st book\nof the Antiquities comes no lower than the _death of Isaac_, which was\n226 years before the Exodus, and the 2nd book contains the history from\nthe death of Isaac to the Exodus. Yet Josephus, after having at the\nbeginning of his 1st book already given the period which measures the\nnarrative of _both books_, does nevertheless at the commencement [that\nis, in the Title] of his 2nd Book, tell us that it contains a period of\n220 years in _addition_ to the former, and to this extent his chronology\nof the whole period from the Creation to the Exodus is _forged_.\u201d For\nthe rest of his remarks on the delinquencies of Josephus, and the\ndetection of his errors, we must refer our readers to the Preface to\nPart II. of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d pp. x, et seq.\nwhence the above extract is taken.\n\nIt is proper, however, to add the promised explanation, as abridged as\npossible. Mr. Cuninghame, in his \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d pp. 138, 139,\nshows that in curtailing the true chronology, the Jews preserved the\n_Jubilean Series_ from the birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob to\nPadan-aram; for, according to the Septuagint, this interval is 3136\nyears, or 64 Jubilees; but, according to the Hebrew text, and Usher,\n2009 years, or 41 Jubilees; the difference, therefore, is 1127 years or\n23 Jubilees. Now this difference consists of the following periods\nstruck off in the Hebrew chronology:\n\n                                                   Years.\n              From the birth of Enos to the Flood     406\n              From the Flood to the birth of Terah    720\n              Antedate of Jacob\u2019s departure             1\n                                                     \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                     Total 23 Jubilees, or           1127\n\nMr. Cuninghame argues from the cyclical nature of this period, that the\nRabbis who curtailed the true chronology, \u201cwere well aware that from the\nbirth of Enos to the departure of Jacob for Padan-aram, there was an\nexact series of Jubilees, and that in corrupting the Sacred text, they\nhave, with profound artifice, contrived to preserve a series of complete\nJubilees, by subtracting exactly 23 Jubilees, or 1127 years.\u201d He adds\nthe following proof regarding the _single_ year; in the true chronology,\nthe birth of Abraham is B.C. 2145, and the departure of Jacob, B.C.\n1908,\u2014interval, 237 years; in the curtailed chronology these events are\nrespectively dated B.C. 1996, and B.C. 1760,\u2014interval, 236 years; hence,\nthe antedate is one year. Now in the preceding interval from the birth\nof Enos to the flood, the period of 6 years which was subtracted from\nthe _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, is an essential element in the\nargument; otherwise that interval would be only 400 years instead of\n406, and the whole of the argument would then fall to the ground.\nAnother argument, in favour of the 6 years is, that if the longer\nchronology of Josephus be so far correct, which is proved from the\nSeptuagint, it is surely proper to follow the authority of that version\nin regard to the 6 years, _as well as_ in regard to the 600 years; if we\ntrust to its accuracy for the _greater_ number, we may also trust it for\nthe _less_! It seems ridiculous and absurd to take the evidence of the\nhighest authority at _second_ hand, and to reject a small part of that\nevidence, because it is not fairly brought forward by the _same_ hand;\nalthough it be pressed on our notice by many other witnesses! Surely in\nregard to these 6 years, the testimony of the Septuagint and the whole\nChristian Church, is before that of Josephus.\n\nIn reference to the tabulated statements of Theophilus, we find only the\nvery singular and unaccountable error of 20 years in the\n_Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah, which the Vatican codex, if we may\ntrust the editions of the Septuagint said to have been taken from it,\nappears to have retained. That this chronographer has evidently read 167\nyears instead of 187 years, can scarcely be doubted from his subsequent\nstatements, and particularly from his statement respecting the extent of\nthis age, that \u201call the years till the flood were 2242.\u201d[72]\n\nThe statements of Africanus as to the Antediluvian period, entirely\nagree with those of the Septuagint, which shows that he had taken his\nnumbers from a more correct copy of that version, and one that agreed in\nthis respect with the celebrated Alexandrine codex now deposited in the\nBritish Museum. He confirms the truth of his particular statements by\nthe following summary ones: _first_\u2014\u201cTherefore, from Adam till the birth\nof Enos all the years are 435;\u201d _second_,\u2014\u201cTherefore, from Adam till\nNoah and the flood are 2262 years.\u201d[73] As to the statements of\nEusebius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle, they are of a later\nage, and must therefore have been copied from one or other of the former\nauthors, or from the copies of the Septuagint extant in their time. From\nthe notes upon the Chronicon of Africanus, added by Routh,[74] it is\nevident that both Eusebius and Syncellus adopted the numbers in the\npreceding table which we have arranged under the name of the former; and\nthat Epiphanius and the author of the _Paschal_ or _Alexandrine_\nChronicle adopted the correct numbers of the Septuagint, which we have\nplaced under the title of that work. After stating that according to\nAfricanus, \u201cthere were 3000 years from Adam to the death of Peleg;\u201d\nSyncellus adds, \u201cbut according to Eusebius, 2980 years;\u201d the difference\nbetween these numbers is 20 years, which is precisely the same as the\ndifference between their dates of the year of the flood, viz: A.M. 2262,\nand A.M. 2242. Moreover, although Syncellus states that Africanus gives\nthe former of these dates, as the true epoch of the deluge; he adds his\nown opinion, that \u201cfrom Adam to the flood there were 2242 years,\u201d and\n\u201ccontra Africanum pugnat,\u201d _fights against Africanus_, in favour of the\nerroneous number. The author of the Paschal Chronicle says explicitly,\nthat \u201cin the 100th year of Shem, the 600th of Noah, and the 2262d year\nof the world, the flood was upon the earth; and this is the exact number\nwhich Africanus exhibits at this epoch since the correct copies of\nGenesis shew 187 years as the age of Methuselah when he begat Lamech.\u201d\nEpiphanius, in his first book \u201cagainst Heretics,\u201d after narrating that\nNoah was saved in the ark, says \u201cand thus the 10th generation extended\nto the 2262d year [of the world,] and the flood brought it to an end.\u201d\nThus it appears to have been the general opinion of the oldest and best\nwriters that the _First age_ of the world was of the _precise length_\nwhich we have assigned to it; and that the only difference among them\nwas, whether it were not shorter by 20 years, in consequence of some\nfoolish mistake committed by an early transcriber in the\n_Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah; for in this age, the correct copies\nof the Septuagint perfectly agree with the Hebrew text.\n\n  2. Table II., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers\n       relating to the _Second age_ of the world\u2014Absurd errors of the\n       text of Josephus\u2014The discrepancy between his detailed numbers and\n       his sum total, the work of an enemy to the truth\u2014Proof that the\n       true sum was in his text originally\u2014Errors of Theophilus and\n       Africanus in this age due to Jewish influence\u2014Notion entertained\n       by the ancient chronographers regarding the bisection of the\n       Mundane period at the death of Peleg\u2014The genealogy of Shem, like\n       that of Melchisedec, in the chronology\u2014Reference to Mr.\n       Clinton\u2014Error of Eusebius, rectified in the Hieronymian version\n       of his Chronicon\u2014Accuracy of the Paschal Chronicle, with the\n       exception of the biennial period\u2014Valuable Testimony of Eusebius\n       and Africanus, preserved by Syncellus in his Chronographia, on\n       the extent of the _first two ages_.\n\nWe now proceed to notice the errors of these chronographers, in their\nstatements regarding the _Second age_ of the world. The following table,\nwhich should be compared with Table II. in our first Part, contains the\n_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Postdiluvian Patriarchs_, and the\n_Extent_ of the _Second age_, according to each chronographer.\n\n                                TABLE II.\n  POSTDILUVIAN   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.\n   PATRIARCHS.                                                  CHRON.\n                 A.P. ages. A.P. ages.  A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages.\n From the Flood         *12          *0         *0          2         *0\n Arphaxad               135         135        135        135        135\n Cainan                  *0          *0         *0         *0        130\n Salah                  130         130        130        130        130\n Heber                  134         134        134        134        134\n Peleg                  130         130        130        130        130\n Reu                    130         132        132        132        132\n Serug                  132         130        130        130        130\n Nahor                 *120         *75         79         79         79\n Terah                   70          70         70         70         70\n To the Call of          75          75         75         75         75\n   Abraham\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n   SECOND AGE          1068        1011       1015       1017       1145\n\nIn regard to the _Extent_ of this age, Josephus is made to say, in the\npresent text, that Abraham \u201cwas born in the 292d year after the\nflood;\u201d[75] while the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives 993\nyears, to which adding the age of Abraham at the Call, we have 1068\nyears! As we can scarcely suppose Josephus to have been guilty of so\nextraordinary an absurdity as to commit an arithmetical error of this\nmagnitude, we cannot only attribute the discrepancy to the evil design\nof his transcribers, and say \u201can enemy hath done this!\u201d Moreover, the\nsame wicked hand that dared to alter this and other numbers of our\nauthor, has no doubt, also dared to omit here the genealogy of the\n_Second Cainan_. Nor can we see what good purpose it could serve to make\nhim say that \u201cArphaxad the son of Shem, was born 12 years after the\nflood,\u201d instead of 2, as in the Sacred text; and that \u201cNahor when he was\n120 years old begat Terah,\u201d[76] instead of 79, as in the Septuagint. But\nsince in these details, Josephus has in general adopted the numbers of\nthe Septuagint, it is plain that he must have followed the same\nauthority in their sum total, and that the sum of 292 years must have\nbeen inserted instead of the true sum of 1072 years, by some early\nadvocate or supporter of the Hebrew chronology. Besides, we have shown\nin our preceding remarks on the _Extent_ of the _First age_, that\nJosephus has prefixed a number to his _first Book_, which in reality\nbelongs to his _first and second Books_, and which includes the extent\nof the _first three ages_, all but 6 years. That number is 3833 years, a\nperiod wholly inexplicable on any other principle than that which Mr.\nCuninghame has laid down. To him, we are therefore justly indebted for\nits true and satisfactory explication; and he has clearly shown that\nJosephus must have originally inserted in his Antiquities, the true\nnumber of 1072 years, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham; although\nthe text is now so vitiated that it cannot be made out from the place in\nquestion.\n\nThe errors of Theophilus in this age are both strange and unaccountable,\nexcept on the principle of Jewish influence, when we consider that his\nerror in the first age, was only 20 years, while here it amounts to 132\nyears. He states that from the Creation \u201ctill Abraham, there are 3278\nyears,\u201d[77] that is, to the birth of Isaac as appears by the context. If\nfrom this number we subtract his extent of the first age, viz. 2242\nyears, the remainder is 1036 years, or his period from the flood to the\nbirth of Abraham; and from this period, deducting 25 years, the time\nwhich elapsed from the Call to the birth of Isaac, we obtain a remainder\nof 1011 years, which is the extent of the _Second age_, according to\nTheophilus. Hence, it is plain that he omits the _Second Cainan_, the 2\nyears after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad, and 4 years in\nthe _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor. The second omission is manifest also\nfrom the context, where he says, \u201cbut _immediately_ (\u1f10\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2) after the\nflood, Shem being 100 years old, begat Arphaxad.\u201d We shall see that he\nendeavours to make up for these omissions, by a curious balance of some\nof these errors in the succeeding age. In addition to the tabular\nstatements, Africanus says that, \u201cArphaxad begat Salah in A. M. 2397;\nSalah begat Heber in A. M. 2527; and Heber begat Peleg in A. M. 2661.\u201d\nHe says also that \u201cPeleg at the age of 130 begat Reu, and having lived\nother 209 years, died;\u201d so that \u201cfrom Adam to the death of Peleg there\nwere 3000 years.\u201d[78] According to the true chronology, Peleg died in A.\nM. 3132; hence, from the dates of Africanus, if correctly reported, it\nappears that he omits the genealogy of the _Second Cainan_, and the two\nyears after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad. The difference\nbetween the dates of Africanus and those derived from the Septuagint, is\ntherefore 132 years; and this number must be added to the subsequent\ndates of Africanus, until other errors appear, in order to obtain the\ntrue dates. If this be done, we shall find that throughout the whole of\nthis age, the dates of Africanus will perfectly agree with those of the\ntrue chronology. Connected with the tradition of the renovation of the\nworld at the end of 6000 years, there appears to have been an idea\ncurrent among the early chronographers, that the period from the\nCreation to the Advent of Christ was exactly _bisected_ at the death of\nPeleg; because the Scripture says that \u201cin his days the earth was\ndivided,\u201d by which they seem to have understood the whole period of its\nexistence! Hence, the apparent reason of the omission of the _Second\nCainan\u2019s_ generation, and the _Postdiluvian biennial_ period.[79]\nAfricanus further states that \u201cin A. M. 3277, Abraham entered the\npromised land;\u201d consequently, an interval of 277 years had elapsed since\nthe death of Peleg; but this corresponds exactly with the interval of\nthe Septuagint, for 3409 \u2212 3132 = 277; see Tables V. and VIII. of our\n_first Part_. Moreover, he states that \u201cfrom the flood and Noah to the\ndescent of Abraham into the promised land, were ten generations or 1015\nyears, and from Adam, twenty generations or 3277 years.\u201d[80] We have\nsufficiently discussed the question of the _number_ of generations here\nmentioned, in our _first Part_, pp. 34\u201340; it is quite unnecessary\ntherefore, to resume the subject; suffice it to say that _Shem_ was an\n_Antediluvian_, and therefore his generation could not be reckoned in\nthe number of generations after the flood; neither was it reckoned in\nthe number before the flood: for Noah was reckoned the _tenth_ from\nAdam, and Abraham the _tenth_ from the flood. In this respect,\ntherefore, _Shem_ was like _Melchizedec_, as far as the generations or\ngenealogies on which the Chronology depended, was concerned, viz.,\n\u201cFatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither beginning of\ndays nor end of life, being assimilated to the Son of God,\u201d who \u201cremains\na priest for ever;\u201d and who \u201chath made us [true believers in Christ]\nkings and priests unto God even his Father; to\u201d whom \u201cbe glory and\ndominion for ever and ever. Amen.\u201d Heb. vii. 3; and Rev. i. 6.\n\nThe statements of Eusebius and the author of the Paschal Chronicle\nrespecting this age are taken from Mr. Clinton\u2019s \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol.\ni. p. 287; he appears to have very carefully sifted these numbers, in\norder to arrive at the exact truth concerning the opinions of their\nauthors. He gives the following extract from the Chronicon of Eusebius;\n\u201cFrom the flood to the first year of Abraham are collected 942 years;\u201d\nif to this number we add 75 years, the age of Abraham at the Call, we\nhave 1017 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second age_ according to\nEusebius. The author of the Paschal Chronicle appears to have omitted\nthe two years after the flood; hence, the preceding 75 years being added\nto 1070 years, the period which he assigns between the flood and the\nbirth of Abraham, we have 1145 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second\nage_ according to that work. Routh, however, justly remarks that \u201cin the\n_Hieronymian version_ of the _Eusebian Chronicle_, the years of this\n[the _Second_] Cainan are still extant;\u201d hence, even according to\nEusebius, the true extent of the Second age appears originally to have\nbeen 1147 years. The following testimony collected by Syncellus in his\nChronographia, from the works of Eusebius and Africanus, in support of\nthe computation of the Septuagint before the flood, and of the\nSeptuagint and Samaritan after the flood, we extract from Dr. Russell\u2019s\n\u201cConnection,\u201d vol. i. pp. 96, 97, on account of its important bearing on\nthe _Extent_ of the _first two ages_:\u2014\u201cSince, according to the most\nancient Hebrew copy preserved among the Samaritans, and which agrees\nwith the Septuagint translation, they who lived after the flood down to\nAbraham did not beget children till after the age of 100 years and more,\nwhat reason can be assigned that their predecessors before the flood,\nwhose lives were longer by many years, should begin to beget children\nsooner, and not rather at the ages set down in the Septuagint? On mature\nconsideration, we must incline to the latter computation, and\nnecessarily conclude, that the Jewish-Hebrew reckoning of the times from\nAdam to Abraham is wrong in all the ages excepting three, Jared,\nMethuselah, and Lamech; and that the Samaritan-Hebrew computation is\nalso wrong in the period from Adam to the flood; for in the years from\nthe flood to Abraham it agrees entirely with the Septuagint. But the\nerror of the Jewish-Hebrew text is evident from hence, that it makes\nAbraham and Noah contemporaries, which is inconsistent with all history:\nfor since according to the Hebrew text, there are no more than 292 years\nfrom the flood to Abraham, and since, according to the same text, Noah\nlived 350 years after the flood, it is evident that he lived to the 58th\nyear of Abraham!\u201d\n\n  3. Table III., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers\n       relating to the _Third age_ of the world\u2014The testimony of\n       Josephus to the true chronology very explicit\u2014Misinterpretation\n       of prophecy the cause of wavering in Josephus and blunder in\n       Theophilus\u2014The testimony of Africanus correct\u2014Eusebius,\n       Demetrius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle\n       correct\u2014Explanation of the period of 400 years.\n\nThe following table which contains the statements of the chronographers,\nregarding the _Third age_ of the World, ought to be compared with Table\nVIII. in our _first Part_; as it contains the Chief _Patriarchal Eras_\nand _Intervals_ according to each chronographer:\n\n                               TABLE III.\n   PATRIARCHAL   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.\n      ERAS.                                                     CHRON.\n                 Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.\n                              From the Call\n The Eisodus            215         215        215        215        215\n To the Exodus          215         430        215        215        215\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    THIRD AGE           430         645        430        430        430\n\nThe testimony of Josephus to the Extent of this age is very explicit. He\nstates that the Israelites \u201cleft Egypt in the 430th year after that our\nfather Abraham came into Canaan, and in the 215th year after the Eisodus\nof Jacob into Egypt;\u201d[81] and he mentions some of the minor intervals,\nin a very clear and distinct manner, in his 2nd Book. It is evident\nindeed that he rightly understood the testimony of Scripture as to the\ntrue intervals of this prophetic period; although he seems to waver from\nthe truth in the 9th chapter of that Book, where he speaks of the\nafflictions of the Israelites in Egypt for a period of 400 years,\naccording to Gen. xv. 13. The latter text, however, appears to have been\nthe stumbling block of Theophilus in his chronology; for he agrees with\nthe Scriptures, as regards the intervals from the call to the Eisodus;\nand then he says that \u201cthe sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt was 430\nyears!