path: root/76771-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76771 ***





                             A DISSERTATION
                                   ON
                       THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD,
                         IN WHICH IS DETERMINED
                     =The Chronology of the Period=
                                  FROM
                     CREATION TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA.


                         BY PROFESSOR WALLACE.

      “Mundum tradidit disputationi eorum.”
                                      ECCLES. iii. 11. Lat. Vulg.

                                LONDON:
                   SMITH, ELDER AND CO. 65, CORNHILL.
                                 1844.




                                London:
                     Printed by STEWART and MURRAY,
                              Old Bailey.




                                PREFACE.


The following Dissertation treats of a subject which has divided the
opinions of the learned world from the third century till the present
time; namely, the discrepancies which exist between the present Hebrew
text and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, respecting the
generations of the Ante and Postdiluvian Patriarchs. It treats also of
the similar discrepancies, which exist between the Hebrew and the
Samaritan texts, and of the testimonies of Josephus and other ancient
historians and chronographers, in favour of the accuracy of the
Septuagint on this point. These discrepancies, with others of minor
extent, which are here also duly considered, occasion a difference
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint as to the chronology of the period
from creation to the Birth of Christ, amounting in all to nearly 1500
years,—the difference between the modern and ancient computation of the
_true age of the world_.

This question, which has never been satisfactorily settled,
notwithstanding the efforts of the ancient chronographers Theophilus,
Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus, and the labours of the modern
chronologers, Petavius, Usher, Jackson, Hales, Russell and Clinton, has
acquired fresh importance from the late discoveries of Astronomers and
Geologists, and the recent investigations of learned writers on the
prophecies and the millennium. The startling announcements made by
Geologists regarding the antiquity of the earth, which, according to
their discoveries, amounts to millions of millions of years; and the
curious statements of Astronomers respecting the ages of time required
for the transmission of the light of the stars, the continual
development of new nebulæ in the heavens, and the gradual formation of
new suns and systems in the universe; are sufficient causes, why a new
inquiry into the chronology of the Bible has become both popular and
necessary, and why the question concerning the discrepancies between the
Hebrew text and the ancient Greek version has been revived.

The interest attached in these latter days, by pious and learned men, to
the study of the prophecies of Daniel, and of the Apocalyptic visions of
John, tends greatly to increase the popularity of chronological
inquiries respecting the Mundane Times. The late researches of writers
on this subject into the mystic numbers of days or years appointed by
the Great Creator for the fulfilment of these prophecies and visions,
naturally leads to the investigation of the _true age of the world_; and
this again, if properly conducted, conduces to the settlement of the
dates of all the great events both in sacred and profane history. The
Christian Church, having once established these epochs on a firm
chronological basis, can then look calmly forward, as from an elevated
vantage ground, to the rapid accomplishment of all the prophecies both
of the Old and New Testament; and particularly to the downfall of the
Papacy, the destruction of the Mohammedan Imposture, the overthrow of
Infidelity, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the battle of
Armageddon, the supervention of the Millennium, and the Second Advent of
the Messiah in the clouds of Heaven.

It is no mean and uninteresting inquiry, therefore, to attempt to
ascertain from the Sacred Scriptures, the true date of the present year
from the creation of the world; and to determine which of the modern
computations is the most correct, or whether any of them be in exact
accordance with the unerring testimony of the word of God. For,
according to the chronology of the modern Jews, we now live in the year
of the world 5604; according to that of the Church of England, founded
on the authority of Archbishop Usher’s interpretation of the Hebrew
text, in A.M. 5848; according to that of the Church of Rome, founded on
the authority of Eusebius, and the later chronographers, in A.M. 7044;
but, according to that of the most learned of all Christian churches,
and particularly the recent writers, Jackson, Hales, Russell and
Cuninghame, founded on the authority of the Septuagint, corrected
according to the best and most ancient codices of that version, and
tested by Astronomical and Jubilean Cycles of time, in A.M. 7322.

In the _First Part_ of this Dissertation, a critical analysis is given
of the construction of the different Ages of the world previous to the
Messianic age, as determined by the supreme authority of the Sacred
Scriptures, which the author places above and beyond that of the
statements and the testimonies of all human writers. The learned
chronological works of Mr. Cuninghame have been particularly brought
under his review, and have, in fact, formed the basis of his
investigations; namely, _A Synopsis of Chronology_, London, 1837; _The
Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies Tried_, London, 1838; _The Fulness of
the Times_, second edition, London, 1839; _A Chart of Sacred
Chronology_, London, 1842, &c. The following important chronological
treatises have also been specially brought under his notice; namely,
_Scripture Chronology_, being _Appendix V. to_ Vol. i. of Mr. Clinton’s
very learned work, the _Fasti Hellenici_, Oxford, 1834; and
_Chronographiæ LXX. Interpretum Defensio_, being _Treatise V. in_ Vol.
iii. of the _Cours Complets D’Ecriture Sainte et De Theologie_, a
laborious, learned and valuable work in 50 volumes, published by _M.
L’Abbé Migne_, Paris, 1841. Frequent references are likewise made to the
well-known chronological works of Usher, Jackson, Hales, and Russell.

In the _Second Part_, a critical inquiry has been instituted into the
evidence, Scriptural, Historical and Physical, for the universal
diffusion among mankind of the Great Primeval prophecy concerning the
Renovation of the world, and its bearing on the question of the true
period of the Advent of our Saviour, and the Extent of the Mundane ages.
This inquiry leads to a short discussion on the origin of Idolatry, the
Source of the Heathen names of the Deity, and the notions entertained by
the ancient mythologists and poets concerning the _Seven ages_ of the
world. This discussion brings to light some evidences of a curious and
striking nature in favour of the true Chronology. The work concludes
with an investigation of the errors of the most eminent of the ancient
Chronographers, and an elucidation of their clear and united testimony
to the authenticity of the computation of the Septuagint.

To complete the object of this Dissertation, the author intended to
review the Astronomical and Geological evidence for the antiquity of the
globe; but the Scriptural and Historical evidence for the _true age of
the world_, appeared to him of such paramount importance, and of so
overwhelming a nature, that he was compelled to devote his best
attention to its development and elucidation. If he has been successful
in this attempt, it will be to him a source of no small gratification,
and no small reward for his labour; it will also be a powerful
inducement to prosecute his intended investigations, having, in this
work, only very slightly touched on the Geological question, and not at
all on the Astronomical, except in what relates to the cyclical
character of the Mundane Times, which may be considered as only the germ
of this magnificent subject. Impressed with the idea that the _True Age
of the World_ is written in the Heavens by the finger of God, and that
the revolutions of the Solar System, if rightly investigated, must lead
to its discovery; the author made some astronomical calculations of
which at present, he can only communicate the results. Assuming that at
the Creation of the world, there was a Grand Heliocentric conjunction of
all the Planets, and that at some subsequent period of its history, the
same phenomenon would at least be partially visible from its surface, he
endeavoured to determine the period or cycle which must elapse before a
second conjunction would happen. He found by these calculations, that
this cycle was nearly 2401 years, a period which according to the
language of Scripture is a _Jubilee of Jubilees_; and, that reckoning
from the era of Creation determined in this work, the Second conjunction
took place about B. C. 3078, which is within a few years (24) of the
date generally assigned to the Hindoo epoch of the Calyougham. He found
also, that the Third conjunction took place about B. C. 677, when the
remnant of the Ten Tribes was carried away into a long captivity, and
the kingdom departed from Israel; and, that the Fourth conjunction took
place in A.D. 1725, when on the 17th of March, at Pekin in China, the
planets Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter, were all seen in the field of
the same telescope at the same instant, by the Jesuit Missionaries
Gaubil, Jacques and Kegler. In confirmation of the same epoch of
Creation, he also found that the longitude of Sirius, the largest and
brightest of all the Stars in the Heavens, and by some supposed to be
the central point of attraction to our Sun, was 0° 0′ 0″ on the 21st of
March B. C. 5478, according to the most recent determination of the
precession of the equinoxes; but the discussion of these curious results
and other topics to which he has already alluded, must form the subject
of a future volume.


  _London, Sept. 2nd, 1844._




                           TABLE OF CONTENTS.


                                 PART I.

                              INTRODUCTION.

   1. State of the World at the Birth of Christ—Tradition
     concerning his Advent—Its epoch determined from Prophecy     page 1

   2. Short history of the Septuagint Version of the Old
     Testament—Discrepancies between the Hebrew and the
     Septuagint—Their effect on Sacred Chronology                      4

                SECTION I.—AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.

            CHAPTER I.—EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.

   1. Discrepancies of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan
     Texts—Solution of the difficulty by the chronographers of
     the middle ages—Consistency of the Septuagint and the New
     Testament—Numerical errors of the Hebrew text                     9

   2. Origin and effect of various readings—The immaculate purity
     and miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text, a
     figment—Consistency of the word of God                           12

   3. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard
     to the Antediluvian Patriarchs: Table I., In their
     Antepaidogonian ages—Table II., In their Postpaidogonian
     ages—Table III., In their whole lives—Internal evidence
     afforded by the Tables in favour of the computation of the
     Septuagint—The Discrepancies of the Hebrew and Samaritan the
     work of design—Proof of this fact from the Scriptures            14

   4. Reasons assigned for the alterations in the Hebrew and
     Samaritan—Accuracy of the Septuagint demonstrated—An
     objection to its chronology removed—Utility of the
     publication of _fac simile_ editions of the codices—Late
     origin of the _printed_ Hebrew text—Its original agreement
     with the Septuagint proved                                       20

           CHAPTER II.—EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.