\u201d[82] He seems therefore to have confounded the period of 400\nyears with the period of 430 years, and to have applied the whole period\nto the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt alone, exclusive of Canaan,\ncontrary to the testimony of the Septuagint, Exodus xii. 40, Alexandrine\nedition, and that of St. Paul, Galatians iii. 17. By this means, he\nincreases the Extent of the _Third age_ to 645 years, making it greater\nthan the true Extent, by 215 years! It would almost seem, therefore, as\nif he had intended this error to compensate in some measure for those\nwhich he committed in the preceding ages; inasmuch as it is of an\nentirely opposite character. This excess of 215 years makes up not only\nfor the omission of the 20 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of\nMethuselah before the flood, of the 130 years of the generation of the\n_Second Cainan_, of the 2 years after the flood, and of the 4 years in\nthe _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor; but gives a surplus of 59 years at\nthe end of the _Third age_ in his chronology. For, adding the 40 years\nwandering in the Wilderness to his amount of the _first three ages_, he\nsays that \u201call the years are 3938,\u201d[83] from the Creation of the world\nto the entrance of the Israelites into the promised Land. By a reference\nto Table X. of our _first Part_, it will be seen that the true date of\nthis entrance is A.M. 3880, and making allowance for the single year we\nhave added to this date, on the ground specified at p. 65, it follows\nthat the date of Theophilus is erroneous in excess by 58 years.\n\nThe statements of Africanus respecting this age have not been preserved\nin a perfect state; but from the following fragments, it will appear\nthat he took the correct and Scriptural view of its _Extent_ and\n_Intervals_. Syncellus says that according to Africanus, \u201cJoseph was 40\nyears old in the 130th year of Jacob; consequently, Joseph lived 70\nyears after the arrival of Jacob in Egypt;\u201d and that \u201cfrom Adam to the\ndeath of Joseph, were 23 generations, and 3563 years.[84]\u201d Now, if to\nthe latter number, we add 132 years, for reasons already mentioned p.\n244, we shall have 3695 years for the correct number according to the\ntrue Chronology; see Table VIII. of our _first Part_. Again, he says,\n\u201cit has been shown that there were 1020 years from Moses and Ogyges to\nthe first Olympiad, that is, from the Passover or first year of the\nExodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, when the flood of Ogyges happened in\nAttica.\u201d[85] Here, if we take the last year of the first Olympiad as\nthat to which Africanus refers, namely B.C. 773, and add to it the\npreceding number, we shall have B.C. 1793, for his date of the Exodus;\nbut as this chronographer constantly reckons the period from Creation to\nthe Birth of Christ as 5500 years,[86] it is evident by subtraction,\nthat his Mundane date of the Exodus is A.M. 3708; to which, adding the\nconstant number 132 as before, we shall obtain A.M. 3840, or B.C. 1639,\nfor the date of the Exodus according to the true system of chronology.\nAgain, if we take the difference between either the dates of Africanus,\nor the true dates of the death of Joseph and the Exodus, which we have\ndeduced from his by the addition of a constant quantity, we shall obtain\nthe interval of 145 years, which, added to the period of 70 years above\nmentioned, makes 215 years as his interval between the Eisodus and the\nExodus; consequently, his interval between the Call and the Eisodus must\nhave been the same amount, and his whole extent of this age 430 years.\n\nMr. Clinton has given a very full extract from the Chronicon of\nEusebius, in which he states that from the first year of Abraham to the\nExodus were 505 years; that Abraham left Charran in the 75th year of his\nage; and consequently, from that year to the Exodus were 430 years. He\nthen states the Scriptural intervals from the Call to the birth of\nJacob, and traces through his genealogy, the intervals from thence to\nthe birth of Moses and the Exodus; but since, as Mr. Clinton remarks,\nhis \u201cdistribution of the last 215 years is more correct than in the\naccount of Demetrius, but still erroneous,\u201d we need not repeat his\nenumeration in this place; suffice it to say, that his estimate of the\nwhole period is correct. Mr. Clinton also cites the following passage\nfrom the Paschal Chronicle, which shows that its author\u2019s estimate of\nthe Extent of this age was likewise correct: \u201cJoshua, the son of Nun, 27\nyears;\u2014Chushanrishathaim, 8 years; in all, 3912 years.\u201d For, adding to\nthe latter number, the two years which he omits after the flood, we\nshall have 3914 years; and from this, subtracting the 35 years just\ncited, we shall have 3839 years, and consequently, A.M. 3839 for his\ndate of the Exodus, which is within a year of the true date for reasons\nalready alluded to; he, therefore, must have reckoned the period of 430\nyears from the ingress of Abraham into Canaan, to the egress of Israel\nout of Egypt.\n\nThe adjustment of the period mentioned in Gen. xv. 13, can occasion no\ndifficulty to the careful reader of Scripture, for it is evident that\nthe commencement of this period must be reckoned from the day that Isaac\nwas weaned, or perhaps a year or two after; inasmuch it related\nspecifically to _the seed_ of Abraham which were to be strangers in \u201ca\nland not theirs,\u201d and to be \u201cevil entreated 400 years;\u201d Acts vii. 6.\nThis evil treatment began when Isaac was a child, and was able to play,\nsay at 5 years old, with the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, the son of the\nbondwoman, who was not to be heir with the son of promise and of\n_laughter_. _Isaac_ was his name; but Sarah saw Ishmael _Isaaking_ or\n_laughing_ at her son, and mocking him, and accordingly, she demanded\nthat the \u201cbondwoman and her son\u201d should be cast out,\u2014a striking emblem\nof the punishment that shall befal all the mockers of and laughers at\nthe people of God; for the Apostle truly says \u201cbut as then he that was\nborn after the flesh _persecuted_ him that was born after the Spirit,\neven so it is now:\u201d Galatians iv. 22; yea, and the term \u201c_Saints_,\u201d or\n\u201c_Holy ones_\u201d of God, is become a term of mockery, of scorn, and of\nreproach, in this very age in which we now live; although it be written\nthat \u201cwithout _Holiness_ no man shall see the Lord!\u201d Precisely then, for\nthe space of 400 years did this affliction and persecution continue\nagainst the seed of Abraham, till God brought them out of the land of\nEgypt \u201cwith a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm;\u201d and precisely\nin the same manner shall all the true Israel of God be rescued from\ntheir enemies, and be in due time delivered from the land of darkness\nand of death.\n\n  4. Table IV., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers\n       relating to the _Fourth age_ of the world\u2014The testimony of\n       Josephus to the extent of this age highly satisfactory\u2014Proof that\n       it was 612 years\u2014Strange errors of Theophilus\u2014Method of\n       rectifying them\u2014Compensating errors of Africanus\u2014His date of the\n       foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple correct\u2014Errors of Eusebius\u2014His\n       _Pr\u00e6paratio_ correct in amount, his _Chronicon_ wrong\u2014He confutes\n       himself and adopts the Hebrew chronology\u2014Comparison between him\n       and Usher\u2014Errors of the Paschal Chronicle\u2014The author coincides\n       with Josephus\u2014Hesitancy of Mr. Clinton\u2014Table V., _The first four\n       ages_ of the world, and date of Solomon\u2019s Temple according to the\n       different chronographers.\n\nThe following table, which exhibits the statements of the chronographers\nregarding the _Fourth age_ of the world, should be compared with Table\nX. in our _first Part_; as it contains the _Critarchal Eras_, and\n_Intervals_ according to each chronographer. With regard to this period,\nwe omitted to observe that the reading in most of the MSS. and editions\nof the Septuagint, in 1 Kings vi. 1, is 440 years instead of 480 years.\n\n                                TABLE IV.\n   CRITARCHAL   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS.\u2502 EUSEBIUS. \u2502  PASCH.\n     ERAS.                                       \u2502           \u2502  CHRON.\n                Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals.\u2502Intervals. \u2502Intervals.\n From the               40          40         40\u2502   40    40\u2502        40\n   Exodus                                        \u2502           \u2502\n Joshua and             27          27        *55\u2502  *30    27\u2502        27\n   Elders                                        \u2502           \u2502\n 1st SERVITUDE           8           8           \u2502    8    *0\u2502         8\n Critarchate of         40          40           \u2502  *50    40\u2502       *32\n   Othniel                                       \u2502           \u2502\n 2nd SERVITUDE          18          18           \u2502   18    *0\u2502        18\n Cr. of Ehud            80          *8           \u2502   80    80\u2502        80\n   and Shamgar                                   \u2502           \u2502\n 3rd SERVITUDE          20          20           \u2502   20    *0\u2502        20\n Cr. of Deborah         40          40           \u2502   40    40\u2502        40\n   and Barak                                     \u2502           \u2502\n 4th SERVITUDE           7           7           \u2502    7    *0\u2502         7\n Cr. of Gideon          40          40           \u2502   40    40\u2502        40\n Of Abimelech,                                   \u2502           \u2502\n   Tolah, and           48          48           \u2502   48    47\u2502        48\n   Jair                                          \u2502           \u2502\n 5th SERVITUDE          18          18           \u2502   18    *0\u2502        18\n Cr. of                  6           6           \u2502    6     6\u2502         6\n   Jephthah                                      \u2502           \u2502\n Of Ibzan, Elon         25          25           \u2502   25   *15\u2502        25\n   and Abdon                                     \u2502           \u2502\n 6th SERVITUDE,         40          40        490\u2502  *60   *20\u2502       *60\n   (Samson)                                      \u2502           \u2502\n Critarchate of         40         *81           \u2502   40    40\u2502       *80\n   Eli                                           \u2502           \u2502\n 7th SERVITUDE          20          *0           \u2502   *0    *0\u2502        *0\n Cr. of Samuel          12          12         90\u2502   *0    *0\u2502       *20\n Reign of Saul          40         *20           \u2502   40    40\u2502       *20\n Reign of David         40          40           \u2502   40    40\u2502        40\n To the                                          \u2502           \u2502\n   Foundation            3           3         70\u2502    3     4\u2502         3\n   of Solomon\u2019s                                  \u2502           \u2502\n   Temple                                        \u2502           \u2502\n                      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2502 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2502      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                       612         541        745\u2502  613   479\u2502       632\n\nWith regard to this much disputed period, the testimony of Josephus is,\nin several places of his works, highly satisfactory. _First_\u2014In the\ntitle of the fifth book of his Antiquities, which records the history of\nthe interval from the death of Moses to that of Eli, he states that it\ncontains a period of 476 years; and in the title of the 6th book, which\nrecords the history of the interval from the death of Eli to that of\nSaul, he states that it contains a period of 32 years. These intervals\ntaken together make a period of 508 years; to which, if we add the 40\nyears in the wilderness, the 40 years of David, and the three years of\nSolomon, we have 591 years; this period wants only about 20 years to\nmake it correspond with the true chronology, and these 20 years appear\nto have been omitted in the Seventh Servitude; for the short period of\n32 years is manifestly erroneous. The truth is, that the longer interval\nshould be only 456 or 457 years, in order to correspond exactly with\nActs xiii. 19, 20; and the shorter interval 72 years, in order to\ncorrespond with Acts xiii. 21, and 1 Samuel vii. 2.[87] These intervals\nwould then make together 529 years; to which, if the numbers above\nmentioned be added, the true amount is 612 years, as in the Table.\n_Second_,\u2014That 612 years is the true _Flavian Extent_ of the _Fourth\nage_ of the world is evident from the 20th book of the Antiquities x. 1,\nwhere the author says \u201cbut the number of the years which the thirteen\n[high priests] ruled, from the day our fathers left Egypt, Moses being\nleader, until the foundation of the temple which Solomon the king built\nin Jerusalem, was 612 years.\u201d[88] From this distinct statement of the\ntrue extent of the _Critarchal age_, it is evident that the text of\nJosephus, in books 5th and 6th of the Antiquities, must have originally\ncontained the true Scriptural numbers, although now we find the\nfollowing errors have supervened. The first error is in Book vii. 5, 4,\nwhere, speaking of the form of the Hebrew Government under Moses and\nJoshua, he says, \u201cbut after his [or their] death, for _the whole_ 18\nyears, anarchy ruled their people.\u201d[89] The words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9, _the\nwhole_, seem plainly to indicate that a connecting sentence has been\nomitted here; and that _these 18 years_ must have been part of the\ngovernment of Joshua and the Elders, which appears to have been so mild\nand _Patriarchal_, after the division of the land, when \u201cthe Lord had\ngiven rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about,\u201d that humanly\nspeaking, they were _without government_, although they were living\nunder the best of all governments\u2014_a Theocracy_. After the death of\nJoshua and the Elders, indeed, there must have been a short period of\nanarchy, perhaps about two years,[90] when the children of Israel\n\u201cforsook the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth,\u201d and when \u201can angel of\nthe Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim\u201d to reprove them for their\nIdolatry, (Judges ii. 1\u20135,) previous to their being \u201csold into the hand\nof the King of Mesopotamia;\u201d (iii. 8.) This _anarchal period of two\nyears_, with the _18 years of rest under Joshua_, and the _7 years of\nhis active government_ during the war and the allotment of the land,\nwill clearly make up the number of 27 years, a period to which all the\nancient chronographers bear the most distinct and unequivocal\ntestimony;\u2014\u201cFrequens tamen opinio est 27 annis eum [Jesum] Hebr\u00e6is\npr\u00e6fuisse.\u201d[91] A further proof of the opinion we have here advanced\nrespecting the 18 years, is that Josephus does not make the slightest\nmention of them at the proper place in the history, where he speaks of\nthe death of Joshua, and the accession of Judah to power according to\nthe Divine word, Judges i. 2; but incidentally introduces them into a\nreflection which he makes on the different forms of the Hebrew\ngovernment, on the occasion of the renewal of the Kingdom to Saul at\nGilgal; 1 Samuel xi. 14.\n\nThe second error relates to the critarchate of Shamgar, which is usually\nreckoned at _one_ year by those who undertake to expound the chronology\nof Josephus; but there is no warrant for this either in the Scriptures,\nor in Josephus; for he merely says, in v. 4, 3, that \u201cShamgar died _in\nthe first year_ of his government,\u201d which might have been at the very\ncommencement of it, and perhaps in the 80th year of Ehud. The next error\nof Josephus is the _total omission_, in the present text of the\nCritarchate of Tolah, who succeeded Abimelech, and preceded Jair; this\nomission amounts to 23 years; but it must have been reckoned by\nJosephus, otherwise he could not have recorded such numbers as he has\ndone in every place for the whole length of the period. Again, the name\nand progeny of Abdon are mentioned in v. 7, 15; but the years of his\ncritarchate are omitted, in the present text, evidently by mistake or\noversight. Lastly, an error has been attributed to Josephus by some\nchronologers,[92] in making Saul reign only 20 years; but this is a\nmistake on their part; for he distinctly states in vi. 14, 9, that \u201che\nreigned 18 years while Samuel was alive, and 22 years after his death,\u201d\nwhich clearly makes 40 years in all. Further, he states in vi. 13, 5,\nthat \u201cafter the death of Eli, the high priest Samuel alone ruled the\npeople 12 years; and after Saul was king, 18 years;\u201d thus plainly, as in\nthe present text, omitting the _Seventh Servitude_, when the ark was at\nKirjathjearim for the space of 20 years; 1 Samuel vii. 2. _Third_,\u2014in\nhis 2d Book _against Apion_, Sect. 2, Josephus says, \u201cBut Solomon\nhimself built the Temple, 612 years after the Exodus of the Jews from\nEgypt.\u201d[93] This is a very important testimony, occurring as it does in\nan argumentative treatise concerning the \u201cAntiquity of the Jewish\nNation,\u201d in opposition to the pretensions of the Greeks, Egyptians, and\nChaldeans, to a vastly more remote origin than the Hebrews. Here,\nJosephus, or his transcribers, having no particular end to serve in\nreference to dates, has allowed the simple fact concerning the true\nlength of the period to remain on record. Most likely it has escaped\ntheir notice, otherwise it might have shared the fate of the dates and\nperiods of his Antiquities, which have been by wilful alteration, thrown\ninto such inextricable confusion.\n\nHaving thus shown that Josephus originally held the true chronology of\nthis period, we may select some other instances of the manner in which\nit has been misstated either by himself or others in the present text of\nhis works, the error being in general a period of about 20 years, either\nabove or below the truth. In the Antiquities vii. 3, 2, he says \u201cBut all\nthe time from Joshua being commander of the expedition against the\nCanaanites, until David expelled them from Jerusalem, was 515\nyears.\u201d[94] Now adding to this number the 40 years in the Wilderness,\nthe 33 years which David reigned in Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 5, 6, 7), and\nthe 3 years of Solomon, we have 591 years as before, a period which is\ndeficient by about 20 years. Again, in viii. 3, 1, he says, \u201cBut Solomon\nbegan the building of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign, 592 years\nafter the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt;\u201d but according to\n_Tostatus_, cited by Hudson, the number found in some copies was 612\nyears.[95] Next, in ix. 14, 1, he says, \u201cTherefore the Ten Tribes of\nIsrael migrated from Judea 947 years after the time when their\nforefathers, having left Egypt, possessed the land; but after the time\nwhen, having rebelled against Rehoboam, the grandson of David, they\ntransferred the kingdom to Jeroboam, 240 years, 7 months, 7 days;\u201d[96]\nnow, if we reckon the captivity of the Ten Tribes from the Foundation of\nthe Temple, by allowing, according to Josephus, viii. 7, 8, for the\nreign of Solomon 80 years, taking off 3 years, and adding the remaining\n77 years to the latter interval above mentioned, neglecting the months\nand days, we have 317 years for the amount; and if we subtract this\namount from the former interval, we have 630 years for the remainder,\nwhich is evidently the period here reckoned between the Exodus and the\nFoundation of the Temple, and it errs in excess by 18 years. Lastly, in\nx. 8, 5, he says, \u201cBut the temple was burned 470 years, 6 months, and 10\ndays after it was founded; and 1062 years, 6 months, and 10 days after\nthe Exodus of the people from Egypt;[97] hence it follows, that the\nperiod from the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple is here reckoned\n592 years, which is deficient as above by 20 years. The object of the\nauthor, or of his corrupters, appears to have been to make the\nchronology square as much as possible with the extended reign of\nSolomon, and to throw back upon this period a moiety of the surplus\nyears which he has thought fit to add to the length of this reign; but\nwe shall see more evidence on this point in the next section.\n\nThe intervals of Theophilus, according to the text extant, must have\nbeen strangely corrupted, when we find that they make the extent of this\nage only 541 years. If we restore to the Critarchate of Ehud the period\nof 80 years instead of 8, a mistake which might easily occur in the\nGreek, by the writing of \u0397 for \u03a0, and omit the _single year_ allotted to\n_Samira_,[98] out of place, and void of authority, we shall at once have\nthe true number 612 years. We can scarcely, however, attribute the\ncorruption of the text of Theophilus to simple mistake in this manner;\nfor we find that he reckons from the entrance of Israel into the\npromised land \u201ctill the [end of the] reign of David, all the years were\n498:\u201d now if to this interval, we add the 40 years in the Wilderness,\nand the 3 years of Solomon, we shall have the precise period inserted in\nthe preceding Table, as his extent of the _Fourth age_. Theophilus has\ncommitted other errors, which however balance each other, and produce no\neffect on the whole period. After stating that \u201cthe Philistines ruled\u201d\nthe Israelites \u201c40 years,\u201d he says that \u201cSamson judged them 20 years;\u201d\nthus forgetting the Scriptures which says, that \u201che judged Israel _in\nthe days of the Philistines_ 20 years;\u201d Judges xv. 20. He then says that\n\u201cthere was peace among them for 40 years,\u201d an assertion wholly\nunauthorized by Scripture, and by the whole crowd of chronographers.[99]\nThese errors are compensated for by allotting to Eli only \u201c20 years\u201d\ninstead of 40 years, by omitting the _seventh servitude_ of 20 years,\nand by putting only \u201c20 years\u201d instead of 40 years, for the reign of\nSaul.[100] Dr. Russell, in his \u201cConnection,\u201d vol. i. pp. 128, 129, gives\na view of the chronology of this period according to Theophilus, where\nhe strangely misdates the age in which he lived, and contrary to the\ncopy of his work to which Mr. Clinton or ourselves have referred, makes\nout that his Extent of the Critarchal age is 612 years! He makes no\nremark whatever about the error of Theophilus in regard to the years of\nEhud, but assumes them at once at 80; he retains the one year of\nShamgar, and puts him in his proper place; and he makes the years of\nTolah 22 instead of 23; thus he easily obtains the correct number, but\nby no means in a satisfactory manner, when compared with the text of the\nauthor. Indeed, trusting to the view which Dr. Russell has given in the\npassage referred to, we have at p. 71 stated, and at p. 92 considered,\nthat the extent of this period is, according to Theophilus, 612 years;\nbut we now have some doubts whether this was his genuine number, seeing\nthat he has included the erroneous number of 541 years in his subsequent\ndates and intervals, as will be shown in another section.\n\nIn this age also, we have to regret the deficiency of the intervals of\nAfricanus, owing to the fragmentary state in which his works have\nreached us. The testimony of Eusebius, both in his Chronicon and his\nPr\u00e6paratio Evangelica, as well as that of Syncellus, enables us to\nexhibit the chief _Intervals_ and the whole _Extent_ of the _Critarchal\nage_ according to this Chronographer. In the extracts of his third book,\nwhich have been preserved, he says \u201cFrom the Exodus of Moses to Cyrus,\nwho reigned after the Captivity, were 1237 years; for the remaining\nyears of Moses were 40; the years of Joshua, who succeeded him as\nleader, 25; the years of the Elders, the Judges after Joshua, 30; the\nyears of those contained in the book of Judges, 490; the years of the\nHigh Priests Eli and Samuel, 90; then, the years of the Kings of the\nHebrews, 490; [and the years of the captivity, 70;] the last year of\nwhich was the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as we have before\nsaid.\u201d[101] The sum of these numbers is only 1235 years, instead of 1237\nyears, which shows that he must have originally written 27 years for\nJoshua instead of 25 years.[102] From this passage we learn that the\ninterval from the Exodus to the accession of Saul is, according to\nAfricanus, 675 years. From Syncellus, we learn that \u201caccording to\nAfricanus, the years from Adam till the last of the Judges and the first\nof Eli the High Priest, were 4292;\u201d and that \u201cfrom Adam till his\n[Solomon\u2019s] 8th year, there were, according to Africanus, 4457\nyears.\u201d[103] Taking 5 years from the latter number, we have A.M. 4452\nfor the date of the Foundation of the Temple, being the 4th year of\nSolomon. The difference, therefore, between this date and the first year\nof Eli, is according to Africanus, 160 years; and the difference between\nthe latter number, and the 90 years allotted by him to Eli and Samuel,\nis 70 years; hence, if we add this difference to the interval of 675\nyears above mentioned, we have 745 years for the _Extent_ of the\n_Critarchal age_, according to Africanus. Eusebius in his Chronicon,\ncited by Mr. Clinton, p. 308, makes this period 744 years, the\ndifference being \u201conly a single year,\u201d which may have arisen from a\nslight difference in the mode of computation, and accounts for its\nelongation by the addition of 100 years, which are wholly unauthorised\nby Scripture: viz.\u2014the 30 years ascribed to the Elders who outlived\nJoshua, the 40 years of supposed anarchy after the death of Samson, and\nthe 30 years of imaginary peace which succeeded the anarchy. The grand\nobject of Africanus in the chronology of this age, appears to have been\nto make up at once for the deficiency of the generation of the _Junior\nCainan_, and the two years after the flood, by the enlargement of the\nperiod from its true length 612 years, to his surreptitious length of\n744 years; for the difference between these numbers is just 132 years,\nthe precise difference between the dates of Africanus and the true dates\nof the epochs in the two former ages. By the manufacture of the\nintervals of the _Fourth age_, therefore, he has contrived to bring\nabout the true date of the Foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple in his\nChronology, and to compensate for his former errors in such a manner as\nto restore the ancient computation of Scripture at this important and\nwell-known epoch.\n\nOf the Extent of the _Critarchal age_, and the length of its\n_Intervals_, as Mr. Clinton remarks, Eusebius has three accounts. For\nthe account taken from his _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_, Lib. x. c. 14, and\nthe account taken from his \u201cChronicon,\u201d which we have placed side by\nside in the preceding table, we are partly indebted to Russell and\npartly to Clinton.[104] As Dr. Russell has endeavoured to make the\nformer account, by the correction of some of its intervals, speak the\nlanguage of the \u201cChronicon\u201d in a passage, for the citation of which we\nare indebted to Mr. Clinton;[105] we have thought it right to restore\nthe original numbers, in order to show what was the real opinion of\nEusebius, respecting this age, on the occasion of writing his \u201cGospel\nPreparation.\u201d According to his opinion, therefore, the Extent of the\n_Fourth age_ was 613 years, the difference between this number and the\nScriptural one, being only a single year! The author, however, commits a\nnumber of errors in detail, which balance each other, and in their\nsummation, bring out almost exactly the true period. The chief errors\nare, the omission of the _Seventh Servitude_, 20 years; and of the\nCritarchate of Samuel, 12 years. In order to compensate for these\nomissions, he reckons the Critarchate of Samson, apart from the _6th\nServitude_, 20 years; he adds 10 years to the Critarchate of Othniel;\nand gladly seizes upon the 30 years for Joshua and the Elders instead of\n27 years; in order to bring out the correct number for the whole period,\nas nearly as possible, as he well knew that it was 612 years. That this\nwas his real opinion, is also evident from the following passage in his\n\u201cChronicon\u201d already referred to: \u201cThe amount of the time during which\nthe judges bore rule until Samuel, was altogether 450 years, our apostle\nhimself testifying it by his declaration, [Acts xiii. 20]. There are,\nhowever, besides this reckoning, the periods of Moses and Joshua his\nsuccessor, as well as of Samuel and Saul. But let us pass, in the\nmeantime, the periods of Samuel, and Saul, and Joshua. Now from the\ntestimony of the Apostle, the 40 years of Saul must be added to the 450\nyears of the judges, to which number the 40 years of David and the 4\nyears of Solomon being added, the sum of the years amounts to 534; which\nis, in fact, the apostolical tradition. Then, the 40 years which Moses\nled in the desert, and again the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, to\nwhich the Jews themselves agree, being added, the years amount to 600.\u201d\nThis is a very important and clear statement of the truth, _with the\nexception of the 12 years of Samuel_, \u201cwhich,\u201d Mr. Clinton says, \u201che\nsupposed to be included in the years of _Saul_.\u201d We do not agree with\nMr. Clinton in this point; we think the passage bears evident marks that\nhe had the separate period of Samuel in his mind; particularly, from his\ncunning \u201cinterim seponamus,\u201d\u2014\u201c_let us pass in the mean time_.\u201d In fact,\nhe only pretends to forget it; for he knew that if he had added it,\nalong with the periods of Joshua and Saul, he would have had the correct\nnumber at once, namely, 612 years! His accommodation to the spirit of\nthe age in which he lived, by the insertion of the Hebrew chronology of\nthis period in his Tables, instead of the Septuagint or ancient\nchronology which he has so clearly established by Apostolical tradition,\nexhibits a degree of vacillation and imbecility wholly unworthy the\ncharacter of an able historian and chronographer, and quite unbecoming\nan ardent advocate of the Truth. We have sufficiently refuted this\nchronology in our _first Part_; and it is unnecessary to go over the\nsame arguments, or attempt to strengthen them by the admissions of our\nopponents. Suffice it to remark that the Hebrew intervals of Eusebius\namount only to 479 years, instead of 480 years, which it ought to reach\naccording to 1 Kings vi. 1, and that even the Hebrew intervals of Usher\namount only to 478\u00bd years, p. 68; and although these amounts differ only\nby half a year, the details of their intervals exhibit a very surprising\ndifference. Thus, Eusebius allows 27 years to Joshua and the Elders,\nUsher _none_, with the exception of 6\u2153 years for the war and the\ndivision of the land; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Gideon at 40\nyears, Usher at 49\u2159 years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Tolah at\n22 years, Usher at 23 years;[106] Eusebius omits the Critarchate of\nIbzan 10 years, and of Samuel 12 years; Usher admits the former, and\nreckons the latter 21 years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Samson\n20 years, and Usher omits it altogether. Eusebius and Usher are indeed\nvery fit authors to be classed together: both no doubt pious men and\nexemplary Christians; but both too much given to yield to the pressure\nof the times as historiographers and chronographers; and too much\ninfluenced by the bold assertions of the Jews respecting the immaculate\npurity of the Hebrew Text.\n\nThe Extent of the _Fourth age_ and the lengths of the _Intervals_,\naccording to the Paschal Chronicle, are given by Mr. Clinton, but in\nsuch a rambling manner that we have had some difficulty to expiscate\nthem from his extracts. As to the extent, the author of the Chronicle\nsays \u201cthe whole time, from the 81st year of Moses, in which the Exodus\nfrom Egypt took place, to Solomon and the Foundation of the Temple\namounts to 630 years.\u201d[107] We have seen that this is the number\ncollected from Josephus Book viii. 7, 8; but the intervals given by the\nauthor of the Chronicle, amount to 632 years. The first error he commits\nis making the Critarchate of Othniel only 32 years; or, which is the\nsame thing, including the _1st Servitude_ in the 40 years of that\njudge;[108] the next is reckoning the years of Samson distinct from\nthose of the _6th Servitude_, and interposing an unauthorised period of\n40 years peace between Samson and Eli;[109] and the last is omitting the\n_7th Servitude_, reckoning the critarchate of Samuel 20 years, and\nreducing the reign of Saul to 20 years.[110] The author probably\nreckoned only 39 years of Moses and 2 of Solomon, when he calculated the\nwhole period at 630 years. But from the Chronicon itself, the number of\n632 years is clearly made out; for the 81st year of Moses is reckoned\nA.M. 3837, and the 3rd of Solomon A.M. 4469. The coincidence between its\nauthor and Josephus, which we have remarked above, is very singular, and\nseems to indicate that this error of putting 630 years for 612, on the\npart of both, had a common origin. Mr. Clinton also particularly\ninvestigates the statements of Clemens Alexandrinus, and Syncellus,\nregarding this period; but as we do not attach so much importance to\ntheir statements as to those we have already discussed, we have thought\nproper to omit them; suffice it to remark in general, that they\nstrengthen and confirm the lengthened chronology of the older\nchronographers. The concluding observations of Mr. Clinton, p. 312,\nappear to us surprising, considering the mass of evidence he has brought\nforward in favour of the true period of 612 years. He says that \u201cit\nfluctuates between the 600 years of Eusebius, and the 628 years arising\nout of the corrected numbers of Josephus. The truth lies somewhere\nbetween these points. We may assume 612 years as the most probable.\u201d\nThere appears to us to be no probability in the case; we have seen that\nthe statements of Josephus, Theophilus, Eusebius, and the author of the\nPaschal Chronicle, _when corrected for obvious errors_, according to the\nauthority of Scripture, all speak the same language and announce the\ninvariable period of 612 years. The details of the period assigned by\nAfricanus are lost; but his case is peculiar; he was evidently desirous\nto make this period compensate for former errors; and he has effected\nhis purpose to a single year. His date, therefore, of the Foundation of\nthe Temple is correct; and this appears to have been his chief aim.\nAccording to their estimate of the extent of the different ages of the\nworld up to this epoch, their respective dates, according to the\npreceding Tables will stand thus:\u2014\n\n                                TABLE V.\n   AGES OF THE   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.\n     WORLD.                                                     CHRON.\n                   Years.     Years.      Years.     Years.     Years.\n 1st Age               2256        2242       2262       2242       2262\n 2nd Age               1068        1011       1015       1017       1145\n 3rd Age                430         645        430        430        430\n 4th Age                612         541        745        480        632\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  TO SOLOMON\u2019S         4366        4439       4452       4169       4469\n     TEMPLE\n\nHad we corrected these dates on grounds already stated, and which by\nmany would have been deemed sufficient, we could have shown a much\nnearer coincidence between them and the true date; but our object was to\nshow what the details of the different authors really are as exhibited\nin their works now extant. It is satisfactory, however, to observe that\nthe difference between the latter and either of the former, is very\nsmall, and in the case of the greatest magnitude, is very easily\naccounted for on the principle of Rabbinical authority and influence.\n\nThe following remark of Mr. Clinton, p. 313, is much more in point than\nthe former above cited; our only wonder is that he seems to think the\nextent of the period itself not sufficiently established: \u201cThis extended\nterm of 612 years is inconsistent with the date in the Book of Kings (1\nKings vi. 1), which reckons the foundation of the Temple in the 4th year\nof _Solomon_ to be _in the 480th year after the children of Israel were\ncome out of the land of Egypt_. But the computation of Paul, delivered\nin a solemn argument before a Jewish audience, and confirmed by the\nwhole tenor of the history in the Book of Judges, outweighs the\nauthority of that date; and we may agree with Jackson and Hales in\nrejecting it.\u201d To this he might have added, and we ought rather to agree\nwith the whole Christian Church in adopting the extended period, than\nwith the Jews, the persecutors and vilifiers of that Church, in adopting\nthe curtailed period, and thus giving countenance to their\ninterpolations of Scripture.\n\n  5. Table VI. Containing the statements of the chronographers\n       relating to the _Fifth age_ of the world\u2014The errors of Josephus\n       peculiar\u2014His elongation of the reign of Solomon\u2014Disagreement of\n       his titulary periods with the summation of the reigns in Books\n       Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth\u2014Proof that the former is nearly\n       correct\u2014Table VII. _Monarchal Periods_ of Josephus\u2014Comparison\n       with the True Chronology\u2014Evidence that these periods have been\n       manufactured\u2014The true Chronology of this age detected in his\n       works\u2014Table VIII. _True Flavian Periods_, showing the\n       Scriptural extent as originally held by Josephus\u2014Proof that he\n       knew the true epoch of the Captivity\u2014The errors of Theophilus\n       in this age few\u2014He is also mistaken as to the epoch of the\n       Captivity\u2014Africanus diminishes the true extent of this age\u2014He\n       is misrepresented by Syncellus\u2014The statements of Eusebius taken\n       from the Hieronymian and Armenian versions of his Canon\u2014Those\n       of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from that work\n       itself\u2014Their errors pointed out\u2014The difference between their\n       Extent of this age and the true Extent only 3 years.\n\nThe following Table which exhibits the statements of the Chronographers\nregarding the _Fifth age_ of the World, should be compared with Table\nXII. in our _First Part_; as it contains the _Monarchal Eras_ and\n_Intervals_ according to each chronographer.\n\n                                TABLE VI.\n MONARCHAL ERAS. JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.\n                                                                CHRON.\n                 Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.\n Foundation of\n   Solomon\u2019s            *77          37                    37        *33\n   Temple\n Rehoboam                17          17                    17         17\n Abijah                   3          *7                     3          3\n Asa                     41          41                    41        *44\n Jehoshaphat             25          25                    25         25\n Jehoram                 *8          *8                    *8        *10\n Ahaziah                  1           1                     1          1\n Athaliah                 6           6                    *7          6\n Jehoash                 40          40                    40         40\n Amaziah                 29         *39                    29         29\n Interregnum             *0          *0                    *0         *0\n Uzziah                  52          52                    52         52\n Jotham                  16          16                    16         16\n Ahaz                    16         *17                    16         16\n Hezekiah                29          29                    29         29\n Manasseh                55          55                    55         55\n Amon                     2           2                   *12        *12\n Josiah                  31          31                    31         31\n Jehoahaz                0\u00bc          0\u00bc                    0\u00bc         0\u00bc\n Jehoiakim               11          11                   *12        *12\n Jehoiachin              0\u00bc          0\u00bc                    0\u00bc         0\u00bc\n Zedekiah               *11         *11        420        *11        *11\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n    FIFTH AGE           470         445        420        442        442\n\nThe principal errors of Josephus in this age, are his addition of 40\nyears to the reign of Solomon, and his omission of the interregnum\nbetween Amaziah and Uzziah. The former error appears to have been\npeculiarly his own; the latter he seems to share in common with most, if\nnot all, the ancient chronographers. In his Antiquities, Book x. 8, 5,\nhe says, \u201cthe temple was burned 470 years 6 months and 10 days after its\nfoundation;\u201d[111] and this period is clearly made out from the summation\nof the years of the reigns of the kings of Judah as laid down by him, in\nBooks Eighth, Ninth and Tenth. Moreover, these books contain the history\nof the Jews from the accession of Solomon to the end of the Babylonish\ncaptivity; but we find, by the summation of the titulary periods\nprefixed to them, that the whole amount of this period is only 502\u00bd\nyears; and, deducting from this amount, the first 3 years of Solomon\u2019s\nreign and the 70 years of the Captivity, we have 429\u00bd years for a\nremainder, which is a totally different result. In order to arrive at\nthe proper explanation of the difference between this number and the\nformer, we shall exhibit the comparison of the summation of his periods\nand his reigns in these Books with the true chronology in the form of a\ntable; premising, that the history of the VIIIth Book extends from the\naccession of Solomon to the death of Ahab, in the 19th year of\n_Jehoshaphat\u2019s_ reign; of the IXth Book, from the same year to the\nCaptivity of the Ten Tribes of Israel, in the 6th year of _Hezekiah\u2019s_\nreign; and of the Xth Book, from this same year to the end of the\nBabylonish _Captivity_. In the following Table, the first column\nexhibits the _periods_ announced in the titles of the different books,\nthe second the amount of the years of the different reigns they contain,\nand the third the amount of the same years according to the _true_\nchronology:\n\n                               TABLE VII.\n         MONARCHAL PERIODS.         \u2502       JOSEPHUS.       \u2502   TRUE\n                                    \u2502                       \u2502CHRONOLOGY.