   1. Discrepancies of the three texts—Unfounded hypothesis of
     Usher—Agreement of Josephus with the Septuagint—Authority of
     this Version in the Church—Its chronology confirmed by the
     most authentic Chinese annals—Reasons why the Jews altered
     the Hebrew text                                                  28

   2. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard
     to the Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV. In their
     Antepaidogonian ages—Table V. In their Postpaidogonian
     ages—Table VI. In their whole lives                              31

   3. Authenticity of the _Second Cainan_—Dilemma of the
     Venerable Bede—Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne—Usher’s
     Dissertation—Inconsistency of authorized translations of the
     Bible—Rashness of Beza—The Second Cainan in the most ancient
     Codices—Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers         34

   4. Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the
     computation of the Septuagint—Omissions in the Hebrew and
     Septuagint retained in the Samaritan—Accordance of the
     Septuagint with nature and providence—Mr. Cuninghame’s
     argument from analogy—The alterations of Origen in the text
     of the Septuagint                                                41

   5. Mistake of Usher, adopted by Hales and Clinton, as to the
     Antepaidogonian age of Terah—Mr. Cuninghame’s arguments
     unanswerable—His proof of the chronology of the Seventy from
     the discovery of its Cyclical character—Testimony of
     Eusebius to the true date of Abraham’s birth—Table VII.
     Extent of the _first two ages_ of the world                      45

 CHAPTER III.—DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.

   1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the
     proportion between the Antepaidogonian Ages and whole Lives
     of the Patriarchs—Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio,
     and the diminution of the length of human life                   50

   2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human
     generations—Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew
     text—Remark of Eusebius—Objections of learned men unanswered     52

   3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence
     of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same
     family, and within a short period from the flood—Remarks on
     the building of Babel—Mr. Clinton refuted—Mr. Cuninghame’s
     argument from Scripture—The judgments of God forgotten           55

   4. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the accounts of
     Sacred and Profane History—Remark of Sir Walter Raleigh—Sir
     Isaac Newton’s objection refuted—Epoch of the Foundation of
     the kingdom of Egypt                                             57

   5. Arguments founded on the deficiency of the numbers of
     mankind—Epoch of the occupation of Babylon by the
     Medes—Calculation of the numbers of mankind on the Eulerian
     ratio—Mr. Clinton refuted                                        59

   6. Argument founded on the alteration of the Hebrew text by
     the Jews—Testimony of the early Fathers on this point—Mr.
     Clinton’s admission as to the prophecies—His refutation as
     to the chronology—Motives of the Jews for shortening the
     genealogies                                                      60

   7. Motives ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters for enlarging
     the chronology—Pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians to
     a remote antiquity—Insufficiency of the scheme adopted by
     the Interpreters—Self-refutation of Mr. Clinton’s hypothesis     62

            CHAPTER IV.—EXTENT OF THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.

   Table VIII. Patriarchal Eras and Intervals from Usher—Table
     IX. Extent of the _first three ages_ of the World—Date of
     the Exodus of Israel from Egypt                                  64

            CHAPTER V.—EXTENT OF THE FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

   Palpable Forgery of this period in 1 Kings vi. 1.—Table X.
     Critarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
     Cuninghame—Object of Usher in determining this
     period—Testimony of Paul and the Book of Judges as to its
     true extent—Testimony of Origen—Table XI. Extent of the
     _first four ages_ of the world—Verification of the true
     extent of the _fourth age_ by Chronographers—Agreement on
     this point between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Cuninghame                67

            CHAPTER VI.—EXTENT OF THE FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

   Table XII. Monarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
     Cuninghame—Correction of the mistakes of chronologers as to
     the true extent of this period, by Mr. Cuninghame—Table
     XIII. Extent of the _first five ages_ of the
     World—Confirmation of the true extent of the _fifth age_
     from sacred history and prophecy                                 73

           CHAPTER VII.—EXTENT OF THE SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

   1. Table XIV. Hierarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
     Cuninghame—Determination of the Intervals from
     Scripture—Period of the Seventy years Captivity—Period of
     the Seventy prophetic weeks of Daniel—Table XV. Date of the
     Crucifixion determined—Truth of the Ancient Tradition
     respecting the First Advent of the Messiah demonstrated          79

   2. Determination of the Epoch of the Birth of Christ—Labours
     of Mr. Cuninghame on this point—Coincidence of the extent of
     the period of Patriarchal Pilgrimage with that of Hierarchal
     Bondage—Table XVI. Extent of the _Six Ages_ of the
     World—Difference between the true and vulgar dates of the
     Nativity—Mr. Cuninghame’s dates of the Nativity and Public
     Ministry of Christ deduced from the chronology of the
     Septuagint                                                       84

       SECTION II.—CONFIRMATION OF THE GREAT EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.

  CHAPTER I.—HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUE SYSTEM OF CHRONOLOGY.

   Testimonies of the ancient chronographers and historians
     before and after Christ, in favour of the chronology of the
     Septuagint—Demetrius, Eupolemus, Josephus, Justin Martyr,
     and all the early fathers of the first three
     centuries—Theophilus, Hippolytus, Africanus, Origen,
     Cyprian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Ephrem Syrus,
     Augustine, Chrysostom, Sulpicius Severus, Annianus,
     Syncellus, Eutychius, the author of the Paschal Chronicle,
     and the Council called “Synodus in Trullo”—Probable cause of
     minute variations among the ancient chronographers               90

         CHAPTER II.—REDUCTION OF THE MUNDANE ERA OF REDEMPTION.

   Errors of Eusebius, Jerome, and the western
     churches—Consistency of the eastern and southern churches to
     the latest period—Chronology of the Russians and Armenians,
     that of the Septuagint—Testimony of
     Abulpharajius—Chronological innovations of the Venerable
     Bede—His denouncement as a heretic on this
     account—Chronology of the Roman Church different from that
     of the Latin Vulgate—The chronology of the Masoretes an
     abridgement of the true—The chronology of the Roman
     Martyrology preserved by Pontifical authority to the present
     day—Extract from Strauchius—An important testimony in favour
     of the true chronology                                           95

   CHAPTER III.—CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY ERRONEOUS.

   Chronology of the English Bible erroneous—Usher influenced by
     the Masoretes—Tradition of the House of Elias—Its complete
     refutation both from Scripture and fact—Utility and
     application of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Chart of
     Chronology”—Reasons assigned by the Jewish Rabbis why their
     expected Messiah is not yet come—Their curse upon all who
     calculate the Times                                              99

          CHAPTER IV.—CYCLICAL CHARACTER OF THE MUNDANE TIMES.

   1. The revolutions of the heavenly bodies appointed for
     cycles—Origin of the cycles of the year and the month—The
     subject of Enoch’s prophecy—Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of
     the cycle from the Creation to the Era of
     Redemption—Scriptural cycles of frequent occurrence—The
     numbers of Jubilee and of Pentecost—of pilgrimage and
     persecution—of omnipotence, glory and wisdom; and of
     mystery, vengeance and forgiveness—The prophetic numbers of
     Daniel—Discovery of their connection with the higher cycles
     of astronomy, by M. de Chesaux and Mr. Cuninghame               102

   2. Lengths of the tropical year and the synodical period of
     the moon, according to Sir John Herschel—Application of the
     method of _continued fractions_ to the determination of
     their approximating ratios—Various lunisolar cycles—The
     Octaëteris of the Greeks—The cycle of nineteen discovered by
     Meton, but probably known to the Hebrews—The period of
     Calippus—Proof that the numbers of Daniel are lunisolar
     cycles—Remarks of Mr. Birks in his “Elements of
     Prophecy”—Observations of Mr. Cuninghame in his “Scientific
     Chronology”—Proof that the prophetic month and the jubilean
     period are lunisolar cycles                                     106

               CHAPTER V.—DISCOVERY OF NEW MUNDANE CYCLES.

   1. Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of the mystical signification of
     the seventy years’ captivity—Its connection with the era of
     the French Revolution—Confirmed by the sentiments of the
     modern Jews—Prediction of Rabbi Joseph Crool—Prediction in
     the Hebrew Tract “Explanation of the Times,” published in
     1794—The latter prediction not fulfilled—Hope concerning
     Israel                                                          111

   2. Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of seven streams of time, of
     seventy jubilees each, in the true system of chronology—This
     test wholly inapplicable to any other system—His discovery
     of five streams of time of different Jubilean
     periods—Utility of his “Fulness of the Times” where these
     discoveries are developed—Notice of his more recent works       113

   3. Various cycles which enter into the true system of
     chronology—Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of the _trinal
     fraction_—Its explanation and application by an Algebraic
     formula—Original form in which it was discovered—Its
     superiority to the formulæ of the _figurate
     numbers_—Remarkable instance of its application to
     Scriptural and other numbers, and to lunar and solar
     cyclical numbers—Mr. Cuninghame’s definition of the trinal
     fraction the most correct—The series deduced from its
     formula possesses curious properties                            115

   4. Application of the theory of the trinal fraction to the
     discovery of the meaning of the _Number of the Beast_ in the
     Revelation of John—Proof that the number 666 is the number
     of a Man—Its indication of _spiritual_ and _secular_
     dominion—of tyranny and persecution—Recent efforts to raise
     the Beast again to power—A warning to Protestants               119

        CHAPTER VI.—DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY.

   1. Mr. Cuninghame’s application of the lunisolar cycles and
     septennary periods to the settlement of chronological
     questions—The Septuagint proved to be the _exact truth_ by a
     complex harmony of scientific time—His “Synopsis of
     Chronology” recommended                                         122

   2. Evidence in favour of the Septuagint and Hebrew
     Chronologies compared and tested by Mr. Cuninghame—His
     detection of the scheme of fraud invented by the Jewish
     Rabbis for shortening the chronology of the Scriptures—His
     exposition of this scheme in _three distinct acts_, and the
     result of the whole                                             123

   3. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Septuagint and Hebrew
     Chronologies Tried”—His description and table of the great
     periods of 1838—His table of both Chronologies—His appeal to
     the disciples of Usher—His view of their chronological
     difficulties and paradoxes—His call to them to produce their
     evidence in favour of their system                              126

   4. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame’s later works—Summary of
     the remarkable and original subjects of which they treat—His
     remarks on the Theories of modern Geologists
     recommended—Their large demands upon time not warranted by
     the simplicity of the Mosaic narrative—The authority and
     authenticity of the Inspired Record endangered by their
     speculations—Another mode of solving geological difficulties
     recommended—A boon of 1500 years additional granted to
     Geologists—Recommendation of Mr. Morison’s “Religious
     History of Man”—Mr. Cuninghame’s discoveries concentrated in
     his “Chart of Chronology” and “Essay,” and in the Appendixes
     to the fourth edition of his “Dissertation on the
     Apocalypse”                                                     128


                                PART II.

        CHAPTER I.—THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

   Primeval prophecy concerning the Messiah—Errors in the
     translation of it, in different versions—Correct in the
     Septuagint—Tradition of this prophecy in the Ante and Post
     Diluvian ages—Its clearer development in the Patriarchal
     Age—Dr. Lamb’s explanation of the word _Shiloh_—Prophecy of
     Balaam in the Critarchal Age—Predictions of Moses and
     Hannah—The glorious revelations of the Monarchal Age—The
     testimony of the Psalms to the Messiah—Explanation of the
     last words of David from Kennicott—Application of the term
     _Sun_ to Jehovah—Testimony of the Prophecies to the
     Messiah—Isaiah, the Evangelical Prophet—The predictions at
     the close of the Monarchal and the commencement of the
     Hierarchal Age—Testimony among the Heathen                      135

  CHAPTER II.—TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO THE SUBJECT OF
                                PROPHECY.

   1. Object of the Disposition of the Cherubim at Eden—Its
     disappearance from the earth—The remembrance of its glory
     transmitted to the Postdiluvians—Its occasional
     re-appearance to Abraham, to Moses, to Israel, to Elijah,
     and to Isaiah—Identity of the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel,
     and John—Similarity of the visions of Daniel, John, the
     Three Disciples, and Paul—Object of these glorious
     representations in heaven and on earth—Known among the
     Heathen, and grafted on their religious worship—Origin of
     Zabaism, and its spread over the world                          146

   2. The Sun worshipped by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and
     Chaldeans, under the names of Baal, or Beelsamen—By the
     Egyptians, under the names of Orus and Osiris—Connection
     between the Sun and Sirius—The Sun and his Satellite
     worshipped by the Israelites, under the names of Molech and
     Remphan, Baal, and Ashtaroth, during the Critarchal age—The
     Zabian idolatry set up at Jerusalem in the Monarchal age—The
     partial Reformation of Josiah—The ancient Persians, Sun and
     Fire worshippers—Origin of Mithras—The gods of Phenicia,
     Elioun, and Adonis or Tammuz                                    152

   3. The gods of the Hindoos, Vishnu, Buddha, Brahma, and Seeva,
     form no Trinity—The theft of their names and attributes from
     the Hebrew evinced by their meaning—Buddha an avatar of
     Vishnu—Origin of Fohi, the god of the Chinese—Druidical,
     Peruvian, Mexican, and Parsee worship—Origin of Surya,
     Suras, and Asuras—Russell’s citation of Macrobius on the
     worship of the Solar god—The concentration of Paganism          158

   4. Origin of the Greek and Latin names of the Supreme
     God—Ingenious derivation by Dr. Hales—Confutation of that
     given by Francoeur in his “Uranographie”—Origin of the New
     Testament titles of Christ—Citation of Theophilus on this
     subject—Irrefragable proof of the Divinity of our
     Lord—Original temple of the Sun—Connection of Religious
     worship and Astronomical observation—Antiquity of the
     Hindoos and Chinese                                             163

        CHAPTER III.—TRADITIONARY AND POETICAL AGES OF THE WORLD.

   1. Tradition concerning the Seventh Age—Prophecy of the
     Universal Saviour—Traditions of the Jews—Opinion of Irenæus
     and the Christian Church in his time—Dr. Russell’s opinion
     confuted—Testimony of the Heathen to the Tradition of the
     _Seven Ages_—Digression on the Corruptions of the Septuagint
     and the Hebrew text—Arguments against the numerical accuracy
     of the latter—Remarkable prophecy contained in the names of
     the _Antediluvian_ Patriarchs—Opinions of Augustine and
     Abulfarajius—Notion of Dr. Isaac Barrow—Important admission
     of Eusebius—Opinion of Ephrem Syrus                             168

   2. Description of the Ages of the World from Hesiod—Error of
     Newton—The Golden Age corresponds to the Antediluvian—The
     Silver to the Postdiluvian—The Brazen, Heroic and Iron ages,
     to the Patriarchal, Critarchal and Monarchal—These ages
     relate chiefly to Greece—References to Scripture history in
     all—The Sixth or Cumæan age corresponds to the
     Hierarchal—Wisdom of the Heathens—Their expectation of a
     Divine Instructor—Socrates, Plato, Eupolis, Virgil, and
     others, anticipate his glorious Advent—The close of the
     _Sixth age_ indicates the arrival of the _Seventh_, or the
     return of the _Golden age_                                      193

            CHAPTER IV.—ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.

   1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the
     ancient chronographers—The testimony of the latter chiefly
     in favour of the Septuagint—The testimonies of Josephus,
     Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the
     Paschal Chronicle selected for examination—Table I.
     Containing their statements relating to the _First age_ of
     the world—Errors of Josephus—Corruption of his text—Mr.
     Cuninghame’s detection of his blunders in regard to the
     first age—His discovery of the truth from the titulary
     statements of the first and second books of Josephus—His
     explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this author appears
     to have been accessory—Error of Theophilus, and accuracy of
     Africanus in this age—Similar error of Eusebius and
     Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the
     Paschal Chronicle                                               229

   2. Table II., Containing the statements of the ancient
     chronographers relating to the _Second age_ of the
     world—Absurd errors of the text of Josephus—The discrepancy
     between his detailed numbers and his sum total, the work of
     an enemy to the truth—Proof that the true sum was in his
     text originally—Errors of Theophilus and Africanus in this
     age due to Jewish influence—Notion entertained by the
     ancient chronographers regarding the bisection of the
     Mundane period at the death of Peleg—The genealogy of Shem,
     like that of Melchisedec, in the chronology—Reference to Mr.
     Clinton—Error of Eusebius, rectified in the Hieronymian
     version of his Chronicon—Accuracy of the Paschal Chronicle,
     with the exception of the biennial period—Valuable Testimony
     of Eusebius and Africanus, preserved by Syncellus in his
     Chronographia, on the extent of the _first two ages_            240

   3. Table III., Containing the statements of the ancient
     chronographers relating to the _Third age_ of the world—The
     testimony of Josephus to the true chronology very
     explicit—Misinterpretation of prophecy the cause of wavering
     in Josephus and blunder in Theophilus—The testimony of
     Africanus correct—Eusebius, Demetrius, and the author of the
     Paschal Chronicle correct—Explanation of the period of _Four
     Hundred_ years                                                  248

   4. Table IV., Containing the statements of the ancient
     chronographers relating to the _Fourth age_ of the world—The
     testimony of Josephus to the extent of this age highly
     satisfactory—Proof that it was 612 years—Strange errors of
     Theophilus—Method of rectifying them—Compensating errors of
     Africanus—His date of the foundation of Solomon’s Temple
     correct—Errors of Eusebius—His _Præparatio_ correct in
     amount, his _Chronicon_ wrong—He confutes himself and adopts
     the Hebrew chronology—Comparison between him and
     Usher—Errors of the Paschal Chronicle—The author coincides
     with Josephus—Hesitancy of Mr. Clinton—Table V., The _first
     four ages_ of the world, and date of Solomon’s Temple
     according to the different chronographers                       254

   5. Table VI. Containing the statements of the chronographers
     relating to the _Fifth age_ of the world—The errors of
     Josephus peculiar—His elongation of the reign of
     Solomon—Disagreement of his titulary periods with the
     summation of the reigns in Books Eighth, Ninth and
     Tenth—Proof that the former is nearly correct—Table VII.
     _Monarchal Periods_ of Josephus—Comparison with the True
     Chronology—Evidence that these periods have been
     manufactured—The true chronology of this age detected in his
     works—Table VIII. _True Flavian Periods_, showing the true
     Extent as originally held by Josephus—Proof that he knew the
     true epoch of the Captivity—The errors of Theophilus in this
     age few—He is also mistaken as to the epoch of the
     Captivity—Africanus diminishes the true extent of this
     age—He is misrepresented by Syncellus—The Statements of
     Eusebius taken from the Hieronymian and Armenian Versions of
     his Canon—Those of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from
     that work itself—Their errors pointed out—The difference
     between their Extent of this age and the true Extent only 3
     years                                                           274

   6. Table IX. _Ethnocratic Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to
     Ptolemy’s Canon and the ancient Chronographers—Accuracy of
     the Canon—Josephus erroneous but consistent in the _Sixth
     age_—His remarkable coincidence with the true Chronology in
     the Mundane period—Theophilus follows the Roman Chronology
     in this age—Africanus the prophetic—Both erroneous—Errors of
     Eusebius, and accuracy of his Extent of this age—Errors of
     the Paschal Chronicle considerable and unaccountable—Table
     X. Summation of the _Six ages_ of the world according to the
     Septuagint and the ancient chronographers—Table XI.
     Summation of the Periods of the Christian Chronographers,
     adopted by themselves—_Chronological Table_ of the Principal
     Epochs and Events from the Creation to the Advent of Christ     287




                                   A

                              DISSERTATION

                                   ON

                       THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD.




                               =Part I.=




                             INTRODUCTION.

  1. State of the World at the Birth of Christ—Tradition concerning his
       Advent—Its epoch determined from Prophecy.


The Christian era was ushered into notice, by a state of peace among all
nations, unprecedented in the history of the world. The temple of Janus
at Rome was shut, after the lapse of seven centuries of incessant
warfare. At this period, a very general belief prevailed among men, that
the long-expected Saviour of the world was about to appear. Many
incontestable proofs of this fact are to be found in ancient history.
Soter or Saviour, had indeed become a common appellation among kings,
both in Syria and Egypt; and the foreshortened shadows of coming events
indicated the near approach of the “Desire of all nations.” Poets
anticipated his happy reign; historians longed for the promised age of
miracles; and philosophers panted for the Advent of a heaven-born
Instructor of mankind. The epoch assigned, by universal tradition, for
the epiphany of this wonderful personage, was the _Sixth Age_ of the
world; or, according to the ancient Hebrew chronology, the middle of the
_Sixth Millennium_ or _Chiliad_, of years from the creation of the
world.