\n                                    \u2502 Periods.     Reigns.  \u2502\n The VIIIth Book comprehends        \u2502        163         160\u2502        119\n The IXth Book        \u201e             \u2502        157         180\u2502        190\n The Xth Book         \u201e             \u2502       182\u00bd        203\u00bd\u2502        185\n                                    \u2502       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2502       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total, including Captivity         \u2502       502\u00bd        543\u00bd\u2502        494\n Deduct the three years of Solomon  \u2502          3           3\u2502          3\n                                    \u2502       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2502       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                                    \u2502       499\u00bd        540\u00bd\u2502        491\n Deduct the years of the Captivity  \u2502         70          70\u2502         52\n                                    \u2502       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2502       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n       Extent of the Fifth age      \u2502       429\u00bd        470\u00bd\u2502        439\n\nHere the discrepancy between the amount of the _Periods_ and the amount\nof the _Reigns_ is manifest; and the cause of the discrepancy is plainly\nthe 40 years surreptitiously added to Solomon\u2019s reign; for if this\nnumber be subtracted from 470\u00bd years, the result of the _reigns_, the\nremainder is 430\u00bd years, which agrees with the result of the _periods_\nto a single year, and this year may have been added for the 1st of\nCyrus. The latter amount, however, still differs from the true period by\n10 years; and this difference evidently arises from the omission of the\ninterregnum of 12 years, and the addition of 2 years to the reign of\nJehoram. The extraordinary want of agreement between the different\n_periods_ and the corresponding amount of the _reigns_, shows that the\nformer must have been manufactured to serve some particular purpose, the\nmost probable being the concealment of the error of 40 additional years\nin the reign of Solomon. This is so far ingeniously done, and might\ndeceive a cursory reader; for the first period of 163 years is his exact\ninterval from the _Foundation_ of the Temple to the end of\n_Jehoshaphat\u2019s_ reign; the second period of 157 years is exactly 40\nyears less than his interval from the end of _Jehoshaphat\u2019s_ reign to\nthe end of _Hezekiah\u2019s_ reign; and the third period of 182\u00bd years is\nonly 2 years more than his interval from the end of _Hezekiah\u2019s_ reign\nto the end of the _captivity_.\n\nThat this tortuous chronologer and historian must have originally\nreckoned his periods in this age according to the true system of\nchronology, is manifest from the following passage in Book x. 4, 4;\nwhere, speaking of the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the\nidolatrous altar at Bethel (1 Kings xiii. 1), he says, \u201cand he [Josiah]\nburned the bones of the false prophets upon the altar which Jeroboam\nfirst built,\u201d and \u201cthese things were fulfilled after a period of 361\nyears.\u201d[112] Now, according to the testimony of Scripture (2 Chronicles\nxxxiv. 3), cited by Josephus (x. 4, 1),[113] we find that this\nfulfilment took place in the 12th year of the reign of Josiah; and from\nthe 1st year of Jeroboam, when the altar was built, to the epoch in\nquestion, the interval, according to the chronology of Josephus in the\npreceding Table, is only 351 years; but, according to the true\nChronology, it is exactly 361 years. It is plain, therefore, that\nJosephus in this passage, must have reckoned an interregnum of 10 years\nbetween Amaziah and Uzziah: and, if we reckon the reign of Jehoram only\n6 years as in the true chronology, instead of 8 years as in that of our\nauthor, and add the surplus of 2 years to these 10 years, we shall have\nthe correct Interregnum of 12 years, as stated at p. 74, under the head\nof the Septuagint; see 2 Kings xv. 1.[114] It is true that the 10 years\nwhich we have thus detected in the Antiquities, might have been added by\nJosephus, as by Theophilus and Clemens, to the reign of Amaziah, but\nthis would not alter the _total amount_. Some chronologers, as\nPolyhistor cited by Eusebius,[115] have added 10 years to the reign of\nAmon instead of to that of Amaziah; but in either case the effect is\nstill the same,\u2014to make the _whole period_ more consistent with the true\nchronology. Thus we have expiscated the truth concerning this period\neven from the unwilling pages of Josephus; for the rest of the\ncomputation concerning the _Fifth age_ will be clearly seen from the\nfollowing Table, which harmonizes with the previous result:\n\n                              TABLE VIII.\n                         TRUE FLAVIAN PERIODS.\n                                                         Years.\n        From the 1st of Jeroboam to the 12th of Josiah      361\n        The rest of Josiah\u2019s reign                           19\n        The remaining Jewish reigns                          22\n                                                           \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n        From the 1st of Jeroboam to the 10th of Zedekiah    402\n        The previous years of the Reign of Solomon           37\n                                                           \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n        Extent of the _Fifth Age_                           439\n\nAlthough Josephus in his \u201cAntiquities\u201d has generally reckoned the 70\nyears of the Captivity from the Destruction of the Temple to the 1st\nyear of Cyrus, which is contrary to the true chronology and to the Canon\nof Ptolemy, yet we have evidence in his \u201cJewish War\u201d that he was\nperfectly acquainted with the correct period of 52 years, which we have\nshown in our _first Part_, at pp. 80, 81, to be the true interval. Thus,\nin Book vi. 4, 8, of the latter work, when speaking of the Destruction\nof the Temple, he says, \u201cand from the _first_ foundation which King\nSolomon laid, till the present destruction, which happened in the 2d\nyear of the Emperor Vespasian, are reckoned 1130 years 7 months and 15\ndays; but from the _second_, which Haggai effected in the 2d year of\nCyrus the king, till the destruction under Vespasian, 639 years and 45\ndays.\u201d[116] Not to dwell on the glaring anachronism of referring the\n_foundation_ of the temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus (Ezra iii. 8), to\nthe _renewal_ of the work of building it in the 2nd year of Darius (Ezra\niv. 24, and v. 1), it is plain that the difference between the two\nperiods mentioned in this passage, viz. 491\u00bd years, is the true interval\nfrom the destruction of Solomon\u2019s temple to the foundation of the second\nTemple in the 2nd year of Cyrus; for omitting the half-year, as the 2nd\nyear had just commenced at the latter epoch (Ezra iii. 8), and\nsubtracting the 52 years above mentioned, from 491 years, we have the\nremainder 439 years, for the true Extent of the _Fifth age_ as before.\nThe proof, however, that he was acquainted with the true interval, at\nleast within a year or two, is manifest from a passage which occurs in\nhis 1st Book _against Apion_, sect. 21; where he says, \u201cFor it is\nwritten in them [the Hebrew Scriptures] that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed\nour temple in the 18th year [the 19th year, 2 Kings xxv. 8] of his\nreign, and it was in ruins for 50 years; but in the 2nd year of the\nreign of Cyrus, the foundations were laid, and in the 2nd again of the\nreign of Darius they were finished.\u201d[117] The difference of 2 years is\neasily accounted for by supposing that he took the reign of Cyrus in\nBabylon at 9 years, according to some copies of the Canon of Ptolemy,\ninstead of 7 years, according to Scripture, that is, by supposing his\nreign to have begun 2 years earlier than the true period. He appears,\nhowever, to have tacked these two years to the true interval in\nquestion, in another chapter of the same book, viz. \u201cJewish War,\u201d vi.\n10; where, speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, he says \u201cDavid,\nKing of the Jews, having expelled the people of the Canaanites, made his\nown inhabit it; and 477 years 6 months afterwards, it was destroyed by\nthe Babylonians.\u201d[118] Now as David reigned 33 years in Jerusalem, and\nthe temple was founded in the 4th year of Solomon, if we subtract 36\nyears from the preceding number, we obtain 441\u00bd years for the period\nfrom the foundation of the temple to its destruction, which is only 2\u00bd\nyears more than the true period, a surplus which appears to have arisen\nfrom his unwarrantable addition to the true period of the 10th Book of\nthe Antiquities. The last passage which we shall adduce from this\nextraordinary historical production, so full of chronological errors, is\nfrom the 20th Book, where speaking of the High Priests, he says,\nNebuchadnezzar \u201ctook Josedek the High Priest captive; and the time of\ntheir hierarchy was 466 years, 6 months, and 10 days, during the reigns\nof the Jewish kings.\u201d Now Josedek was taken captive, not when the temple\nand city were burned, as Josephus erroneously says in the context, but\nwhen the \u201cking of Babylon took Jehoiachin in _the 8th year of his\nreign_,\u201d and \u201ccarried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all\nthe mighty men of valour, 10,000 captives, and all the craftsmen, and\nall the smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of\nthe land;\u201d 2 Kings xxiv. 11\u201316, and 1 Chronicles vi. 15. But as\nNebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem _in the 19th year of his reign_ (2\nKings xxv. 8), the difference of time between the _first_, or\nJehoiachin\u2019s captivity, and the _second_, or Zedekiah\u2019s captivity, is\nevidently 11 years, which being added to the preceding period, makes a\ntotal of 477\u00bd years as before. In these two passages, therefore,\nJosephus is consistent with himself, and he differs from the true\nchronology in this period only by the small interval of about 2 years; a\ndifference which, as we before remarked, may be due to his mistake in\nreference to the Scriptural commencement of the reign of Cyrus, King of\nBabylon. For a more extensive inquiry into this period of the Chronology\nof Josephus, we refer to Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d pp.\n27\u201360, to which we have been indebted for some suggestions in the\npreceding discussion.\n\nThe errors of Theophilus in the intervals of the _Fourth age_ are few,\nand chiefly of a compensating nature; and his error in its extent\namounts only to about 6 years. He states the reign of Abijah at 7 years\ninstead of 3; of Jehoram at 8 years instead of 6; and of Amaziah at 39\nyears instead of 29; but the two latter errors make up for his omission\nof the interregnum of 12 years. He next reckons the reigns of Ahaz and\nZedekiah, each a year too much, which, with the error in the reign of\nAbijah, makes the whole period erroneous in excess by about 6 years, its\n_Extent_ being 445 years, according to the Table. This Extent is\nconfirmed by the following statement in his general summary: \u201cfrom the\ndeath of David, till the [end of the] sojourning of the people in the\nland of Babylon, were 518 years, 6 months, 10 days.\u201d[119] Now, if from\nthis period, we subtract the first 3 years of Solomon, and the 70 years\nof the captivity, we shall have for the remainder 445 years, the period\nfrom the foundation to the destruction of the Temple, according to\nTheophilus. Again, he says, all the time, from the beginning of the\nworld till the end \u201cof the sojourning in the land of Babylon, is 4954\nyears, 6 months, 10 days.\u201d[120] Now, if we add together his different\nages up to this epoch, including the 70 years of the captivity, we shall\nhave this precise amount; thus, 2242 + 1011 + 645 + 541 + 445 + 70 =\n4954 years. This confirmatory statement, therefore, shows the accuracy\nof our estimate of the chronology of Theophilus; and thus we see that\nlike other chronographers, he has, contrary to Scripture, reckoned the\nperiod of the 70 years\u2019 captivity from the destruction of Jerusalem to\nthe 1st year of the reign of Cyrus. The errors of Africanus in the\n_intervals_ of the _Fourth age_ cannot be detected, owing to the loss of\nthis part of his Chronicon; we can only decide upon the inaccuracy of\nhis statement regarding its _Extent_ from the extract already cited at\np. 265, where he assigns 490 years as the whole period of the Jewish\nKings. We have seen at p. 266, that 70 years of this period belong to\nthe former age, according to Africanus; it follows, therefore, that 420\nyears must be his _Extent_ of the _Monarchal age_, which we have\naccordingly inserted in the Table. We have scarcely any means of\nconfirming the correctness of this result, until we show, from his\nremaining fragments concerning the succeeding age, that it is quite\nconsistent with his great Mundane period from Adam to Christ. It is\nnecessary, however, to make one remark on this subject, namely, that\nSyncellus has committed an error in stating that \u201cAfricanus reckoned the\n70 years of the captivity from the 1st year of Zedekiah,\u201d[121] as we\nshall see in the sequel.\n\nThe statements of Eusebius, in the preceding Table, are taken from the\nHieronymian[122] and Armenian[123] versions of his Canon; those of the\nauthor of the Paschal Chronicle from that work itself.[124] The former\nplaces the foundation of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon; the\nlatter erroneously in his 8th year. Both authors in several places of\ntheir works, state the extent of the _Fifth age_ at 442 years, and in\norder to preserve this number entire they appear to have manufactured\ntwo or three of the reigns. Thus, Eusebius reckons the reign of Jehoram\nat 8 complete years instead of 6, that of Athaliah at 7 instead of 6,\nand that of Amon at 12 instead of 2. In the Armenian version the reign\nof Jehoiakim is reckoned at 12 years instead of 11, which seems\nnecessary to make up the total 442 years. In the Paschal Chronicle, the\nreign of Asa is reckoned at 44 years instead of 41, that of Jehoram at\n10 instead of 6, that of Jehoiakim at 12 instead of 11, and that of Amon\nat 12 instead of 2. Abating the errors thus pointed out, and admitting\nthe interregnum, both authors testify to the true length of this period,\nwhich, notwithstanding the former, they have only overrated by 3 years.\n\n  6. Table IX. _Ethnocratic Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to\n       Ptolemy\u2019s Canon and the ancient Chronographers\u2014Accuracy of\n       the Canon\u2014Josephus erroneous but consistent in the _Sixth\n       age_\u2014His remarkable coincidence with the true Chronology in\n       the Mundane period\u2014Theophilus follows the Roman Chronology in\n       this age\u2014Africanus the prophetic\u2014Both erroneous\u2014Errors of\n       Eusebius, and accuracy of his Extent of this age\u2014Errors of\n       the Paschal Chronicle considerable and unaccountable\u2014Table X.\n       Summation of the _Six ages_ of the world according to the\n       Septuagint and the ancient chronographers\u2014Table XI. Summation\n       of the Periods of the Christian Chronographers, adopted by\n       themselves\u2014_Chronological Table_ of the Principal Epochs and\n       Events from the Creation to the Advent of Christ.\n\nThe following Table exhibits the errors of the chronographers in regard\nto the _Sixth age_ of the world. In our _first Part_, we have\ndenominated the _Eras_ of this age _Hierarchal_, Table XIV. p. 80, to\nindicate the internal form of Government which prevailed among the Jews\nduring the period from their return to their own land to the Advent of\nthe Messiah; here we style them _Ethnocratic_, to indicate the _Iron\nrule_ which the _Heathen Kings_ exercised over the remnant of the\nancient people of God, till \u201c_in the days of these kings_ the God of\nHeaven set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed,\u201d but \u201cshould\nbreak in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and _stand for ever_.\u201d\nIn this table, we have introduced an additional column, showing the\nperiods of the _Four Great Monarchies_ or _Empires_ foretold in the book\nof Daniel, in as far as they relate to the _Sixth age_, according to the\nCanon of Ptolemy, which is accounted by chronologers as one of the most\nvaluable and precious relics of Antiquity.\n\n                                    TABLE IX.\n ETHNOCRATIC   PTOLEMY.  JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.\n    ERAS.\n              Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.\n From\n   Solomon\u2019s\n   Temple.\n THE ASSYRIAN         52\n   EMPIRE.\n Jewish                          70          70         70         70         70\n   Captivity.\n Roman                                       54\n   Regifugium\n PERSIAN             205                               230        190        206\n   EMPIRE\n Jewish                         414\n   Hierarchy\n The\n   Asamonean                    125\n   Dynasty.\n GRECIAN             302                               298        301        296\n   EMPIRE\n Roman                                      453\n   Republic\n TO THE ROMAN\n   EMPIRE.            28         33          46         30         27         29\n   Birth of\n   Christ\n                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n THE SIXTH           587        642         623        628        588        601\n   AGE\n\nIn this Table the extent of the _Ethnocratic age_ is 587 years according\nto the Canon of Ptolemy;[125] this is 2 years more than we assigned at\np. 80, owing to the reign of Cyrus being estimated at 9 years instead of\n7, which brings the _Sixth age_ up to the vulgar era of the Birth of our\nSaviour. The Canon assigns 43 years respectively to the reigns of\nNebuchadnezzar and Augustus C\u00e6sar; hence the former reigned 25 years\nafter the taking of Jerusalem,[126] and the latter 28 before the\nChristian era;[127] thus the extreme intervals of the first column of\nthe table were obtained. The intervals of Josephus were determined from\nthe following passages:\u2014Book XI. 1, 1, \u201cIn the first year of the reign\nof Cyrus, and this was the 70th from the day that it befell our people\nto remove from home to Babylon;\u201d\u2014Book XX. 10, 1, \u201cAfter the period of\nthe 70 years\u2019 captivity, &c. Joshua the Son of Josedek, took the office\nof High Priest; and his posterity, in all 15, held the democratic form\nof government for 414 years, till the reign of Antiochus Eupator;\u201d\u2014Book\nXIV. 16, 4, \u201cThus ceased the government of the Asamonean [race] after\n126 years;\u201d\u2014Book XVII. 6, 3, \u201cfor 125 years during which they [the\nAsamoneans] reigned;\u201d\u2014and, Book XVII. 8, 1, \u201cHaving reigned, after he\n[Herod] caused the death of Antigonus, 34 years, and after he was\nappointed by the Romans, 37 years.\u201d[128] Now, taking the period of the\nAsamonean dynasty at 125 years, and the years of the reign of Herod\nbefore Christ was born, at 33, we have, from the preceding extracts, the\nintervals in the Table, and the extent of the whole period 642 years,\naccording to Josephus. This result receives a striking confirmation from\nthe summation of the periods contained in the Titles of the different\nBooks of the Antiquities which relate the History from the 1st year of\nCyrus to the death of Herod. Thus,\n\n                                                                  Years.\n The Captivity continued                                              70\n The XIth Book comprehends                                           253\n The XIIth Book    \u201e                                                 170\n The XIIIth Book   \u201e                                                  82\n The XIVth Book    \u201e                                                  32\n The XVth Book     \u201e                                                  18\n The XVIth Book    \u201e                                                  12\n The XVIIth Book to the year before the death of Herod,           5[129]\n   comprehends\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                              Total                                  642\n\nThus it appears that Josephus, or his corrupter, conscious that by the\nomission of the Second Cainan, he had curtailed the length of the true\nage of the world, has compensated for this generation, by enlarging the\nPostdiluvian _biennial period_, the Antepaidogonian age of Nahor, the\nreign of Solomon, and the extent of the Hierarchal age; for, we shall\nsee that by the summation of the different ages as we have now\ndetermined them from the Antiquities, we obtain the true period from the\nCreation to the Christian Era, viz. 5478 years!\n\nThe extent of the _Sixth age_ according to Theophilus, is obtained from\nthe following extracts: \u201cThe 70 years being finished, Cyrus king of the\nPersians, in the 2d year of his reign,\u201d proclaimed the return of the\nJews; \u201cthen, Cyrus having reigned 29 years died,\u201d U. C. 220; \u201cat which\ntime Tarquin surnamed Superbus began to reign\u201d at Rome, \u201cwho reigned 25\nyears. After whom, the Consuls and Tribunes reigned 453 years.\u201d To\nthese, succeeded the Emperors, \u201cFirst Caius Julius, 3 years, 4 months, 6\ndays; then Augustus, 56 years, 4 months, 1 day.