Respecting the true origin of the assigned epoch, a considerable
difference of opinion exists. It is, however, generally referred to the
ancient tradition among the Jews, that the world was destined to last
for a period of _seven millenaries_ of years, the first _six_
corresponding to the _six days_ of creation, and the _seventh_ to the
_Sabbath_ or day of rest; and that previous to the last _millennium_,
the Messiah should appear in great power and glory. Traces of this
tradition may be found in the vaticinations of the Sybilline oracles,
and in the writings of the Greek theogonists and cosmogonists. The
prevalence of the same tradition in the time of our Saviour and his
Apostles, had evidently led the disciples to associate, as
contemporaneous events, the _first_ Advent of Christ, and the
restoration of all things. See Matthew xxxiv. 2, and 2 Thessalonians ii.
1.

Although there be no foundation in Scripture for the Jewish tradition
itself, yet the fact of its existence at an early period of the
Christian era, added to the universal belief among ancient writers, that
the Messiah did appear at the assigned epoch, affords a strong
presumptive proof that it was the true one. Theophilus, bishop of
Antioch, who flourished in the second century, ingeniously unites the
historical fact and the Jewish tradition, when he intimates that as the
_first Adam_ came into existence on the _sixth day_ of creation, so the
_second Adam_ came into the world on the _sixth day_ of the Chiliads,
_each day_ being reckoned as “_a thousand years_.” It is evident,
however, that this early father had derived his knowledge of the true
epoch from its original and only source; for, he says, “the whole time,
even all the years” from the Creation to the Crucifixion, “are shown” in
the Scriptures, “to those who are willing to obey the truth.”[1]
Accordingly, we assert that it was possible to ascertain at a very early
period,—almost five centuries before Christ,—the true length of the
whole interval in question, by a careful examination of the Sacred
Records; the exact period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the
Crucifixion, being assigned in the prophecies of Daniel; while, the
period from Creation to the Return of the Jews from Babylon, can be
determined from the other books of the Old Testament. Before we proceed
to demonstrate the truth of this assertion, we must shortly glance at
the history of these Books.

  2. Short history of the Septuagint Version of the Old
       Testament—Discrepancies between the Hebrew and Septuagint—Their
       effect on Sacred Chronology.

It is universally admitted that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek
about three centuries before Christ, for the use of the dispersed tribes
of Israel, and particularly of the Jews, who had settled in Alexandria,
and other parts of the Grecian Empire. Although the history of this
translation given by Aristeas, Josephus, and others, savours too much of
the marvellous for modern belief, yet all antiquity agrees that it was
executed in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and, according to some,
at his request, by seventy-two interpreters selected from the most
learned and eminent men among the Jews by the High Priest and Sanhedrim
at Jerusalem. It is moreover asserted, that the other books of the Old
Testament were translated about a century later than the Pentateuch; and
this assertion is in some measure proved by a considerable diversity of
style and sentiment. It is quite certain, however, that the Greek
version of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, now called the
Septuagint, was in public use at least a century before the Christian
era; and that the Evangelists and Apostles made citations from this
version in the New Testament, in preference to the original text.

Such being the origin and authority of this ancient and venerable
version, its value cannot be too much appreciated; for, without it, the
Christians would have been entirely at the mercy of the Jews, as to the
authenticity, the integrity, and the meaning of the Holy Scriptures;
first, of the Old Testament, on account of their ignorance of the
Hebrew, and the danger of the glosses and traditions of their opponents;
and second, of the New Testament, on account of its being the complete
elucidation and fulfilment of the Old. Besides, although the Jews were
for ages the appointed custodiers of the Hebrew text, and are generally
considered to have been faithful to their trust; yet we must not conceal
the fact that it now differs considerably from the Septuagint in many
important places, particularly in the prophecies relating to the
Messiah; and, that its chronology of the whole period from the creation
to the first advent, is completely at variance with that of the Greek
version.

The chronological discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
which amount in all to nearly fifteen centuries of difference in regard
to the true age of the world, have occasioned disputes among the learned
ever since the third century. The Christian Church, however, has always
followed the longer computation of the Seventy, from the earliest period
of its history till the era of the Reformation; while the Jewish Church
has retained the shorter chronology of the Hebrew text from the second
century till the present day. Archbishop Usher, the great modern
authority in chronology, endeavoured to fix and determine the true epoch
of the birth of Christ from that text alone. Dr. Hales, a later and more
accurate authority, made a similar attempt, founding his computation on
the Septuagint. As this subject has been lately revived by writers of
considerable eminence on both sides, we shall endeavour to place the
whole Scriptural evidence before our readers, in the following critical
analysis of the question.




                               SECTION I.
                     AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.


The whole period from the Creation to the birth of Christ, whatever may
be considered as its real extent, is generally divided by chronologers
into six subordinate periods, called _Ages_. The _first_, which is
reckoned from the Creation to the Deluge, is called the _Antediluvian_
age; the _second_, from the Deluge to the Call of Abraham, the
_Postdiluvian_ age; the _third_, from the Call of Abraham to the Exode
of the Israelites from Egypt, the _Patriarchal_ age; the _fourth_, from
the Exode of the Israelites to the foundation of Solomon’s Temple, the
_Critarchal_ (or, _judge-ruling_) age; the _fifth_, from the foundation
to the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, the _Monarchal_ age; the
_sixth_, from the destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the birth of
Christ, the _Hierarchal_ age. We have, for the sake of distinctness and
brevity, given to the last four ages, names derived from the four
different states of the Hebrew Polity, namely, the governments of the
_Patriarchs_, the _Judges_, the _Kings_, and the _High Priests_; the
government of the latter terminating in Judea becoming a Roman province.

Besides the great epochs which limit the six ages of the world, there
are many intermediate eras of very considerable importance in the
settlement of disputes both in chronology and history, sacred as well as
profane. Thus: in the _first_ age, we have, the fall of Adam, the births
and deaths of the Patriarchs, and the translation of Enoch; in the
_second_, the confusion of tongues, the foundation of Babel and Nineveh,
and the eras of the Calyougham of the Hindoos, and the Chinese emperor
Yao; in the _third_, the destruction of Sodom, the migration of the
Hebrew Patriarchs into Egypt, and the foundation of the Greek kingdoms
of Sicyon and Argos; in the _fourth_, the servitudes of the Israelites
in Canaan, the foundation of Athens and Jerusalem, and the destruction
of Troy; in the _fifth_, the eras of the Olympiads and Nabonassar, the
foundation of Rome, and the captivities of Israel and Judah; in the
_sixth_, the return of the Jews from captivity, the destruction of
Babylon, the death of Alexander the Great, and the eras of the Seleucidæ
and the Cæsars.




                               CHAPTER I.
                 EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.

  1. Discrepancies of the Hebrew, Septuagint and Samaritan
       Texts—Solution of the difficulty by the chronographers of the
       middle ages—Consistency of the Septuagint and the New
       Testament—Numerical errors of the Hebrew text.


The extent of the _first_, or Antediluvian age, is ascertained from the
text of Genesis, v. 3–32, and vii. 6, by summing up the ages at which
the Patriarchs begat their eldest sons, including the date of the flood
from that of Noah. This amount is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656
years; according to the Septuagint version, 2262 years; and according to
the Samaritan Pentateuch, 1307 years. This astonishing discrepancy,
which is found in all the codices of the three texts, is a Gordian knot,
which has puzzled the Christian Church for more than fifteen centuries!
The difference of the three computations is the more remarkable,
inasmuch as all the three texts are considered to have been very
carefully preserved! The Samaritan Pentateuch rivals the Hebrew text in
point of antiquity, and is reckoned by some to be the nearest to the
true Mosaic text; while, the Septuagint version is rendered almost
sacred, by the authority of the Apostles and the early Fathers of the
Church. Which then, is the true computation? So difficult of solution
was this question deemed in the middle ages, that chronographers, in
order to reconcile the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
even argued the possibility of both texts _being equally correct_! The
Hebrew computation, however, has been followed in modern times chiefly
on the authority of the Latin vulgate, which is said to have been
translated by St. Jerome. The Samaritan computation has had
comparatively few supporters; while that of the Septuagint, which was
universally followed by the ancient chronographers and historians, both
sacred and profane, has never been wholly abandoned by the Church even
to the present day.

With regard to the evidence of the two principal witnesses, it is
manifest that the citations from the Old Testament, which are to be
found in the New, are, in general, not only in more perfect accordance
with the Septuagint version than with the Hebrew text (at least, as we
now have it); but they are more consistent with the general tenor of the
Sacred Writings. There is, on this account, therefore, an _à priori_
presumption in favour of the accuracy of the numerical statements of the
Septuagint. This presumption is strongly confirmed by a reference to
several passages not at all connected with chronology, of which the
following are striking instances. Thus, the day on which God _ended_,
that is, finished, or completed the work of creation, is said to be the
7th in the Hebrew, and the 6th in the Septuagint; but the latter
statement is plainly the correct one, being confirmed by the context;
see Genesis ii. 2, and i. 31. Again, the number of persons present at
the Eisodus of Israel into Egypt, is said to be 70 in the Hebrew, and 75
in the Septuagint; but the latter number is unquestionably the true one,
because it is confirmed by the New Testament; see Genesis xlvi. 27, and
Acts vii. 14. In general, it may be observed, that the numerical
statements of the Hebrew text, in many places differ materially from
those of the Septuagint, and even from those of other places of that
text, where we are certain, from the nature of the context, that they
ought to be precisely the same. The following instances, taken at
random, (and their number might be greatly increased,) will confirm this
assertion, by a comparison of the different passages, even in our own
version:—Exodus xii. 37, and xxxviii. 26, with Numbers i. 46, and ii.
32; Numbers xxxv. 4, with Numbers xxxv. 5; 1 Samuel xviii. 27, with 2
Samuel iii. 14; 2 Samuel xv. 7, with 1 Kings ii. 11; 2 Samuel xxiv. 13,
with 1 Chronicles xxi. 12; and 1 Kings ix. 28, with 2 Chronicles viii.
18.