\u201d[130] From these\nextracts, it is evident that Theophilus reckoned 54 years from the end\nof the Jewish captivity to the Regifugium at Rome; and 46 years from the\nbeginning of the Roman Empire to the Christian Era.[131] Thus, according\nto Theophilus, the whole extent of this period is 623 years; and\nconsequently, the period from Creation to the Christian era, 5507 years.\nWe obtain the extent of the _Sixth age_ according to Africanus, from the\nfollowing fragments of his work:\u2014\u201cFor after the 70th year of the\ncaptivity, Cyrus having sent\u201d the Jews to rebuild the temple, \u201cwe find\nthe kingdom of the Persians extending to 230 years, and that of the\nMacedonians to 300 years; and thence to the 16th year of Tiberius C\u00e6sar,\n60 years.\u201d Again, \u201cthe whole time of the Macedonian empire, was 300\nyears wanting 2,\u201d from its commencement till its termination with\nCleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies, in the 14th year of the Roman\nmonarchy;\u2014\u201call the years from Adam being 5472.\u201d[132] Here, Africanus\nappears to have forgotten himself, and after saying that the period of\nthe Grecian Empire was 298 years, he still reckons it 300, and thus\nobtains the number of 5472 years from the Creation. Taking 298 years for\nthe correct period of that Empire, and 30 years as the true interval\nfrom its termination to the Christian era, we have 628 years for the\nextent of the _Sixth age_, according to this chronographer; and\nconsequently, the whole period from the Creation to the Christian era,\n5500 years.\n\nThe extent and intervals of the _Sixth age_ according to Eusebius in his\nChronicon, were obtained from the same sources as before, see p. 286. He\ndates the proclamation of Cyrus in the 30th year of the Captivity, and\nhis death in the 60th year. He next dates the 70th year of the Captivity\nin the 2nd of Darius Hystaspes, and thus annihilates 40 years of the\nPersian Empire before that epoch; consequently, only 190 years remained\nafter it, as he reckons the whole period 230 years. He next reckons 6\nyears of the reign of Alexander the Great, independently of the Grecian\nEmpire, which he estimates at 295 years under the Ptolemies; thus making\nthe whole period of the Macedo-Grecian empire 301 years. Lastly, he\ndates the Birth of Christ in the 42d year of Augustus C\u00e6sar, his 15th\nyear being reckoned coincident with the 22d of Cleopatra, the last of\nthe Ptolemies; hence, the period from the end of the Grecian Empire to\nthe Christian era, is 27 years, and the extent of the whole period under\ndiscussion, 588 years. Thus Eusebius, by an admixture of the Hebrew and\nSeptuagint Chronologies in his Canon, makes the period from Creation to\nthe Christian era, 5199 years. The intervals and extent of the _Sixth\nage_, according to the author of the Paschal Chronicle, were obtained\nfrom his work, see p. 286. He follows Eusebius in his epochs of the 1st\nof Cyrus and the end of the Captivity; but he reckons the whole period\nof the Persian Empire at 246 years, and thus makes the remainder 206\nyears after the Captivity. He estimates the period of the Grecian Empire\nat 296 years, including Alexander; and the reign of Augustus C\u00e6sar as\nsole Emperor, at 44 years; thus making the period from the end of the\nGrecian empire to the birth of Christ 29 years, and the extent of the\nwhole period in question, 601 years. According to this author,\ntherefore, by the summation of his periods the number of years from the\nCreation to the Christian era, is 5512; but he states it himself at 5507\nyears. He seems to have obtained this period, by annihilating 2 years in\nthe extent of the 4th age and 3 years in that of the 5th age, in order\nto make it coincide with that of Theophilus.\n\nThe following table exhibits the summation of the _Six ages_ of the\nworld, according to their extent, as determined in the preceding pages,\nfrom the works of the ancient chronographers; including those of the\nSeptuagint, with the _Sixth age_ as determined by the Canon of Ptolemy.\n\n                                TABLE X.\n MUNDANE  SEPTUAGINT. JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.\n  AGES.                                                          CHRON.\n            Years.     Years.     Years.      Years.    Years.   Years.\n First           2262      2256        2242       2262      2242    2262\n Second          1147      1068        1011       1015      1017    1145\n Third            431       430         645        430       430     430\n Fourth           612       612         541        745       480     632\n Fifth            439       470         445        420       442     442\n Sixth            587       642         623        628       588     601\n                 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014        \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014       \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014      \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n  Total          5478      5478        5507       5500      5199    5512\n\nThe following table exhibits the summation of the different periods into\nwhich the four Christian chronographers subdivide the Great Mundane\nperiod, from Creation to the Era of Redemption.\n\n                                TABLE XI.\n\n          1. _Eras and Intervals according to Theophilus._[133]\n\n                                                                  Years.\n From Creation to the Flood                                         2242\n From the Flood to Abraham                                          1036\n From Abraham to Moses                                               660\n From Moses to David                                                 498\n From David to the Captivity                                         518\n From the Captivity to Aurelius                                      744\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Creation to Aurelius                                          5698\n From the Christian Era to Aurelius                                  191\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Creation to the Christian Era                                 5507\n\n          2. _Eras and Intervals according to Africanus._[134]\n\n                                                                  Years.\n From Adam to the Flood                                             2262\n From the Flood to Abraham                                          1015\n From Abraham to Joseph                                              286\n From Joseph to Eli                                                  729\n From Eli to the Captivity of the Ten Tribes                         458\n From the Captivity to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ      781\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                                                                    5531\n                 From the Birth to the Resurrection and\n Ascension of Christ                                                  31\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Adam to the Christian Era                                     5500\n\n           3. _Eras and Intervals according to Eusebius._[135]\n\n                                                                  Years.\n From Adam to the Flood                                             2242\n From the Flood to Abraham and Ninus                                 942\n From Ninus to Moses and Cecrops                                     505\n From Cecrops to the Fall of Troy                                    329\n From the Fall of Troy to the 1st Olympiad                           406\n From the 1st Olympiad to Darius                                     256\n From Darius to the 15th of Tiberius                                 548\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Adam to the 15th of Tiberius                                  5228\n From the Nativity to the 15th of Tiberius                            29\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Adam to the Christian Era                                     5199\n\n 4. _Eras and Intervals according to the Paschal Chronicle._[136]\n\n                                                                  Years.\n From Adam to the Flood                                             2262\n From the Flood to the Exodus                                       1575\n From the Exodus to the Temple                                       614\n From the Temple to Cyrus                                            480\n From Cyrus to Alexander                                             249\n From Alexander to the 15th of Tiberius                              356\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Adam to the 15th of Tiberius                                  5536\n From the Nativity to the 15th of Tiberius                            29\n                                                                    \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n From Adam to the Christian Era                                     5507\n\nWe shall now conclude this work, with a Chronological Table of the\nprincipal epochs and events from the Creation of the World to the Advent\nof our Saviour. The epochs of Sacred History determined according to the\ntrue Chronology, are printed in Roman letters, and the epochs of Profane\nHistory in _Italics_. In the former, Cuninghame is our best authority;\nin the latter, Clinton, with occasional reference to Russell, or Hales.\nSome dates that seem to be well founded, are taken from Julius\nAfricanus. The epochs marked with a Star are either traditional or\nconjectural. The Critarchates, Reigns, Missions, Commissions, &c., are\nall dated at their respective commencements; and the extent of each of\nthe two former may be determined from the table, by taking the\ndifference of the dates of any two consecutive Critarchates or Reigns.\n\n\n\n\n                          CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.\n\n\n                        FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n         A.M.                                              B.C.\n          \u221221 _Traditional Epoch of the Creation_          5500\n          \u221221 *_Higher Astronomical Epoch of the Brahmins_ 5500\n            1 True Epoch of the Creation                   5478\n          100 *Death of Abel                               5379\n          230 Birth of Seth                                5249\n          435 Birth of Enos                                5044\n          625 Birth of Cainan I.                           4854\n          765 _Chronological Epoch of the Julian Period_   4714\n          795 Birth of Mahalaleel                          4684\n          931 Death of Adam                                4548\n          960 Birth of Jared                               4519\n         1070 *Apostacy of the Sons of God                 4409\n         1086 _Samaritan Epoch of the Creation_            4393\n         1122 Birth of Enoch                               4357\n         1142 Death of Seth                                4337\n         1179 _Lower Astronomical Epoch of the Brahmins_   4300\n         1286 *Astronomical Revelations of Uriel           4193\n         1287 Birth of Methuseleh                          4192\n         1340 Death of Enos                                4139\n         1406 _Astronomical Epoch of Laplace_              4073\n         1474 Birth of Lamech                              4005\n         1475 _Hebrew-Usher Epoch of Creation_             4004\n         1487 Translation of Enoch                         3992\n         1535 Death of Cainan I.                           3944\n         1662 Birth of Noah                                3817\n         1690 Death of Mahalaleel                          3789\n         1719 _Modern Jewish Epoch of Creation_            3760\n         1922 Death of Jared                               3557\n         2142 Prediction of the Flood                      3337\n         2162 Birth of Japhet or _Iapetus_                 3317\n         2164 Birth of Shem                                3315\n         2165 Birth of Ham                                 3314\n         2227 Death of Lamech                              3252\n         2256 Death of Methuselah                          3223\n         2256 _Flavian Epoch of the Flood_                 3223\n         2262 True Epoch of the Flood                      3217\n\n\n                        SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n         2263 Descent of Noah from the Ark                 3216\n         2263 First appearance of the Rainbow              3216\n         2264 Birth of Arphaxad                            3215\n         2377 _Hindoo Epoch of the Calyougham_             3102\n         2399 Birth of Cainan II.                          3080\n         2401 First Jubilee of Jubilees from Creation      3078\n         2526 _Chinese Epoch of Fohi_                      2953\n         2529 Birth of Salah                               2950\n         2579 _Foundation of Egypt by Mizraim_             2900\n         2612 Death of Noah                                2867\n         2659 Birth of Eber                                2820\n         2764 Death of Shem                                2715\n         2793 Birth of Peleg or Phalec                     2686\n         2802 Death of Arphaxad                            2677\n         2859 Death of Cainan II.                          2620\n         2923 Birth of Reu or Ragau                        2556\n         2962 Death of Salah                               2517\n         3018 _Chinese Epoch of Tchouen-Hiu_               2461\n         3055 Birth of Serug                               2424\n         3063 Death of Eber                                2416\n         3079 *Foundation of Babel                         2400\n         3081 *Confusion of Tongues                        2398\n         3081 *Division of the Earth                       2398\n         3122 _Chinese Epoch of Yao_                       2357\n         3132 Death of Peleg                               2347\n         3152 _Foundation of Memphis by Menes_             2327\n         3185 Birth of Nahor                               2294\n         3249 *Birth of Job                                2236\n         3246 _Babylon taken by the Medes_                 2233\n         3246 _Chaldean Astronomical Epoch_                2233\n         3262 Death of Reu                                 2217\n         3264 Birth of Terah                               2215\n         3297 _Foundation of the Assyrian Monarchy_        2182\n         3334 Birth of Abraham                             2145\n         3343 *Trial of Job                                2136\n         3385 Death of Serug                               2094\n         3406 *Abraham arrives in Haran                    2073\n         3409 Death of Terah                               2070\n         3409 True Epoch of the Call of Abraham            2070\n\n\n                        THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n         3410 Descent of Abraham to Egypt                  2069\n         3418 Canaan promised to Abraham                   2061\n         3420 Birth of Ishmael                             2059\n         3433 Covenant of Circumcision                     2046\n         3433 Destruction of Sodom                         2046\n         3434 Birth of Isaac                               2045\n         3471 Death of Sarah                               2008\n         3474 Marriage of Isaac                            2005\n         3483 *Death of Job                                1996\n         3494 Birth of Jacob and Esau                      1985\n         3509 Death of Abraham                             1970\n         3522 _Foundation of Sicyon_                       1957\n         3534 Marriage of Esau                             1935\n         3557 Death of Ishmael                             1922\n         3571 Jacob goes to Padan-aram                     1908\n         3571 Marriage of Jacob                            1908\n         3572 Birth of Reuben                              1907\n         3574 Birth of Simeon                              1905\n         3575 Birth of Levi                                1904\n         3576 Birth of Judah                               1903\n         3587 _Foundation of the Assyrian Empire_          1892\n         3591 Jacob returns to Canaan                      1888\n         3598 Birth of Benjamin                            1881\n         3602 Joseph carried into Egypt                    1877\n         3614 Death of Isaac                               1865\n         3615 Joseph made Regent of Egypt                  1864\n         3616 First Year of Plenty                         1863\n         3622 Birth of Kohath                              1857\n         3624 Eisodus of Jacob into Egypt                  1855\n         3641 Death of Jacob                               1838\n         3684 Birth of Amram                               1795\n         3695 Death of Joseph                              1784\n         3712 Death of Levi                                1767\n         3726 _Descent of Phoroneus_                       1753\n         3755 Death of Kohath                              1724\n         3756 Birth of Aaron                               1723\n         3759 Birth of Moses                               1720\n         3787 _Foundation of Argos_                        1692\n         3799 Moses flies to Midian                        1680\n         3837 _Flood of Ogyges_                            1642\n         3840 True Epoch of the Exodus                     1639\n\n\n                        FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n         3840 The Law proclaimed at Sinai                  1639\n         3879 Death of Aaron and Moses                     1600\n         3880 Passage of the Jordan                        1599\n         3886 Division of Canaan by Lot                    1593\n         3896 Death of Joshua                              1583\n         3894 _Foundation of Athens_                       1585\n         3907 First Servitude of Israel                    1572\n         3915 Critarchate of Othniel                       1564\n         3955 Second Servitude                             1524\n         3973 Critarchate of Ehud                          1506\n         3988 _Indian Astronomical Epoch_                  1491\n         4013 _Descent of Danaus and Pelasgus_             1466\n         4043 _Flood of Deucalion_                         1436\n         4043 Third Servitude                              1426\n         4073 Critarchate of Deborah and Barak             1406\n         4096 _Reign of Dardanus and Erectheus_            1383\n         4113 Fourth Servitude                             1366\n         4119 _The Sphere of Chiron or Mus\u00e6us_             1360\n         4120 Critarchate of Gideon                        1359\n         4146 _Azan, Aphidas and Elatus, in Arcadia_       1333\n         4160 Critarchate of Abimelech                     1319\n         4163 Critarchate of Tolah                         1316\n         4166 _Descent of Cadmus_                          1313\n         4186 Critarchate of Jair                          1293\n         4196 _Descent of Pelops_                          1283\n         4208 Fifth Servitude                              1271\n         4218 _Birth of Hercules_                          1261\n         4226 Critarchate of Jephthah                      1253\n         4232 Critarchate of Ibzan                         1247\n         4239 Critarchate of Elon                          1240\n         4249 Critarchate of Abdon                         1230\n         4254 _Argonautic Expedition_                      1225\n         4257 Sixth Servitude                              1222\n         4266 _First Theban War_                           1213\n         4292 _Destruction of Troy_                        1184\n         4297 Critarchate of Eli                           1182\n         4303 _Reign of Orestes at Argos_                  1176\n         4337 Seventh Servitude                            1142\n         4355 _\u00c6olic Migration_                            1124\n         4357 Critarchate of Samuel                        1122\n         4369 Reign of Saul                                1110\n         4375 _Return of the Heraclid\u00e6_                    1104\n         2227 Death of Lamech                              3252\n         4379 Birth of David                               1100\n         4405 _Reign of Aletes at Corinth_                 1074\n         4409 Reign of David                               1070\n         4417 Capture of Jerusalem                         1062\n         4435 _Ionic Migration_                            1044\n         4449 Reign of Solomon                             1030\n         4452 Foundation of Solomon\u2019s Temple               1027\n\n\n                        FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n         4459 Completion of Solomon\u2019s Temple               1020\n         4464 _Foundation of Smyrna_                       1015\n         4489 Revolt of the Ten Tribes of Israel            990\n         4489 Reign of Jeroboam and Rehoboam                990\n         4492 Lapse of the Twelve Tribes into Idolatry      987\n         4494 Invasion of Shishak                           985\n         4506 Reign of Abijah                               973\n         4509 Reign of Asa                                  970\n         4511 Reign of Nadab                                968\n         4512 Reign of Baasha                               967\n         4517 _Acme of Homer_                               962\n         4520 Asa defeats the Ethiopians                    959\n         4535 Reign of Ela                                  944\n         4536 Reigns of Zimri and Omri                      943\n         4537 _Acme of Hesiod_                              942\n         4540 Foundation of Samaria                         939\n         4546 Reign of Ahab                                 933\n         4550 Reign of Jehoshaphat                          929\n         4553 Jehoshaphat appoints Judges                   926\n         4555 Mission of Elijah                             924\n         4558 Destruction of the Prophets of Baal           921\n         4568 Reign of Ahaziah                              911\n         4569 Translation of Elijah                         910\n         4569 Mission of Elisha                             910\n         4570 Reign of Joram                                909\n         4575 Reign of Jehoram                              904\n         4581 Reign of Ahaziah                              898\n         4582 Reigns of Athaliah and Jehu                   897\n         4588 Reign of Jehoash                              891\n         4595 _Olympiad of Iphitus_                         884\n         4604 Mission of Jonah                              875\n         4610 Reign of Jehoahaz                             869\n         4627 Death of Elisha                               852\n         4627 Reign of Joash                                852\n         4628 Reign of Amaziah                              851\n         4633 Reign of Jeroboam II.                         836\n         4657 Interregnum in Judah                          822\n         4669 Reign of Uzziah                               810\n         4684 Interregnum in Israel                         795\n         4684 Missions of Hosea and Amos                    795\n         4703 _Era of the Olympiads_                        776\n         4706 Reigns of Zechariah and Shallum               773\n         4708 Invasion of Pul                               771\n         4718 Reign of Pekahiah                             761\n         4719 Mission of Isaiah                             760\n         4720 Reign of Pekah                                759\n         4721 Reign of Jotham                               758\n         4726 _Foundation of Rome_                          753\n         4729 Mission of Micah                              750\n         4732 _Era of Nabonassar_                           747\n         4737 Reign of Ahaz                                 742\n         4739 Captivity of the Transjordanic Tribes         740\n         4740 Interregnum in Israel                         739\n         4745 _Foundation of Syracuse_                      734\n         4750 Reign of Hoshea                               729\n         4752 Mission of Nahum                              727\n         4753 Reign of Hezekiah                             726\n         4758 Captivity of the Ten Tribes                   721\n         4766 Invasion of Sennacherib                       713\n         4767 Destruction of the Assyrian Army              712\n         4768 _Revolt of the Medes_                         711\n         4782 Reign of Manasseh                             697\n         4792 _Foundation of the Median Empire_             687\n         4796 _Creon First Annual Archon at Athens_         683\n         4802 Captivity of Manasseh                         677\n         4802 Second Jubilee of Jubilees from Creation      677\n         4802 Captivity of the Remnant of Israel            677\n         4822 _Foundation of Byzantium_                     657\n         4837 Reign of Amon                                 642\n         4839 Reign of Josiah                               640\n         4840 _Birth of Thales_                             639\n         4850 Josiah reforms the Land                       629\n         4851 Mission of Jeremiah                           628\n         4856 The Book of the Law found                     623\n         4856 Mission of Zephaniah                          623\n         4858 _Legislation of Draco_                        621\n         4859 Missions of Joel and Habakkuk                 620\n         4863 Reign of Pharaoh Necho                        616\n         4867 Destruction of Nineveh                        612\n         4868 _The acme of Sappho_                          611\n         4869 Reign of Jehoahaz                             610\n         4869 _Birth of Anaximander_                        610\n         4870 Reign of Jehoiakim                            609\n         4873 Reign of Nebuchadnezzar                       606\n         4873 Era of the Babylonish Captivity               606\n         4874 First Vision of Nebuchadnezzar                605\n         4876 Rebellion of Jehoiakim                        603\n         4876 _Epoch of the Eclipse of Thales_              603\n         4880 Reign of Jehoiachin                           599\n         4881 1st year of Jehoiachin\u2019s Captivity            598\n         4881 Reign of Zedekiah                             598\n         4884 _Birth of Cr\u0153sus_                             595\n         4885 Mission of Ezekiel                            594\n         4885 _Legislation of Solon_                        594\n         4889 Siege of Jerusalem                            590\n         4891 Destruction of Solomon\u2019s Temple               588\n\n\n                        SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n         4891 The BABYLONIAN or ASSYRIAN EMPIRE             588\n         4893 _Celebration of the Pythian games_            586\n         4893 _Era of the Seven Sages of Greece_            586\n         4907 _Acme of Esop_                                572\n         4918 Reign of Evil Merodach                        561\n         4937 Release of Jehoiachin                         562\n         4920 _Reign of Neriglissar_                        559\n         4920 _Reign of Cyrus in Persia_                    559\n         4924 Reign of Nabonadius or Belshazzar             555\n         4924 The First Vision of Daniel                    555\n         4924 The Second Vision of Daniel                   557\n         4931 _Anaximenes flourished_                       548\n         4931 Cyrus takes Sardis                            548\n         4939 _Pythagoras flourished_                       540\n         4941 Cyrus takes Babylon                           538\n         4941 _Xenophanes flourished_                       538\n         4941 Reign of Darius the Mede                      538\n         4941 The Third Vision of Daniel                    538\n         4943 MEDO-PERSIAN EMPIRE                           536\n         4943 1st year of Cyrus the Persian                 536\n         4943 Commission of Zerubbabel and Joshua           536\n         4944 Foundation of the Second Temple               535\n         4945 The Fourth Vision of Daniel                   534\n         4948 _Anacreon flourished_                         531\n         4950 Reign of Cambyses or Ahasuerus                529\n         4954 _Cambyses conquers Egypt_                     525\n         4954 _Birth of \u00c6schylus_                           525\n         4957 _Usurpation of the Persian Throne_            522\n         4958 Reign of Darius Hystaspes                     521\n         4959 Missions of Haggai and Zechariah              520\n         4959 The Second Temple re-founded                  520\n         4961 _Birth of Pindar_                             518\n         4963 The Destruction of Babylon                    516\n         4963 The Second Temple completed                   516\n         4970 _The Roman Regifugium_                        509\n         4971 _Expulsion of the Pisistratid\u00e6_               510\n         4979 _Birth of Anaxagoras_                         508\n         4984 _Birth of Sophocles_                          495\n         4989 _The Battle of Marathon_                      490\n         4994 Reign of Xerxes the Great                     485\n         4995 _Birth of Herodotus_                          484\n         4996 _Ostracism of Aristides_                      483\n         4999 _Battle of Salamis_                           480\n         4999 _Birth of Euripides_                          480\n         5008 _Birth of Thucydides_                         471\n         5011 _Birth of Socrates_                           468\n         5015 Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus                464\n         5015 _Zeno flourished_                             464\n         5019 _Births of Democritus and Hippocrates_        460\n         5021 The Commission of Ezra                        458\n         5021 The 1st Week of Daniel begins                 458\n         5024 _Empedocles flourished_                       455\n         5028 _The Roman Decemviri_                         451\n         5030 _Restoration of the Consuls_                  449\n         5034 The Commission of Nehemiah                    445\n         5035 _Military Tribunes at Rome_                   444\n         5046 Nehemiah returns to Artaxerxes                433\n         5047 _Meton flourished_                            432\n         5048 _The Peloponnessian War_                      431\n         5049 Mission of Malachi                            430\n         5050 _Birth of Plato_                              429\n         5051 _Aristophanes flourished_                     428\n         5055 Close of the Old Testament Canon              424\n         5056 Reign of Darius Nothus                        423\n         5070 The 7th Week of Daniel ends                   409\n         5075 Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon                    404\n         5075 _Lysander takes Athens_                       404\n         5078 _The Anabasis of Xenophon_                    401\n         5081 _Ctesias flourished_                          398\n         5089 _Rome burnt by the Gauls_                     390\n         5095 _Birth of Aristotle_                          384\n         5108 _Battle of Leuctra_                           371\n         5111 _Eudoxus flourished_                          368\n         5113 _Consuls restored at Rome_                    366\n         5119 The 14th Week of Daniel ends                  360\n         5120 _The accession of Philip_                     359\n         5121 Reign of Ochus                                358\n         5123 _Birth of Alexander the Great_                356\n         5138 _Birth of Epicurus_                           341\n         5139 _Demosthenes flourished_                      340\n         5141 _Battle of Ch\u00e6ronea_                          338\n         5142 Reign of Arses                                337\n         5143 _Reign of Alexander in Macedon_               336\n         5144 Reign of Darius Codomannus                    335\n         5145 _Alexander crosses the Hellespont_            334\n         5147 Tyre taken by Alexander                       332\n         5147 _Alexandria founded_                          332\n         5148 _Battle of Arbela_                            331\n         5150 MACEDO-GRECIAN EMPIRE                         329\n         5156 Death of Alexander                            323\n         5159 Ptolemy takes Jerusalem                       320\n         5168 The 21st Week of Daniel ends                  311\n         5167 Era of the Seleucid\u00e6 or Contracts             312\n         5174 _Reign of Ptolemy Lagus_                      305\n         5180 _Arcesilaus flourished_                       299\n         5194 _Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus_               285\n         5199 Reign of Antiochus Soter                      280\n         5200 _Irruption of the Gauls into Greece_          279\n         5202 Epoch of the Septuagint Version               277\n         5215 _First Punic War_                             264\n         5217 The 28th Week of Daniel ends                  262\n         5218 Reign of Antiochus Theus                      261\n         5232 _Reign of Ptolemy Evergetes_                  247\n         5233 Reign of Seleucus Callinicius                 246\n         5238 _Sicily ceded to Rome_                        241\n         5254 Reign of Seleucus Ceraunus                    225\n         5256 Reign of Antiochus the Great                  223\n         5257 _Reign of Ptolemy Philopator_                 222\n         5261 _Second Punic War_                            218\n         5263 _Battle of Cann\u00e6_                             216\n         5266 The 35th Week of Daniel ends                  213\n         5274 _Reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes_                  205\n         5289 _The Romans cross the Hellespont_             190\n         5292 Reign of Seleucus Philopator                  187\n         5298 _Reign of Ptolemy Philometor_                 181\n         5304 Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes                  175\n         5304 Antiochus persecutes the Jews 10 years        175\n         5304 End of the Jewish Hierarchy                   175\n         5309 Antiochus sacks Jerusalem                     170\n         5311 _Macedon subdued by the Romans_               168\n         5312 Martyrdom of the Maccabees                    167\n         5313 The Asamonean Dynasty                         166\n         5313 Reign of Judas Maccabeus                      166\n         5315 Reign of Antiochus Eupator                    164\n         5315 The 42d Week of Daniel ends                   164\n         5317 Reign of Demetrius Soter                      162\n         5318 The Jews allied with the Romans               161\n         5329 Reign of Alexander Balas                      150\n         5330 _Third Punic War_                             149\n         5333 Reign of Demetrius Nicator                    146\n         5333 _Reign of Ptolemy Physcon_                    146\n         5333 _Destruction of Carthage_                     146\n         5336 Reign of Antiochus VI. Epiphanes              143\n         5337 Reign of Trypho                               142\n         5341 Reign of Antiochus Sidetes                    138\n         5351 2d Reign of Demetrius Nicator                 128\n         5354 Reign of Alexander Zebina                     125\n         5356 Reign of Antiochus Grypus                     123\n         5362 _Reign of Ptolemy Soter_                      117\n         5364 The 49th Week of Daniel ends                  115\n         5374 _Africa made a Roman Province_                105\n         5384 Reign of Seleucus Nicator                      95\n         5387 Reign of Philip                                92\n         5389 _Cicero flourished_                            90\n         5396 Reign of Tigranes                              83\n         5397 _Sylla made Perpetual Dictator_                82\n         5398 _Reign of Ptolemy Auletes_                     81\n         5410 _Birth of Virgil_                              69\n         5410 Reign of Antiochus Asiaticus                   69\n         5413 The 56th Week of Daniel ends                   66\n         5414 _Birth of Horace_                              65\n         5414 Syria made a Roman Province                    65\n         5416 Jerusalem taken by Pompey                      63\n         5419 _First Roman Triumvirate_                      60\n         5421 _Birth of Livy_                                58\n         5421 _Julius C\u00e6sar invades Gaul_                    58\n         5425 _Julius C\u00e6sar reduces Britain_                 54\n         5428 _Reign of Cleopatra_                           51\n         5431 _Battle of Pharsalia_                          48\n         5434 The 59th Week of Daniel ends                   45\n         5434 _The Julian Era_                               45\n         5435 _Death of Julius C\u00e6sar_                        44\n         5436 _Second Roman Triumvirate_                     43\n         5437 _The Battle of Philippi_                       42\n         5441 The 60th Week of Daniel ends                   38\n         5441 _The Spanish Era_                              38\n         5442 Reign of Herod                                 37\n         5442 End of the Asamoneans                          37\n         5448 The 61st Week of Daniel ends                   31\n         5448 _The Battle of Actium_                         31\n         5449 _Egypt made a Roman Province_                  33\n         5449 THE ROMAN EMPIRE                               30\n         5449 Reign of Augustus C\u00e6sar                        30\n         5452 _The Augustan Era_                             27\n         5455 The 62d Week of Daniel ends                    24\n         5455 THE TEMPLE OF JANUS SHUT                       24\n         5462 The 63d Week of Daniel ends                    17\n         5462 The Temple at Jerusalem rebuilt by Herod       17\n         5476 The 65th Week of Daniel ends                    3\n\n         5476 BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST                           3\n\n         5478 Reign of Archelaus                              1\n\n                                                           A.D.\n         5478 VULGAR ERA OF CHRISTIANITY                      1\n         5486 Judea made a Roman Province                     8\n         5492 Reign of Tiberius Cesar                        14\n         5504 The 69th Week of Daniel ends                   26\n         5505 Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea             27\n         5506 BAPTISM OF CHRIST                              28\n         5511 The 70th Week of Daniel ends                   33\n\n         5511 THE CRUCIFIXION AND ASCENSION                  33\n\n         5511 THE FIFTH EMPIRE                               33\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  \u2018\u039f \u03c0\u1fb6s \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7\n  \u1f04\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3.\u2014Theoph. ad Autol. Lib. III. p. 273, Oxon. 1684.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  See his \u201cSyntagma de Septuaginta,\u201d p. 13, Lond. 1655, and his\n  \u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d p. 46, Oxon. 1660. In our subsequent citations,\n  these editions are followed; the latter is denominated \u201cOpus Posthumum\n  hucusque \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  This translation, which is from the Septuagint, may be considered as\n  too free by some; but we conceive that it expresses the true meaning\n  of the passage, which is not conveyed in our common version; for the\n  earth abideth _not_ for ever!\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  The reader will find an explanation of Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s argument in\n  the second part of this Dissertation.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Revelation xiii. 17.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Ibid. xxii. 19.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Dr. Hales says, \u201cThe Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, of the highest\n  authority among the Jews, thus paraphrases Gen. iv. 25: \u2018And Adam knew\n  his wife when 130 years were completed after Abel was killed.\u2019 And the\n  same account is furnished by the Bereshith Rabba, More Nevochim,\n  Midrash Tanchuma, Solomon Jarchi, Elias, and others of their principal\n  writers.\u201d\u2014See his \u201cAnalysis of Chronology,\u201d vol. i. p. 80. Indeed, the\n  whole of the second article of the second section of his Introduction,\n  is well worth perusal, being full of very curious and interesting\n  matter, all tending powerfully to prove that the longer computation of\n  the Septuagint was the true and original computation of the Hebrew\n  text. His comparison of the Masorete and Samaritan texts in regard to\n  Genesis xi. 10\u201332, is very valuable; see p. 82.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  \u201cSyntagma,\u201d cap. iv. p. 34.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  We refer here to the date of the division of the earth as determined\n  by Mr. Cuninghame; see the Preface to his \u201cSynopsis of Chronology,\u201d\n  pp. 18\u201322, and his \u201cFulness of the Times,\u201d p. 44. In these works, he\n  makes out that the division commenced in A. M. 3081 or B. C. 2398;\n  that it continued during a jubilean period, or forty-nine years; and,\n  of course, that it terminated in A. M. 3130, or B. C. 2349. We confess\n  that we do not see the necessity of allowing so long a period for the\n  division of the earth; and we think it more likely to have been\n  finished than to have been begun at the former date.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  This name is marked in this and the two following Tables, on account\n  of its omission in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Usher\u2019s \u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d cap. vi. p. 87.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  The citations from Dr. Hales\u2019 work are referred to the 4to. edition,\n  Lond. 1800\u20131812.