  2. Origin and effect of various readings—The immaculate purity and
       miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text, a figment—Consistency
       of the word of God.

From the occurrence of such discrepancies as these, both in the original
texts and the ancient versions, it is evident, that the authenticity of
each numerical statement must be carefully examined _per se_, and tested
by the multiplied means for the discovery of the truth which we possess
in modern times. For, although the providence of God has watched over
the Sacred Scriptures in a very remarkable manner, yet still they are
found liable to the same causes of textual error as all other writings;
so true is the Apostle’s humbling remark, that, “we have this” heavenly
“treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of
God and not of us.” Accordingly, from the necessity and frequency of
copying the MSS. (Deuteronomy xvii. 18) during so many ages previous to
the invention of printing, and from the inaccuracy and inadvertency of
uninspired scribes, have arisen what are called “Various Readings” in
the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament; and, although these,
and other discrepancies above mentioned, do not in the slightest degree
affect the grand question of salvation, yet they have a serious
influence on important questions in sacred history and chronology, and
in the interpretation of prophecy.

Indeed, the extraordinary and multiplied collations of Hebrew MSS. and
editions of the Old Testament, accomplished by the indefatigable labours
of Kennicott and De Rossi, have brought to light such a host of
variations in the original text, as completely to put to flight the
antiquated notion of the “immaculate purity” and “miraculous
preservation” of the _Hebrew Verity_, which was so long and so
strenuously maintained by critics and divines, and which held fast its
position in their hermeneutical Canon, even so late as the 18th century.
Moreover, it is manifest _à priori_, that it is quite impossible for two
different numbers, or sets of numbers, both relating to the same facts,
and in precisely the same manner, to be _perfectly accurate and
authentic_! We shall feel no hesitation, therefore, in preferring the
Septuagint version to the Hebrew text, or the Hebrew text to the
Septuagint version, according as the evidence for the truth, appears to
us, to preponderate in favour of the one document or the other. It is
even possible that the true number connected with some important event,
though originally in both documents, cannot now be found in either. We
shall, in such a case, feel perfectly justified in adopting that number
which can be demonstrated to be the true one, whether it be discovered
in an ancient version or commentary, history, or chronicon. The word of
God, like all truth, must be perfectly consistent with itself; and if
through the lapse of ages, any part of that word has been corrupted or
lost, it becomes a Christian duty, as well as a philosophic employment,
to make all possible search for its recovery, not only that our own
faith may be strengthened and confirmed, but that the mind of every
sincere enquirer may be satisfied.

  3. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the
       Antediluvian Patriarchs: Table I., In their Antepaidogonian
       ages—Table II., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table III., In
       their whole lives—Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in
       favour of the computation of the Septuagint—The Discrepancies of
       the Hebrew and Samaritan the work of design—Proof of this fact
       from the Scriptures.

We now proceed to state our arguments in favour of the computation of
the Septuagint, which we consider as that of the original and genuine
chronology of the Sacred Scriptures. As we shall have frequent occasion
to refer to the ages at which the Patriarchs began to beget their
children, and to the residues or remaining portions of their lives, we
shall adopt a phraseology sanctioned by the example of Usher,[2] and
call the former their _Antepaidogonian_ ages, and the latter, their
_Postpaidogonian_ ages. The following Table, relating to the _first
age_, exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the
_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, and the _Anni
Mundi_, or _years of the world_, in which they were born:—

                                TABLE I.
 ANTEDILUVIAN           HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.
 PATRIARCHS.         A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born
                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.
 From Creation            0                 0                 0
 Adam                   130        1      230        1      130        1
 Seth                   105      130      205      230      105      130
 Enos                    90      235      190      435       90      235
 Cainan                  70      325      170      625       70      325
 Mahalaleel              65      395      165      795       65      395
 Jared                 *162      460      162      960      *62      460
 Enoch                   65      622      165     1122       65      522
 Methuselah            *187      687      187     1287      *67      587
 Lamech                *182      874      188     1474      *53      654
 Noah                   500     1056      500     1662      500      707
 To the Flood           100               100               100
                       ————              ————              ————
     FIRST AGE         1656 years.       2262 years.       1307 years.

The numbers marked with a star in this and subsequent Tables, are those
in which the discrepancies are the most striking, and produce the most
anomalous or absurd results in Chronology.


The following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _Postpaidogonian ages_ of the same Patriarchs,
and the A.M., or _years of the world_ in which they died:—

                                TABLE II.
   ANTEDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.
    PATRIARCHS.      P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died
                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.
 Adam                   800      931      700      931      800      931
 Seth                   807     1042      707     1142      807     1042
 Enos                   815     1140      715     1340      815     1140
 Cainan                 840     1235      740     1535      840     1235
 Mahalaleel             830     1290      730     1690      830     1290
 Jared                  800     1422      800     1922     *785    *1307
 Enoch                  300      987      200     1487      300      887
   _translated_
 Methuselah             782     1656      782     2256     *653    *1307
 Lamech                *595     1651      565     2227     *600    *1307
 Noah                   350     2006      350     2612      350     1657

Lastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _Whole Lives_ of these Patriarchs, and the
_number_ of their generations from Adam:—

                               TABLE III.
   ANTEDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.
    PATRIARCHS.       W.      No.       W.      No.       W.      No.
                    lives.            lives.            lives.
 Adam                   930        1      930        1      930        1
 Seth                   912        2      912        2      912        2
 Enos                   905        3      905        3      905        3
 Cainan                 910        4      910        4      910        4
 Mahalaleel             895        5      895        5      895        5
 Jared                  962        6      962        6     *847        6
 Enoch                  365        7      365        7      365        7
 Methuselah             969        8      969        8     *720        8
 Lamech                *777        9      753        9     *653        9
 Noah                   950       10      950       10      950       10

Let us now examine the internal evidence afforded by these tables in
favour of our argument. On looking at Table III., we perceive that the
_whole lives_ of these Patriarchs, with the exception of that of Lamech,
are all exactly the same, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; but
that in the Samaritan, three of them are very considerably different,
namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. It is plain, therefore,
that we must prefer the testimony of the two former witnesses to that of
the latter. Moreover, it is evident that the lives of the three
Patriarchs in question have been shortened in the Samaritan, in order
that their deaths should be represented as all occurring in the _year of
the flood_, see Table II.; for, had their lives been preserved as entire
in this text, as in the other two, they would, contrary to the express
words of Scripture, have _survived the flood_ by 115, 249, and 100 years
respectively! The evidence of the Samaritan text being thus clearly
excluded, we have only to settle the claims of the other two witnesses
on the question of the life of Lamech. As in this case all the witnesses
differ in their statements, we are deprived of the evidence of double
testimony, and we must resort to another test of the truth. In the mean
time it is proper to observe that the _date of the flood from creation_
will not, in the slightest degree, be affected by the discrepancy of the
three texts on this point.

The most striking discrepancies, however, are to be found in the first
two Tables. On looking at Table I., we perceive that _six_ of the Hebrew
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the first five, and the seventh, have
been _diminished_ by the exact number of 100 years; for, omitting that
of Noah, which is the same in all, the remaining _three_ agree with
those of the Septuagint, with the exception of six years only, in that
of Lamech. Again:—On looking at Table II., we perceive that the _six_
Hebrew _Postpaidogonian_ ages, corresponding to the six former ages,
have been _increased_ by the exact number of 100 years; for, the
remaining _three_, corresponding to the three former ages, agree with
those of the Septuagint, with the exception of 30 years in that of
Lamech. It is manifest, therefore, on the slightest consideration of the
question, that the _centenary increase_ of the _six Hebrew
Postpaidogonian_ ages was made to balance the _centenary decrease_ of
the _six Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages, in order to preserve the
integrity of the _whole lives_ of the Patriarchs. These discrepancies,
especially the _regular centenary difference_ which occurs six times,
have led to the uniform opinion among almost all chronologers, from the
period of their first discovery, in the second century, till the present
day, that they were _the work of design or artifice_, and not the
offspring of chance or mistake!

The regularity of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages of the Septuagint, argues
very strongly in favour of their accuracy; while, the irregularity of
those of the Hebrew text militates powerfully against the supposition of
_their_ being correct. For, in accordance with the language of
Scripture, and the experience of all ages, “generation comes, and
generation goes, and the earth continues stationary for the age,”
(Ecclesiastes i. 4);[3] little change is therefore likely to have taken
place in the _Ante_ and _Post Paidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_ of
those almost millenarian patriarchs, except by the special interposition
of God, and for some specific purpose, which he would have condescended
to reveal unto man. Hence, we find that when the Patriarch Enoch, “the
seventh from Adam,” was appointed, as the first Prophet on record, to
announce to the old world the mingled news of redemption and judgment,
he was afterwards translated to heaven without dying, before three of
his ancestors (according to the Septuagint), and about six centuries
before the usual term of human life in that age of wonders; so soon and
so strikingly did the Lord sanction the message of his faithful servant,
and admit him at once to his eternal and glorious reward.

  4. Reasons assigned for the alterations in the Hebrew and
       Samaritan—Accuracy of the Septuagint demonstrated—An objection to
       its chronology removed—Utility of the publication of _fac simile_
       editions of the codices—Late origin of the _printed_ Hebrew
       text—Its original agreement with the Septuagint proved.

Moreover, the remarkable circumstance that _three_ of the Hebrew
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech,
exceed _other three_, namely—those of Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch, by
a difference of about 100 years, although the former patriarchs stood so
nearly related to the latter, argues that some good reason must have
existed in the minds of those who dared to make the alterations, for not
abstracting the usual _centenary difference_ from the former.
Accordingly, we find that if this alteration had been effected on the
_Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, in order
to make them uniform with the rest in this respect, the flood would,
according to that text, have taken place in A.M. 1356, their
_Postpaidogonian_ ages would have been 900, 882, and 695 years, and they
would, contrary to Scripture, _have survived the flood_ by 66, 200, and
95 years respectively! This anticipated result affords the strongest
presumptive evidence that the _Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages must all
have been _originally_ the same as those of the Septuagint; and that to
serve some particular purpose, a _century_ was abstracted from _six_ of
them, but not from the remaining _three_; because if this had been done,
either the integrity of the _whole lives_ corresponding to them would
have been destroyed, or the _three_ patriarchs in question would have
been falsely represented, as having long survived the deluge. The Hebrew
text (as it now exists), represents Methuselah as dying in the very year
of the flood, although only _forty_ days of it had elapsed when Noah
entered the Ark! Thus, according to that text, the only man of that age
who “walked with God,” and was “righteous before him in that
generation,” would have, in addition to the distressing cares and the
unutterable sympathies attending the arrival of God’s awful
judgment,—the personal and relative sorrow of heart arising from the
death and burial of his pious and aged grandfather; but we know that God
“doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men;” and we
have much reason, therefore, to question the accuracy of this
coincidence; for, to suppose with some, that Methuselah was swept away
by the deluge, would be to contradict the Scripture, which affirms that
Noah was “just and perfect in his generations.”

This difficulty is entirely removed by the accurate copies of the
Septuagint, which places the death of Methuselah _six_ years before the
flood. Again, by the Hebrew text Lamech is represented as having died
five years before that catastrophe, and consequently before Methuselah,
being the only instance in the generations of the righteous from Adam to
Noah, in which the son paid the debt of nature before the father. But
this anomaly evidently arises from the alteration which was made in the
Hebrew _Antepaidogonian_ age of Lamech, by the abstraction of _six_
years, the difference between it and that of the Septuagint; for, if the
original number had been retained as in the case of Methuselah, Lamech
would then have been represented as surviving the deluge by _one year_!
According to the present text of the Septuagint, Lamech is indeed
represented as having died _twenty-nine_ years before his father; but if
his _Hebrew Postpaidogonian_ age be considered as the correct one, his
death would then have taken place _five_ years before the flood, and
_one year_ after that of his father; thus, the natural anomaly would be
removed, and the difference between the years of his _whole life_, in
the Hebrew and the Septuagint, reduced from _thirty_ years to _six_, the
amount of alteration in his _Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ age. The whole
question is ably and fully discussed in Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the
Times,” pp. 138, 139, and his “Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies
tried,” pp. 36–45, on the supposition that Lamech’s _Postpaidogonian_
age and _whole life_, as given in the Septuagint, are strictly correct;
but his reasoning is of so lengthened and recondite a nature that we
must refer our readers to the works themselves for complete satisfaction
on the subject.[4]

The Samaritan text is more consistent than the Hebrew with regard to the
_centenary decrease_ of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages; all of them but that
of Noah, having been submitted to its operation. This alteration alone,
however, was found to be totally inadmissible; because, as formerly
remarked, the text would then have represented _three_ of the Patriarchs
as long surviving the deluge; it was therefore necessary to make a
farther alteration, but on what principle it is difficult to divine. We
only know that two of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages, those of Methuselah
and Lamech, were reduced still more, namely from 87 and 82 years, to 67
and 53 years respectively; thereby occasioning a corresponding
_decrease_ in the _Postpaidogonian_ ages of Jared, Methuselah, and
Lamech, namely, from 900, 882, and 695 years, to 785, 653, and 600 years
respectively, in order to shorten their _whole lives_, and to bring the
dates of their deaths to coincide with the _year of the flood_!
Moreover, the idea thus conveyed, that these three Patriarchs, either
all died within _forty_ days of that event, or were swept away in the
common ruin,—is, as we have shown in the case of the Hebrew text, so
contrary to nature and to Scripture, that it cannot be entertained for a
moment. Whatever, therefore, may have been the object of these
complicated alterations in the Samaritan, it is plain that they have
been made with much less skill and ingenuity than those of the Hebrew,
the clumsy artifice being so easy of detection. Thus, we are forced, by
internal evidence alone, to conclude that the numerical statements of
the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_
ages,—on which their chronology is considered entirely to depend,—have,
with very few exceptions, been manufactured to serve some particular end
or design; and that those of the Septuagint are not only entirely free
from any appearance of this kind, but being perfectly natural and
consistent with themselves, possess all the marks of genuineness and
authenticity.

It has been objected to the accuracy of the chronology of the
Septuagint, that some copies of that version, were found at an early
period of the Christian era, having 167 instead of 187 years for the
_Antepaidogonian_ age of Methuselah, and 802 instead of 782 years for
his _Postpaidogonian_ age, whereby this Patriarch was represented as
surviving the flood by _fourteen_ years! Common sense, however, teaches
that this discrepancy must have been purely owing to a mistake in the
transcribers of these copies; because, other copies were extant at the
same period which contained the correct numbers. Mr. Clinton, in his
“Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 286, proves by extracts from the early
chronographers and historians, that some, as Theophilus, Eusebius,
Augustine, and Syncellus, had the faulty reading in their copies; while
others, as Demetrius, Josephus, Africanus, Epiphanius, and the author of
the Paschal Chronicle, followed the correct copies; and he states that
although “Augustine had the faulty reading in his copies,” yet “he
judiciously applied the proper remedy, and adopted the better reading.”
This difference in the copies has even reached our own times, and is
found in the two oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Septuagint
at present known to exist, namely, the Vatican and Alexandrine codices;
the edition of the Scriptures printed from the former having the faulty
reading, and that printed from the latter having the true one. The
librarians of the British Museum have indeed, conferred an invaluable
boon on the world, by the publication of the _fac simile_ of the
Alexandrine codex; and we most anxiously hope that ere long, the Pope
will permit[5] the _fac simile_ of the Vatican codex to be published,
especially as it is already printed and ready for circulation! The
acknowledged fact that discrepancies exist between this manuscript and
the editions printed from it,[6] increases the solicitude of all the
pious and learned in this country for its immediate publication. Would
that we could purchase even a single copy!

The last argument we shall adduce here in favour of the chronology of
the Septuagint, and it applies both to the Ante and Post Diluvian ages,
is derived from the deliberate opinion of Dr. Kennicott. In his valuable
posthumous work, entitled “Remarks on Select Passages of the Old
Testament,” p. 16, he says, “It has been proved from _Eusebius_, that
some Hebrew copies” of the Old Testament, “having the _larger_ numbers,
existed in the fourth century; and others, on the authority of _Jacob
Edessenus_, as late as the year 700; whilst others much later, are
mentioned in the chronicle of _Ecchellensis_. And though such
manuscripts are all perhaps now lost, yet are these testimonies
confirmed by the traditions still preserved among the _Jews_ themselves,
as to _Seth being born a hundred and thirty years after Abel’s death_!”
Moreover, it is acknowledged by biblical critics, that all the copies of
the present Hebrew text were taken from manuscripts of date later than
the ninth century; and, that the striking uniformity which all the
printed editions exhibit, is to be attributed to the fact, that they
were all copied from the same codex. Dr. Hales also gives citations from
Eusebius, from the Jewish Targums, and from other works, in which
decided reference is made to the _larger_ numbers as they anciently
existed in the Hebrew.[7] In fine, Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Dissertation
on the Apocalypse,” p. 535, fourth edition, proves, on the authority of
ancient Jewish tradition, that Adam was _two hundred and thirty years_
old when he begat Seth; consequently, by the argument _ex uno disce
omnes_, we conclude that the whole of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages are
correctly given in the Septuagint, and that the true extent of the
ANTEDILUVIAN AGE, is 2262 years.




                              CHAPTER II.
                 EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.

  1. Discrepancies of the three texts—Unfounded hypothesis of
       Usher—Agreement of Josephus with the Septuagint—Authority of this
       Version in the Church—Its chronology confirmed by the most
       authentic Chinese annals—Reasons why the Jews altered the Hebrew
       text.


The extent of the _Second_, or Postdiluvian Age, is ascertained from the
text of Genesis x. 21–25; xi. 10–32, and xii. 4; by summing up the
_Antepaidogonian_ ages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, including the
date of the Call of Abraham from that of Terah. This amount is,
according to the Hebrew text, and the Latin Vulgate, 367 years;
according to Usher’s view of that text, 427 years; according to the
Septuagint, 1147 years; and, according to the Samaritan, 1017 years.
This enormous discrepancy is another Gordian knot of equal difficulty
with the former, and requiring for its resolution, a similar process of
investigation and argument. Before resuming the discussion, however, it
is proper to notice a very able and logical article in the “Cours
Complet de Theologie” of M. L’Abbé Migne, entitled “Chronographiæ LXX
Interpretum Defensio.”

The author of this dissertation enters fully into the critical history
of the Septuagint version, and investigates the causes of the existing
discrepancies between it and the Hebrew text. He powerfully vindicates
the authenticity and authority of the Septuagint; he clearly refutes the
absurd suppositions which have been advanced from time to time by
critics in order to account for the numerical errors which the advocates
of the _Hebrew verity_ suppose it contains; and, he completely
demolishes the unfounded hypothesis of Usher as to the fancied existence
of two Greek versions, both of which were ascribed to the Seventy
interpreters![8] He next discusses the authority of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and proves that it, as well as the Hebrew, originally
contained the same numerical statements as the Septuagint; and shews
that it is entitled to be heard as an additional witness in regard to
the Postdiluvian age, notwithstanding its error in the matter of the
Junior Cainan. He treats, in a very full and impartial manner, of the
authority of Josephus as an historian and chronographer, and institutes
a careful and searching inquiry into his numerical statements, which are
universally admitted to be so puzzling and contradictory. He clearly
elicits, however, the undeniable fact that the numbers of Josephus
originally agreed with those of the Septuagint, both before and after
the flood; but he avows that they have been so vitiated by careless or
designing copyists, that it is impossible to establish a perfect
coincidence.