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Collatio Codicis Cottoniani Gen seos, &c. Lond. 1778, p. xiii.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  \u201cAnalysis of Chronology,\u201d vol. i. p. 84.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  \u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d cap. vii. p. 120.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  It is remarkable that both Hales and Russell, notwithstanding their\n  acknowledged veneration for the Holy Scriptures, have chosen to follow\n  the testimony of Josephus, in regard to the extent of the first two\n  ages of the world; but \u201ctheir witness agrees not together;\u201d for the\n  former makes it 3333 years, and the latter 3403 years!\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  See the Prefaces to the \u201cSynopsis of Chronology;\u201d the \u201cChronology of\n  Israel;\u201d the \u201cHebrew and Septuagint Chronologies Tried;\u201d the\n  \u201cScientific Chronology of the year 1839,\u201d and its Supplement; and the\n  \u201cSeason of the End.\u201d\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  \u201cHistory of the World,\u201d pp. 228, 277.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  The Eulerian ratio here referred to, is that the numbers of mankind\n  are doubled every 12\u2158 years. Now, in 90 years, the doubling would\n  occur about 7 times, which would occasion the original number to be\n  increased 128 times; because the 7th power of 2 is 128. Hence, 50,000\n  multiplied by 128, gives 6,400,000, which is nearly 6\u00bd millions. If\n  the calculation be performed with the greatest mathematical nicety,\n  the result will only be 6,540,256, which is rather more than 6\u00bd\n  millions.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  The pretensions of any nation to a remote antiquity could only arise\n  from ignorance of the sacred records, and of the true traditions of\n  its ancestors, or from a bold disbelief of both. The Jews cannot be\n  charged with either of these, their character being remarkably the\n  reverse until Christ came. Hence we cannot suppose that the Seventy\n  Interpreters would wilfully shut their eyes to the glaring facts, that\n  the true age of the world was well known to their countrymen, that\n  many of them were then living in the hope of the fulfilment of the\n  prophecies concerning the Messiah, and that they were then accustomed\n  \u201cto calculate the times.\u201d Any attempt on their part, therefore, to\n  increase that age by 1500 years, would have been looked upon with\n  abhorrence; nor could they hope to escape detection and severe\n  reprobation; unless, indeed, we can suppose that they had assembled\n  all the Jews \u201cfrom every nation under heaven,\u201d and made them privy to\n  the transaction! Before the advent, therefore, such an alteration in\n  the sacred text was impossible; but after that event it was not only\n  possible, but actually took place, not in the _Greek_ but in the\n  _Hebrew_, the former being read all over the world, but the latter\n  being confined to the Jewish synagogue.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Chronologia Sacra, pp. 162 and 171.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Although the extent of the _third_ age is clearly established by the\n  reference of Paul to the period of 430 years, from the confirmation of\n  the covenant to Abraham to the promulgation of the law from Mount\n  Sinai, yet it will be satisfactory to observe, that the passage cited\n  from the book of Exodus originally stood as follows:\u2014\u201cAnd the\n  sojourning of the children of Israel, _which they and their fathers_\n  sojourned in the land of Egypt _and in the land of Canaan_, was 430\n  years. And it came to pass, after the 430 years, that all the host of\n  the Lord went out of the land of Egypt _by night_;\u201d see the\n  Septuagint, Alexandrine edition, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, Exod.\n  xii. 40, 41. The words in Italics in this passage are omitted in the\n  Hebrew text, and the words \u201c_even the self-same day_,\u201d are\n  interpolated. That this is an interpolation is quite evident, for even\n  in the Hebrew, in the very next verse, we are _twice_ told that \u201cIt is\n  a _night_ much to be observed unto the Lord,\u201d for this great\n  deliverance. Thus, by the testimony of _three_ witnesses against\n  _one_, the true reading is established. Nevertheless, Archbishop Usher\n  calls the passage just cited from the Septuagint a _paraphrastic\n  explanation_ of the words of Moses; and he says that the corresponding\n  passage in the Samaritan text is _interpolated_ from the Greek\n  version!\u2014\u201cChronologia Sacra,\u201d cap. viii. p. 127. Biblical critics and\n  commentators, in general, _now_ admit that these texts have preserved\n  the _true reading_; see the note on this passage, by the editor of the\n  Religious Tract Society\u2019s Commentary on the Bible, from Henry and\n  Scott. Mr. Clinton also very properly defends the right\n  _interpretation_ of the passage; for he says, \u201csome modern writers\n  have very unreasonably doubted this portion of the Hebrew chronology;\u201d\n  see \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i. page 299.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  The following is the passage as written by Origen, in his commentary\n  on the Gospel of St. John:\u2014\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n  \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3\n  \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u0399\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb,\n  \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; which reads thus:\u2014_It is written in the\n  third [book] of Kings, so they prepared stones and timber for three\n  years; and in the fourth year, in the second month, of the reign of\n  King Solomon over Israel, the king commanded, &c._ 1 Kings v. 18; and\n  vi. 1.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s remarks on Usher\u2019s system, in his \u201cSynopsis of\n  Chronology,\u201d pp. 18\u201320, are very appropriate. We are forced to abridge\n  them as follows:\u2014\u201cI have in my former works, shown that the learned\n  prelate\u2019s Chronology of this period is _manufactured_; and in this\n  conclusion I have the support of the most eminent writers, including\n  the names of Hales, Kennicott, Dr. Russell, Mr. Clinton, added to the\n  whole of the ancient chronographers. The latest attempt made to prop\n  up or patch his system as a whole, is that of the author of the\n  Chapter on Chronology, in the last edition of Mr. Bickersteth\u2019s _Guide\n  to the Prophecies_. But while this learned chronographer thus sets his\n  seal to the almost _exact truth_ of Usher\u2019s _sum total_ of years, he\n  no less sets his seal to the fact that Usher has _filled up_ the\n  period by a _false chronology_. According to this learned writer, it\n  is therefore undeniable that Usher\u2019s chronology of the period from the\n  Exodus to the first of Solomon is, as to its _particulars_,\n  manufactured and erroneous. Now it is quite a fair question to Mr.\n  Bickersteth and his friend, to ask them by what arithmetical process\n  they have found out that the scheme which they thus bear testimony to\n  be _false_ as to its _particulars_, is yet _true_ as to its _sum\n  total_. Is it a newly discovered principle that many falsehoods make\n  one truth? As to the scheme of particulars substituted for that of\n  Usher in these tables, it is like that of the learned prelate himself,\n  utterly opposed to the narrative and testimony of the book of Judges.\n  There is one part of the scheme, however, which merits even more\n  severe animadversion. The author of the Table makes the period in Acts\n  xiii. 20, expire at the return of the ark from Kirjathjearim. Are we\n  then to conclude that he has clipped down St. Paul\u2019s 450 to 350? I can\n  see no other mode of explaining his calculation.\u201d\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  This is the Hebrew title of the most famous Jewish work on chronology,\n  and signifies \u201cThe Great Chronicle of the World.\u201d Dr. Hales says,\n  \u201cThis was the first curtailed system of Jewish chronology, fabricated\n  by Rabbi _Josi_, under the auspices of Rabbi _Akiba_, the abettor of\n  the rebel-impostor _Barchochab_, A.D. 130, in the reign of\n  Adrian.\u201d\u2014See his \u201cAnalysis,\u201d p. 13.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  \u201cI have endeavoured to shew,\u201d says Mr. Cuninghame, in the former of\n  the places cited, \u201cthat the periods of 390 and 40 mystic _days_,\n  during which Ezekiel was commanded to lie on his sides, bearing the\n  iniquity of Judah and Israel, are a period of 430 _years_, computed\n  from the finishing of the Temple, B.C. 1020, to the beginning of the\n  siege of Jerusalem, B.C. 590. But it now appears to me that the 430\n  years may with equal probability be computed from the first Passover\n  in the Temple. The dedication was in the month Tisri of B.C. 1019,\n  which is exactly 91 jubilees from the creation; the first Passover was\n  therefore in Nisan B.C. 1018, whence to the taking of the city in Ab\n  B.C. 588, are 430 years and three months; and computing back from B.C.\n  588, the second period of 40 years, it brings us to B.C. 628, the 13th\n  of Josiah, and the very year, according to Prideaux, of the commission\n  of Jeremiah. * * * Whether, therefore, we compute the period of 430\n  years from the finishing of the Temple B.C. 1020, to the _beginning of\n  the siege_ B.C. 590, or as above, from the first Passover to the\n  _taking of the city_, it comes out with equal exactness.\u201d\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  See a full account of this Canon, in Dr. Hales\u2019 \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. i.\n  pp. 275\u2013288; and a short account of it, in the \u201cBreviarium\n  Chronologicum\u201d of Strauchius, translated by Sault, pp. 262\u2013264, 3rd\n  edition, Lond. 1745.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  See his \u201cChart of Sacred Chronology.\u201d\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  See his \u201cApology, &c.,\u201d translated by the Rev. T. Chevallier, B.D., p.\n  221, Cambridge, 1833.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Mr. Cuninghame says that \u201cMr. Gresswell produces a mass of quotations\n  from the Fathers, scarcely two of whom entirely agree, to prove that\n  they nearly all held that our Lord\u2019s death was in one of the years 29\n  or 30, [A. M. 5507 or 5508], or some of them in 31, [A. M. 5509]; yet\n  with respect to some of his witnesses, he is obliged to exclaim, \u2018_So\n  little solicitous do these writers seem to be about verifying their\n  dates, before they allowed them to remain on record_.\u2019 If he were to\n  give us 100 volumes of such passages to wade through, which is merely\n  wading through a mass of contradictions, they can avail nothing\n  against the unequivocal testimony of St. Luke, that in the 15th of\n  Tiberius our Lord was 30 years of age, and was therefore born in B. C.\n  3, [A. M. 5476]; and the other fact, founded on the unerring\n  principles of Astronomy, that from the year 28 to 33, [A. M. 5506 to\n  5511], no Passover could possibly have fallen on a Friday; and,\n  therefore, the death of our Lord is pinned down to A. D. 33, [A. M.\n  5511].\u201d \u201cSeason of the End,\u201d p. 85.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Jerome even went further than this, and adopted the curtailed system\n  of the Jews in some of his writings, if not in all.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  The Birth of Christ took place according to\n\n  _The Septuagint._\n\n  In the 5476th year from Creation; the 3215th from the Deluge; the\n  2143d from the birth of Abraham; the 1637th from the Exodus; and the\n  1068th from the accession of David; the 65th prophetic week of Daniel;\n  the 193d Olympiad; the 751st year of Rome; and the 42d of Augustus.\n\n  _The Hebrew Text._\n\n  In the 4000th year from the Creation; the 2344th from the Deluge; the\n  1992d from the birth of Abraham; the 1487th from the Exodus; and the\n  1051st from the accession of David; the 65th prophetic week of Daniel;\n  the 193d Olympiad; the 749th year of Rome; and the 40th of Augustus.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Rabbi _Salomon Jarchi_, qui nous a donn\u00e9 l\u2019explication de cette\n  tradition, dit que les deux mille ans de _Tohu_, ou d\u2019_Inanit\u00e9_, ont\n  dur\u00e9 depuis la cr\u00e9ation du monde jusque vers la cinquante ou\n  soixanti\u00e8me ann\u00e9e d\u2019Abraham, et que les deux milles ans de Loi ont\n  commenc\u00e9 vers ce tems-la, lorsque Dieu le fit sortir de Chalde\u00e9, et\n  lui donna des lois pour lui et pour toute sa posterit\u00e9, principalement\n  celle de la circoncision; et qu\u2019ils ont fini vers la destruction de\n  J\u00e9rusalem par Titus. Il ajoute enfin ces paroles: _Mais nos p\u00e9ch\u00e9s\n  sont la cause que le Messie n\u2019est point venu au bout des quatre mille\n  ans_. p. 1527.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  The rules for the determination of the approximating ratios of any two\n  numbers by the method of _Continued Fractions_, are very clearly\n  explained, on _Algebraical_ principles in _Hind\u2019s Algebra_, 5th\n  edition, pp. 273\u2013292; and, on _Arithmetical_ principles in _Thomson\u2019s\n  Arithmetic_, 16th edition, pp. 241\u2013246. We subjoin the operation, as\n  much abridged as possible, by which the preceding series of fractions\n  was obtained. Reducing the above lengths of the year and the month\n  into seconds, we have the numbers 31556929\u00b77 and 2551442\u00b787; hence,\n\n                       2 255144287 3155692970 12\n                         187923052 3061731444\n                         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                       2  67221235   93961526  1\n                          53480582   67221235\n                         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                       1  13740653   26740291  1\n                          12999638   13740653\n                         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                       1    741015   12999638 17\n                            402383   12597255\n                         \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                            338632     402383  1\n                               &c.\n\n Quotients,  12,   2,    1,    2,     1,      1,       17,       1,        1,     &c.\n  Ratios,   \u00b9\u2044\u2081\u2082, \u00b2\u2044\u2082\u2085, \u00b3\u2044\u2083\u2087, \u2078\u2044\u2089\u2089, \u00b9\u00b9\u2044\u2081\u2083\u2086, \u00b9\u2079\u2044\u2082\u2083\u2085, \u00b3\u00b3\u2074\u2044\u2084\u2081\u2083\u2081, \u00b3\u2075\u00b3\u2044\u2084\u2083\u2086\u2086, \u2076\u2078\u2077\u2044\u2088\u2084\u2089\u2087, &c.\n\n  Unmathematical readers will find a much more simple, but of course, a\n  more lengthened explanation, of these ratios in Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s\n  \u201cSynopsis of Chronology,\u201d pp. 6\u201310, and 54\u201360.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  We have much satisfaction in giving the following abridgement of the\n  remarks of Mr. Birks, on this interesting subject; pp. 371, 372. Thus,\n  he says, \u201cA fresh light is thrown upon the words of the Psalmist, _He\n  appointed the moon for seasons_. A divine ladder of time is set before\n  us, and, as we rise successively from step to step, days are replaced\n  by years, and years by millenia; and these, perhaps, hereafter, in\n  their turn, by some higher unit, from which the soul of man may\n  measure out cycles still more vast, and obtain a wider view of the\n  immeasurable grandeur of eternity. Human science has strained its\n  utmost efforts in calculating the actual motions of the Moon and the\n  Earth; but the determining causes which fixed at first the proportion\n  of their monthly and yearly revolutions have altogether eluded its\n  research. Yet these elements of the natural universe are linked in, by\n  these sacred times and celestial cycles, with the deepest wonders of\n  Providence, and the whole range of Divine prophecy. How glorious,\n  then, must be the inner shrine, lit up with the Shechinah of the\n  Divine Presence, when the approaches themselves reveal such a secret\n  and hidden wisdom!\u201d\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  See his work \u201cOn the Jubilean Chronology of the Seventh Trumpet of the\n  Apocalypse,\u201d pp. 1\u20133, and 19\u201326.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Dr. Hales, in his \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. ii. p. 1354, gives the following\n  explanation of the \u201c_enigmatical_ number of the name of the second\n  _Beast_, in its second stage, after the _image_ was made,\u201d from\n  _Fuardentius_, an early Romish writer, followed by _Walmsley_. The\n  number 666 is the numeral amount of [Mahomet] the _False Prophet\u2019s_\n  name, written \u039c\u03bf\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 or \u039c\u03b1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, by the Greek Historians _Zonaras_\n  and _Cedrenus_:\u2014\n\n             \u039c,   \u0391,   \u039f,   \u039c,  \u0395,    \u03a4,   \u0399,    \u03a3.\n             40 +  1 + 70 + 40 + 5 + 300 + 10 + 200 = 666.\n\n  This is very curious, and indicates the strong likeness between\n  _Popery_ and _Islamism_, in some grand point, namely, _the Spirit of\n  Persecution_!! John xiii. 35. The following explanation of the number\n  of the Beast, is taken from Mr. Cuninghame\u2019s \u201cSupplement to the\n  Scientific Chronology of the year 1839,\u201d pp. 28, 29. \u201cIn my\n  Dissertation on the Seals, I have adopted the usual Protestant\n  Solution and application of this number, as being found [first by\n  Iren\u00e6us] in the name of LATINUS, the founder of the LATIN KINGDOM,\n  written with the epsilon, \u039b\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, according to the ancient Greek\n  orthography; or, if it be written without the \u03b5, according to the\n  later usage, then we owe to Mr. Clarke the important discovery, that\n  is found in the name of the LATIN KINGDOM,\u2014\u1f29 \u039b\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.\n\n                       \u039b =   30 \u1f29 =    8 \u0392 =    2\n                       \u03b1 =    1          \u03b1 =    1\n                       \u03c4 =  300 \u039b =   30 \u03c3 =  200\n                       \u03b5 =    5 \u03b1 =    1 \u03b9 =   10\n                       \u03b9 =   10 \u03c4 =  300 \u03bb =   30\n                       \u03bd =   50 \u03b9 =   10 \u03b5 =    5\n                       \u03bf =   70 \u03bd =   50 \u03b9 =   10\n                       \u03c2 =  200 \u03b7 =    8 \u03b1 =    1\n                           \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014     \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014     \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n                            666  =   407  +   259\n\n  Now, without in the least departing from this interpretation, I\n  remark, that while it correctly ascertains the PERSON or POWER to whom\n  this number belongs, namely, THE LATIN EMPIRE, BOTH SECULAR AND\n  SPIRITUAL; yet it does not COUNT or COMPUTE the number itself, or\n  discover to us its ROOT in arithmetic. The expression, _Let him that\n  hath understanding_ COUNT, \u201c\u03a8\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u201d, _the number of the Beast_,\n  cannot mean to find the number itself, for this is given; nor does it\n  merely signify to find out the name which expresses that number; but\n  it also means that the root of the number must be found, and the\n  number computed from it; and further, it signifies, I apprehend, that\n  we must apply the number to the chronology of the Beast himself, in\n  connection with that of the World, in which he exercises his\n  dominion.\u201d\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  See _Note A_. p. 130.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  This abstract of his arguments was communicated to the author by Mr.\n  Cuninghame.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  See _Note B_. p. 132.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  In L\u2019Estrange\u2019s Translation of Josephus, p. 10, he says \u201cGod commanded\n  Eve to tread upon his [the Serpent\u2019s] head, both as the fountain of\n  all our woes, and as the part where he most easily receives a mortal\n  wound.\u201d Reland says \u201cQuia interpres vetus h\u00e6c reddit, _ut mulier ejus\n  capiti plagas inferret_, &c. Nulla apud Josephum est mentio mulieris,\n  nec ullum hactenus codicem Josephi conspectum memini, in quo hoc loco\n  mulier commemoratur.\u201d\u2014Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. page 8, note c.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  For the accuracy of _this number_ we have the testimony of Josephus in\n  two different places of his works, which have escaped the alterations\n  made in the text of his Jewish Antiquities, by wicked and designing\n  persons. See the Pro\u0153mium to that work, paragraph \u03b3; and the Prologue\n  to his first Book against Apion.