The author then shows that in the first ages of Christianity, the
Septuagint translation was esteemed a divine production; that by the
citations made from it in the New Testament, it has received the stamp
and seal of Christ and his Apostles, as a genuine and faithful witness
of the truth; and that the ancient chronology of this version was
reckoned authentic by the whole Christian Church till the ninth century.
He next inquires into the authenticity of the chronological statements
of profane historians, particularly among the Chinese and the Egyptians;
and shows that the true and ancient records of these nations are wholly
irreconcileable with the shorter chronology. Thus, the era of the
Emperor Yao, according to the most authentic Chinese annals, is B. C.
2357; so that, according to the Hebrew chronology, even as expounded by
Usher, he flourished _thirteen_ years before the flood! While, according
to that of the Septuagint, he flourished in the ninth century after the
flood, or _forty-one_ years after the division of the earth among the
primitive founders of the nations.[9]

The author next refutes some popular objections to the computation of
the Septuagint, founded, _first_, on the supposed immaculate purity and
miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text; _secondly_, on the supposed
antiquity of the Chaldee paraphrasts, the Syriac version, and the Indian
and Chinese copies of the Pentateuch; and _thirdly_, on the decree of
the Council of Trent, in reference to the paramount authority of the
Latin Vulgate. He concludes by offering some reasonable conjectures on
the causes of the discrepancies in question; and, he shows that the
early Fathers were generally of opinion that the Jews had violated and
mystified the numbers of the sacred text, in order, to disturb and
confuse the times which related to the Advent of the Messiah, and
thereby to confute the Christians, by pretending to prove from that
text, that Jesus Christ could not be the true Messiah, because he had
appeared before the period predicted by the prophets, namely, the middle
of the sixth millenary from Creation. Such is but a short and hasty
sketch of one of the ablest treatises we have yet seen, on the Ante and
Post Diluvian chronology of the Septuagint.

  2. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the
       Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV., In their Antepaidogonian
       ages—Table V., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table VI., In their
       whole Lives.

The following Table relating to the _Second Age_, exhibits the
discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_
ages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, and the _years of the world_, in
which they were born:—

                                TABLE IV.
   POSTDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.
    PATRIARCHS.      A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born     A.P.     Born
                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.
 From the Flood           2                 2                 2
 Arphaxad                35     1658      135     2264      135     1309
 Cainan[10]                               130     2399
 Salah                   30     1693      130     2529      130     1444
 Heber                   34     1723      134     2659      134     1574
 Peleg                   30     1757      130     2793      130     1708
 Reu                     32     1787      132     2923      132     1838
 Serug                   30     1819      130     3055      130     1970
 Nahor                  *29     1849       79     3185       79     2100
 Terah                   70     1878       70     3264       70     2179
 To the Call of          75     1948       75     3334       75     2249
   Abraham
                       ————              ————              ————
    SECOND AGE          367 years.       1147 years.       1017 years.

The following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _Postpaidogonian_ ages of the same Patriarchs,
and the _years of the world_ in which they died:—

                                TABLE V.
   POSTDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.
    PATRIARCHS.      P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died     P.P.     Died
                    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.    ages.     A.M.
 Arphaxad               403     2096      403     2802      303     1747
 Cainan[10]                               330     2859
 Salah                  403     2126      303     2962      303     1877
 Heber                  430     2187      270     3063      270     1978
 Peleg                  209     1996      209     3132      109     1947
 Reu                    207     2026      207     3262      107     2077
 Serug                  200     2049      200     3385      100     2200
 Nahor                 *119     1997     *129     3393      *69     2248
 Terah                 *135     2083     *135     3469      *75     2324
 Abraham                 75     2123       75     3509       75     2424

Lastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _whole lives_ of these Patriarchs, and the
_number_ of their generations from the flood:—

                                TABLE VI.
   POSTDILUVIAN         HEBREW.         SEPTUAGINT.       SAMARITAN.
    PATRIARCHS.       W.      No.       W.      No.       W.      No.
                    lives.            lives.            lives.
 Arphaxad               438        1      538        1      438        1
 Cainan[10]                               460        2
 Salah                  433        2      433        3      433        2
 Heber                  464        3      404        4      404        3
 Peleg                  239        4      339        5      239        4
 Reu                    239        5      339        6      239        5
 Serug                  230        6      330        7      230        6
 Nahor                 *148        7     *208        8     *148        7
 Terah                 *205        8     *205        9     *145        8
 Abraham                175        9      175       10      175        9

  3. Authenticity of the _Second Cainan_—Dilemma of the Venerable
       Bede—Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne—Usher’s
       Dissertation—Inconsistency of authorized translations of the
       Bible—Rashness of Beza—The Second Cainan in the most ancient
       Codices—Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers.

Let us examine the internal evidence again afforded by these Tables, in
favour of our argument. On comparing their different columns, we find
that the name and generation of one of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs,
called by chronologers the _Second_ or _Junior Cainan_, has been either
entirely lost or wilfully omitted in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts.
This assertion we make with the utmost confidence, because in Luke iii.
36, this Cainan is distinctly enumerated in the genealogy of our Lord
Jesus Christ; and his name is found in all the MSS. of the New
Testament, with the exception of the _Codex Bezæ_, which it is well
known has been corrupted in this place. The hallucinations of
commentators and chronologers on this point, are perhaps the most
extraordinary which the annals of Criticism can furnish. To refer no
farther back than to the days of the venerable Bede, we find him, in the
preface to his commentary on the Acts, confessing himself unequal to the
task of solving this difficult question; and, he greatly marvels why
“_ten_ generations only, from the flood to Abraham, are found in the
_Hebrew verity_,” while the inspired Luke chose to put “_eleven_ in his
Gospel, Cainan being added according to the Seventy Interpreters.” In
his exposition of that Gospel, he touches on the same question, and says
with singular naïveté, “but which of these is the truer, or whether both
can be true, God knoweth!”[11] Modern critics appear to have had much
less difficulty in settling this important matter.

Mr. Clinton, “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. pp. 288–297, after citing all
the testimonies of the ancient chronographers _for_ and _against_ the
generation of the second Cainan, hastily concludes that it is a
“spurious addition to the text;” and, although he admits its existence
in the “Greek copies,” yet he entirely omits to cite the testimony of
St. Luke, who must have been better acquainted with the genealogy of
Christ than any of the chronographers! His silence on this point would
seem to indicate that he had some doubts of the authenticity of the text
in question. He has, however, given an extract from Syncellus, affirming
that the second Cainan was in all the copies of the Septuagint in his
time, censuring Eusebius for omitting him, and stating that St. Luke
reckons him the 13th from Adam. Syncellus, in this passage, very
properly includes Shem in the genealogy, although he is necessarily
omitted in the chronology; because, he was an _Antediluvian_ by birth,
his _Antepaidogonian_ age being entirely omitted in the Scriptures, and
the birth of his son being reckoned from the flood. Hence, we find that
all the ancient writers reckon Noah the _tenth_ from Adam, and Abraham
the _tenth_ from the flood, Shem being evidently the _eleventh_ from
Adam, and Abraham the _twenty-first_. With feelings of the greatest
respect for the extensive learning and deep research of Mr. Clinton, we
would seriously advise him to consult the _Codex Alexandrinus_ in the
British Museum, and convince himself by ocular demonstration, as we have
done, of the genuineness and authenticity of the testimonies of the
Evangelist and the Seventy Interpreters to the undeniable fact of the
existence of the Postdiluvian Cainan. Dr. Hales, “Analysis of
Chronology,”[12] vol. i. p. 90, appears to have strongly felt the weight
of St. Luke’s authority on this point, although, following the recent
Masorete and Samaritan texts, he rejects this generation.

Mr. Horne, “Critical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” vol. iii. p.
561, 7th edition, asserts that “St. Luke wrote for those Christians who
read the Greek version more than the original Hebrew, and consequently
he preferred their version, which adds the name of Cainan to the
genealogy of Shem!” The desire to humour the prejudices of any set of
readers, by adding a spurious generation to “the genealogy of Shem,” is
too serious a charge to bring against the Evangelist; but when we
consider that this would be, in fact, adding a spurious generation to
“the genealogy of Christ,” the charge becomes infinitely more serious!
The attempt of chronologers to mutilate this authentic document, by the
exclusion of one of the ancestors of our Lord, is so great an injury to
the _Christian verity_, that we do not wonder at the pointed question
put by Mr. Cuninghame, “Fulness of the Times,” p. 200, “Did St. Luke
prefer a lie to the truth, to please men?” In order to satisfy his own
mind, and to vindicate his system of chronology from the charge of
having unwarrantably omitted this generation, by following too closely
the _Hebrew verity_, Usher deemed it necessary to write in his
“Chronologia Sacra,” a prolix Dissertation, entitled “De Cainano
Arphaxadi filio, &c.,” to which our limits permit us only to refer. The
whole question, however, is discussed in a very clear and satisfactory
manner, in Dr. Russell’s “Connection of Sacred and Profane History,”
vol. i. pp. 158–167. There is also a most admirable summary of the
arguments in proof of the existence of this Cainan, in Mr. Cuninghame’s
work above cited, where our readers will find some very judicious
strictures on the “Scripture Chronology” of Mr. Clinton; see pp.
187–207.

A candid perusal of these works must lead to the inevitable conclusion
that the name of the _Second Cainan_ ought not to have been rejected
from the Sacred Text. It is strange, however, to observe that in our
authorized version of the Scriptures, this generation has been excluded
from the Old Testament, while it has been admitted into the New. Such a
manifest inconsistency should have been avoided in a version intended
for public use in all the churches, and sanctioned by royal authority!
The Latin Vulgate, published by the “supreme authority” of the Roman
Pontiff, is equally liable to the same charge of inconsistency; while
Theodore Beza, in his Latin version of the New Testament, has omitted
this generation altogether! For this bold step, Beza had no other
authority than the “Codex Græcolatinus,” which, from having been in his
possession, bears his own name; and which, while reckoned of “little
critical value,” is the only manuscript of the New Testament discovered
to be deficient in this respect. The _Second Cainan_ is, moreover, found
in all the Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, both in Genesis x.
24, and xi. 13; and, also in many copies, in 1 Chronicles i. 18 and
24,—this chapter being imperfect in the Vatican Codex, but complete in
the Codex Alexandrinus.