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  This eminent Prophet was favoured with a vision of God\u2019s glory, which,\n  though preceded by storm, and earthquake, and fire, was accompanied\n  with a _still small voice_. This was the _voice_ of love and mercy,\n  whose sweetest notes were heard at Calvary without the gate; for the\n  Septuagint says, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _and the Lord was there_; 1 Kings xix.\n  12.\u2014See the Alexandrine edition.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  A name of Apollo, or the Sun; hence, perhaps, \u039f\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, a _mountain_,\n  because the _morning sun_ first appears on the mountain-tops.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  This inversion, or _Metathesis_, is not uncommon in Hebrew, see Joshua\n  xix. 50, and xxiv. 30, compared with Judges ii. 8, 9, where it occurs\n  in this very word in composition.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  \u201cThe construction of this sentence in the original, indicates that\n  _Baal_ and the _Sun_ are to be considered as one and the same; for the\n  copulative \u200f\u2018\u05d5\u200e _Vau_, is not put between them as it is between the\n  remaining words; thus, _and_ the Moon, _and_ the Planets (or, more\n  literally, _and_ Mazzaroth), &c.\u201d The latter term, which occurs also\n  in Job xxxviii. 32, is understood by most critics, to signify the\n  _Twelve Signs of the Zodiac_; if this be its real meaning, the\n  doctrine of the _Celestial Sphere_ must have had a very early origin,\n  and long anterior to the famous sphere of Chiron or Eudoxus.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  \u201cReligious History of Man,\u201d p. 248, second edition.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Russell\u2019s \u201cConnection,\u201d vol. i. p. 401.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Dr. Russell gives the following curious extract from the _Canon\n  Chronicus_ of Sir John Marsham: \u201cPlures in Oriente _Joves_ est\n  investigare, Gr\u00e6cis Romanisque longe recentioribus, nullus datur h\u00eec\n  locus. Varro _trecentos Joves_ introducit: Nos originem qu\u00e6rimus, non\n  multitudinem. Sane omnis de Jove theologia ex Egypto derivata est; nec\n  Jovis solum, sed omnium etiam deorum numina inde petenda sunt.\u201d\u2014See\n  his \u201cConnection,\u201d pp. 389\u2013406.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  The inversion and amalgamation of the letters \u200f\u05d3\u200e and \u200f\u05e9\u200e producing Z.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  \u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u1f76\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a4\u0395\u0398\u0395\u0399\u039a\u0395\u039d\u0391\u0399 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f94[\u03c4\u1f95?] \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u0398\u0395\u0395\u0399\u039d\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. \u039a\u03a5\u03a1\u0399\u039f\u03a3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u039a\u03a5\u03a1\u0399\u0395\u03a5\u0395\u0399\u039d \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd,\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014Theoph. ad Autolycum, p. 10., Oxon. 1684.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  The celebrated historian of Astronomy, Delambre, following the\n  opinions of Sir William Jones and Mr. Bentley in the \u201cAsiatic\n  Researches,\u201d sneers at the supposed antiquity of the Hindoo\n  Astronomical Tables contained in the _Surya Siddhanta_, and ridicules\n  Bailly and Playfair for maintaining such an opinion. But ridicule is\n  not a test of truth; and after all, his conclusion is only this, that\n  the question _seems_ to be settled! Without insisting on the antiquity\n  of the Tables, it may be urged on very satisfactory grounds, that some\n  of the observations to which they refer, were _real_ and not\n  _fictitious_. Delambre has brought no proof of his own to shew that\n  they _must_ be fictitious, but has merely copied the statements and\n  arguments of Mr. Bentley. For these, we refer to his work entitled, \u201cA\n  Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy,\u201d London, 1825.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Even the splendid creations of Milton\u2019s genius, in his \u201cParadise Lost\u201d\n  have been often substituted for the truths of Sacred Inspiration.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: Isaiah ix. 6; See the Alexandrine edition\n  of the Septuagint.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  \u1f49\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3 ... \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ad\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u00b7 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f40\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ce\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03db\u02b9 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f01 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b6\u02b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n  \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u201d \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. \u1f21 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1fb3 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b7\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03be \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03db\u02b9 \u03c3\u03c4\n  \u1f10\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd.\u2014Iren\u00e6us contra omnes H\u00e6reses; pp. 444, 445, Grabe\u2019s\n  edition, Oxon. 1702.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  H\u00e6c Iren\u00e6i sententia de mundi permansione, tot tantosque habet\n  vindices et confirmatores, ac plausibiles persuasiones, modo divin\u00e6\n  potestati nihil temer\u00e8 pr\u00e6scribatur, ut in eam lubens descenderem.\n  Prim\u00f2 enim Ethnicorum omnium clarissimos et antiquissimos scriptores,\n  Hydaspen Medorum Regem; Mercurium Trismegistum, ac Sybillas hoc\n  pr\u00e6cinuisse et firmasse, testis Lactantius, lib. vii. cap. 14, 15 et\n  18. Hebr\u00e6os idem sequi, testimonio est oraculum, quod Heli\u00e6 nomine\n  circumferunt Thalmudist\u00e6, libro Sanhedrin, capite Helec: et lib.\n  Havoda Zara, cap. liphne-edehen: cujus verba recitantur, nec\n  refelluntur, a doctis et Catholicis Authoribus, Galatino libro iv.\n  cap. 20., Pico Mirandulano lib. vii., Heptapli cap. 4. et Francisco\n  Veneto lib. de Harmonia Mundi Cant. iii. Tono 7, cap. 7. Oraculum hoc\n  declarant, ac conjecturis multis et non spernendis confirmant insignes\n  Rabbini Selomo et Isaac. Ex Latinis Ecclesiasticis Patribus,\n  sententiam hanc amplectuntur et tuentur Lactantius lib. vii. cap. 14.,\n  Hilarius in cap. 17. Matth., Hieronymous Epist. ad Cyprianum, et\n  Comment in cap. iv. Miche\u00e6, Gaudentius Brixianus Tract. x. de Lectione\n  Evangelica. Refert eandem et Augustinus lib. xx Civitat. Dei cap. 7,\n  ut verisimilem, licet alibi illam impugnaverit. Glossa etiam, qu\u00e6\n  Ordinaria vocatur constanter affirmat, in 5 cap. Genes. Inter Gr\u00e6cos\n  vero placuit h\u00e6c opinio Justino Martyri, seu cuivis alteri Authori\n  Qu\u00e6stionum ad Orthod. Qu\u00e6st. 71. Sex istis millibus quingentos annos\n  addere visum est Hippolyto, Cyrillo, et Chrysostomo, ut author est\n  Germanus Constantinopolitanus libro de theoria rerum Eccles.\n  Perspectum mihi, est hanc sententiam oppugnari ab Augustino Comment,\n  in Psal. 6 et 89. atque Epist. 89. insuper \u00e0 Beda in Psal. 89. an vero\n  illam expugnent, viderint docti et acuti eorum Lectores. H\u00e6c autem ni\n  fallor, aliquod emolumentum adferent ad eorum reprimendos clamores,\n  qui temere nullaque ratione B. Martyri hac de re vehementius\n  insultant, et lapsos, quos putant, Patrum aliquanto contumeliosi\u00f9s\n  insectantur. _Feuardentius._\u2014Grabe\u2019s Iren\u00e6us, pp. 444, 445.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  \u1f19\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc4 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2.\u2014Philebos, p. 157., cited by\n  Dr. Russell, p. 77 of his \u201cConnection.\u201d\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Augustine de Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 11\u201313; cited by Russell, p. 81 of\n  his \u201cConnection.\u201d\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Russell\u2019s \u201cConnection\u201d pp. 80\u201384.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03cc \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f7a\u03c4\u1fc7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f21\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc7\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1f7a\u03c4\u1fc7\n  \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\u2014Eusebius, cited by Syncellus, p. 89, Bonn,\n  1829.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  We refer to Robinson\u2019s edition of Hesiod\u2019s works, qu\u00e6 supersunt, cum\n  notis Variorum, Oxon. 1737.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  \u201cConnection,\u201d vol. ii. p. 465.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Genesis xlix. 11, 12, 25, 26. The above passages are improved a little\n  by reference to the Septuagint, of which see a Translation according\n  to the Vatican edition, just published by Bagster and Sons, from the\n  pen of Sir L. C. L. Brenton, Bart.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  The character of the present age, which is remarkable for vulgar\n  _Infidelity_, and the entire worship of _Mammon_, especially in the\n  metropolis, has made many of the people of God sigh and cry for the\n  abominations of the land, and fear that the Apocalyptic vials of wrath\n  are about to be poured out upon this devoted country; for to whom much\n  is given, of them much will be required. The crying sin, in our\n  estimation, is that which makes a _gain of godliness_, and which puts\n  men into the _priest\u2019s office_ for a piece of bread; for by this\n  _craft they have their_ \u1f10\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, _wealth_, Acts xix. 25; or, as it\n  might be rendered, _respectability_. This age indeed makes vast\n  pretensions to _respectability_, but it is only that which arises from\n  _wealth_. Now it is very remarkable that the letters of the Greek word\n  \u1f10\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, which was used by the craftsmen who made silver shrines for\n  Diana, when they complained of the spread of the Gospel, and set\n  Ephesus in an uproar for _two hours_, added up according to their\n  value in the Greek system of notation, make the sum of 666, the\n  well-known number of the Beast! Thus:\u2014\n\n                \u0395    \u03a5    \u03a0    \u039f     \u03a1    \u0399    \u0391\n                5 + 400 + 80 + 70 + 100 + 10 + 1 = 666.\n\n  What does this indicate, but that the beast reigns triumphant in the\n  present age; for the whole world has gone a wondering after him, and\n  the image which he has set up? And what is this image but _wealth_ or\n  _respectability_, which all are so anxious to acquire and maintain?\n  Let Christians beware of falling into this snare, and let them attend\n  to the warning voice of the beloved Apostle; Rev. xviii. 4. For the\n  discovery of the above singular numerical coincidence, we are\n  indebted, through the publisher, Mr. Bagster, to the author of a work\n  just published, entitled \u201cWEALTH, The Name and Number of the Beast,\n  &c.\u201d\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  The similarity of this description to that of Hesiod, is in some\n  points, even more marked in the Septuagint.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 which is the same as \u200f\u2018\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e signifies literally the\n  _beginning_ or _summit of wisdom_, and consequently the _highest\n  wisdom_.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Here Virgil, by a Poetic licence, melts the _Iron age_ and the _Cum\u00e6an\n  age_ into one. This was natural for him to do, as a Roman; for no\n  doubt he was aware that the ascendancy of the _Roman Power_ had been\n  predicted in ancient prophecy under the figure of _Iron Rule_: and he\n  might hope that the _Fifth Monarchy_ would spring from the same\n  source.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  This learned and illustrious poet, who had no doubt, borrowed his\n  \u201c_prisc\u00e6 vestigia fraudis_\u201d[69] from the 2d Chapter of Genesis, might\n  have also anticipated the gross wickedness which should continue to\n  prevail, notwithstanding the advent of the Divine Instructor, until\n  death should put an end to mortal strife, and the spirits of the just\n  be made perfect. It is lamentable in the present _Age of\n  Respectability_, to behold so many of these _vestigia_ as the\n  newspapers exhibit, those daily records of crime and debauchery,\n  murder and suicide; to read the reports of the police, inquest, and\n  law courts, one would scarcely believe that he lived in a Christian\n  country, but rather that he dwelt in the midst of Pagan Rome. It is\n  our deliberate opinion that the publication of such reports is\n  injurious to the morals of the country, and that an immediate stop\n  should be put to it by legislative enactment. The reading of\n  newspapers is now so universal, and the taste for _The Horrible_ so\n  rabid, especially among the lower orders, that we are fully persuaded\n  that the perusal of the reports of trial for crime, under the\n  temptation of the Devil, and the pressure of similar circumstances,\n  too frequently leads to its commission. It would serve all the good\n  purposes that can possibly be gained by publicity, merely to record\n  the names and crimes of the offenders, without entering into all the\n  shocking details, so disgusting to the truly humane and Christian\n  portion of the community.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  \u201c_Traces of Man\u2019s early sin._\u201d\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  The works of these authors to which we shall chiefly refer, are, the\n  \u201cJewish Antiquities\u201d of Josephus, the treatise \u201cTo Autolycus\u201d of\n  Theophilus, the remains of the \u201cChronicon\u201d of Africanus, the mutilated\n  \u201cChronicon\u201d of Eusebius, and the \u201cChronicon Paschale.\u201d\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  See Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. pp. 13, 14; note _a_.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Antolycum, p. 262, Oxon. 1684.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  See Routh\u2019s Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6, vol. ii. pp. 126, 129.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Ibid, pp. 242, 243, 248, 250.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. p. 26.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  See Hudson\u2019s Josephus, pp. 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 262.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6, vol. ii. p. 130.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  On this point, see the \u201cCours Complet de Theologie,\u201d tom. iii. p.\n  1538; and \u201cChronicon Paschale,\u201d p. 340, Venet. 1729.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6, vol. ii. p. 131.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. p. 111.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 262.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 265.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 155.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Ibid, p. 136.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Routh\u2019s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 132.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  The 20 years taken from the former period, and the 20 years of the\n  servitude omitted, being both added to the short period, will make it\n  exactly 72 years.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. p. 979.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  Ibid, p. 322.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Russell\u2019s \u201cConnection,\u201d vol. i. p. 147.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Sulpicius Severus in Hist. Sacr. i. 44, 3; cited by Clinton.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  See Russell\u2019s \u201cConnection,\u201d p. 128; where he gives a very erroneous\n  view of the critarchate of Samuel and the reign of Saul. He is also\n  mistaken as to the critarchate of Samson.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 470.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, p. 371.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Ibid, p. 422.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Ibid, p. 506.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, p. 528.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  Probably intended for _Shamgar_; see Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 266.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Clinton\u2019s \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i. p. 306, note _d_.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 266.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 160, 161.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Clinton\u2019s \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i. p. 308, note q.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 167, 169.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Russell\u2019s \u201cConnection,\u201d pp. 130, 131; and Clinton\u2019s \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d\n  vol. i. pp. 303\u2014310.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  See the vol. last cited, p. 310, note _x_.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  We have observed the correct number in the series of the Judges\n  prefixed to the Armenian copy of the Chronicon of Eusebius.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  Clinton\u2019s Fast. Helle. p. 310, note _z_.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  Ibid, p. 304.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Ibid, p. 305.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  Ibid, p. 305, note _z_.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. p. 528.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. p. 518.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Ibid, p. 516.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  On this point, see Clinton\u2019s \u201cFasti Hellenici,\u201d vol. i. p. 316; where\n  the author makes a wrong citation from the Septuagint, viz., 4 Reg.\n  xiii. 10.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Euseb. Chron. Canon. Book I. 5, 2, ex Haicano Codice, Mediolan. 1818.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 387.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 452.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Ibid, p. 400.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. 281.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. 269.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Rel. Sac. vol. ii. p. 174.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Ven. 1483.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Mediolan. et Ven., 1818.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Ven. 1729.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  See Hales\u2019s \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. i. pp. 276\u2013278.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  2 Kings xxv. 4.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Luke iii. 1, 23.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Hudson\u2019s Josephus, vol. i. pp. 547\u2013979.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  See Dr. Hales\u2019s \u201cAnalysis,\u201d vol. ii. p. 652.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, pp. 268\u2013277.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Luke iii. 1, 23; and p. 89, _Part I_.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Rel. Sac. pp. 181, 186, 187.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, pp. 276\u2013281.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  Routh\u2019s Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6, vol. ii. pp. 129\u2013193.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  See the Hieronymian version of his \u201cChronicon,\u201d Ven. 1483.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  See \u201cChronicon Paschale,\u201d p. 179, Ven. 1729.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n Page           Changed from                      Changed to\n\n   90 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c2\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2          \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n      \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70    \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n      \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd                      \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n\n \u25cf Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.\n \u25cf Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last\n     chapter.\n \u25cf Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.\n \u25cf Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.\n \u25cf The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to\n     individual characters (like 2^d) and even entire phrases (like\n     1^{st}).","title":"A dissertation on the true age of the world : $b in which is determined the chronology of the period from creation to the Christian era","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":79392}