In confirmation of our argument, it is proper to state, that there
exists a fragment of a very ancient codex, which lays claim even to a
higher antiquity than either of these codices, being described in the
words of Usher, “Syntagma de Septuaginta,” cap. ii. p. 18, as “omnium
qui uspiam hodie extant vetustissimus,” and known by the name of the
“Codex Cottonianus.” Of this codex, unfortunately, a certain portion of
Genesis only remains; but it is of immense “critical value,” as it
confirms the true readings of the Ante and Post Paidogonian ages of
Methuselah, and of the passages relating to the second Cainan. In the
collation of this fragment “cum editione Romanâ,” that is, with the
Vatican edition, by Dr. Grabe,—posthumously published by Dr. H.
Owen,—there are two _fac simile_ engravings of a portion of the
manuscript, exhibiting the old, uncial Greek letters, unaccented and
unspirited, like the codex Alexandrinus, and (curious to remark)
exhibiting also the effigies of four of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,
spoken of in the adjacent text,—one being the very identical personage,
whose existence is not recognized by the Masorete and Samaritan texts,
and is therefore so stoutly denied by the defenders of the _Hebrew
verity_! We copy from the preface, the explanation of one of the
pictures, the plates of which were engraven at the expence of the
Antiquarian Society of London, in 1744:—“Figurarum Explicatio.—Tabula
Prima. Fig. II. Arphaxadus, Semi filius, cum uxore sua et filio Cainane.
Gen. xi. 12, 13.”[13]

The unaccountable mistake committed by Bede, in supposing that Abraham
would be the _eleventh_ generation from the flood, if the Junior Cainan
were admitted into the text, has been copied by a host of chronologers
since his time, including both Dr. Hales and Mr. Clinton! Nothing,
however, is more surprising than the pertinacity of error, especially
when it rests on the authority of an esteemed or a learned man. We have
seen that when the Second Cainan is admitted into the text, Abraham must
be reckoned the _tenth_ generation from the flood; consequently, if he
be rejected, Abraham must be reckoned only the _ninth_,—contrary to the
united voice of antiquity, both sacred and profane! Hales and Clinton
have both cited extracts in proof of this argument, from the most
ancient chronographers, particularly Berosus, Josephus, and Philo,
shewing that Abraham was universally reckoned the _tenth generation
after the flood_. The subterfuge adopted by the advocates of the _Hebrew
verity_, in reckoning Shem,—an _Antediluvian_,—as one of the generations
after the flood, in order to make up their number, is too weak to
require any comment. There is no doubt, therefore, that both Hales and
Clinton are in the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell, and Cuninghame,
who admit the Second Cainan, are “in the right.” The ancient testimonies
which the former authors cite in favour of their own argument, most
decidedly confirm that of their opponents; consequently, _they_ have the
merit of drawing “opposite conclusions from the same facts,”—conclusions
alike opposite to the truth, and to the New Testament.

  4. Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the
       computation of the Septuagint—Omissions in the Hebrew and
       Septuagint retained in the Samaritan—Accordance of the Septuagint
       with nature and providence—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from
       analogy—The alterations of Origen in the text of the Septuagint.

With reference to the three _Postdiluvian_ Tables, we find that the
discrepancies of the three texts exhibit greater irregularities in
Tables V. and VI. than in Table IV. It is manifest that _these_
discrepancies are also _the work of design or artifice_, and not the
offspring of chance or mistake. The regular _centenary difference_
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, occurs in _six_ of the
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the _first seven_, omitting the
_second_, which, as we have seen, is wanting both in the Hebrew and the
Samaritan; while, singular to remark, in these six ages, the Samaritan
agrees exactly with the Septuagint! To counterbalance this _regular
centenary decrease_ in the _Antepaidogonian_ ages in the Hebrew, we
should have expected, as in the former case, that there would be a
_regular centenary increase_ of the corresponding _Postpaidogonian_
ages, in order to preserve the integrity of the _whole lives_. This
appears, however, to have been considered as a matter of no moment in
regard to the _whole lives_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, because the
usual obituary statements regarding them have been entirely omitted both
in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, while they have been preserved in the
Samaritan. Accordingly, we find that the Samaritan, in the
_Postpaidogonian_ ages, agrees only _in two out of the six_ with the
Septuagint, and _in none at all_ with the Hebrew. Moreover, the
difference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew, is an _exact centenary_
in _five out of the six_; while the Hebrew coincides entirely with the
Septuagint in _four_,—_one_ of the remaining _two_, being the only case
in which there is an _exact centenary increase_ to balance the
_centenary decrease_ in the corresponding _Antepaidogonian_ age. In the
corresponding _whole lives_, the Samaritan agrees with the Hebrew in
_five out of the six_, while the Septuagint and the Hebrew agree only in
_one_. The assimilation of the Samaritan to the Hebrew in the _whole
lives_, and its almost perfect agreement with the Septuagint in the
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, while it differs so much from both in other
respects, render its testimony as an uncorrupted witness quite
inadmissible; yet, as it contains manifest traces of the truth,
especially in regard to the latter statements, on which the chronology
mainly depends, we deem the double testimony of the Septuagint and
Samaritan of very considerable importance to our argument. This
importance is greatly increased, when we consider that the statements
respecting the _whole lives_ in the three texts cannot be compared,
because they are now only to be found in the Samaritan, and, even in it,
in a mutilated form; the Hebrew and Septuagint columns of Table VI.
having been obtained from those of Tables IV. and V., by the simple
process of addition. We, therefore, entirely agree with Dr. Hales[14] in
the opinion, that they must have originally existed in all the texts;
first, because they are given in all in the Antediluvian period, and no
sufficient reason can be assigned why they are not also given in all in
the Postdiluvian period; and secondly, because, though no trace of them
is left in the Hebrew, yet there is some in the Septuagint, the latter
still containing the last clause of each statement, in the words—καὶ
ἀπεθανε,—“and he died.”

An important argument in favour of the longer computation is derived
from the consideration that the decrease in the duration of human life
after the flood, for the first ten generations, is more natural and
progressive in the Septuagint than in the other two texts; for, in the
latter there are greater leaps between the terms of the progression, and
some of the differences even become negative, which is not the case in
the former. Moreover, the decrease in the Greek series of lives, seems
to be more in accordance with the usual proceedings of God’s providence,
and with the history of the human race,—instances of longevity having
slowly and gradually diminished both in number and extent, according as
mankind approached a greater degree of civilization and refinement. In
the preface to part second of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,”
p. xvii., the author has discussed this question in a very full and
satisfactory manner. He shews that, in the Septuagint, “there are deep
analogies observable in the gradual diminution of human life.” Thus,
“from Arphaxad to Serug are seven generations,” and “from Nahor to
Kohath are seven generations.” Now, from his observations, it appears
that the _lives_ of the first and last of both septenaries, constitute,
with the highest average of human life in the days of Moses (Psalm xc.
10), a series of terms very nearly in geometrical progression, namely,
538, 330, 208, 133, and 80, of which the approximate ratio is 0.62; but
if the same test be applied to the Hebrew _lives_, namely 438, 230, 148,
133, and 80, (the two latter terms being the same in both texts,) the
regularity of the progression utterly fails; for, if the ratio of the
first two terms were continued, the succeeding terms would be so much
reduced, that the highest average of human life would become less than
half its true length! The omission of the statements respecting the
_whole lives_ in the Septuagint, can only be accounted for, on the
principle of undue deference to the Hebrew text and to Jewish
prejudices, after the era of the publication of the Hexapla, the
Octapla, and the Enneapla of the celebrated Origen. This daring
innovator in the Church of God, so altered the original form of the
Septuagint, in order to make it correspond with the Hebrew text,—which
he appears to have first received from the hands of the Jews with the
most unsuspecting confidence,—that the complete restoration of the
autograph of the Seventy interpreters, is, at this immense distance of
time, a question extremely problematical.

  5. Mistake of Usher, adopted by Hales and Clinton, as to the
       Antepaidogonian age of Terah—Mr. Cuninghame’s arguments
       unanswerable—His proof of the chronology of the Seventy from the
       discovery of its Cyclical character—Testimony of Eusebius to the
       true data of Abraham’s birth—Table VII. Extent of the _first two
       ages_ of the world.

The extraordinary hallucination of Usher in adopting the unfounded
opinion of some of the later chronographers, that Abraham was born when
Terah was 130 years old,[15] is implicitly followed by Mr. Clinton,
although he admits that “all the authorities which have been quoted” by
him, adhere to the Scriptural number, 70 years; and he argues in favour
of the former, by conjecturing without a shadow of evidence, that the
Samaritan text was altered in Genesis xi. 32, from 205 years to 145, in
order that Terah’s “death might be adapted to the supposed time of the
Call.” This time is distinctly marked in Scripture, and therefore
requires “no supposition” at all. It is plain, from Genesis xii. 4, that
Abraham was 75 years old, when he obeyed the Call; and, from Genesis xi.
26, that he was born when Terah was 70 years old. It is, therefore,
justly inferred that Terah was 145 years old, at the time of the Call;
but as he died before Abraham left Charran (Acts vii. 4), then 145 years
was also his age at his death, as in the Samaritan, and not 205, as in
the other two texts. The inconsistency of the latter number, however,
cannot by any means affect the chronology, so long as the authenticity
of the former numbers is maintained. The addition of 60 years,
therefore, to the _Antepaidogonian_ age of Terah, in order to preserve
the consistency of the number 205, is an unwarrantable assumption on the
part of Usher and his followers, and demonstrates that they have
_virtually_ altered the Hebrew text in Genesis xi. 26, from 70 years to
130, in order that Terah’s age at the birth of Abraham _might be adapted
to the supposed time of his death_! There is no doubt that both Hales
and Clinton, who follow human conjectures on this point, are again in
the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell and Cuninghame, who follow the
plain statements of Scripture, are “in the right.” In the preface to
Part II. of the “Fulness of the Times,” p. xv., the author has placed
the inconsistency of Usher’s scheme in such a clear light, that further
argument on the subject is needless; the following is his unanswerable
conclusion:—“the greatness of Abraham’s faith, in believing that he
should have a son at 100, is every where spoken of in the Scriptures” as
miraculous, “while he himself, on this scheme, is procreated by his
father at 130!” The author has, moreover, shown in this work, that “the
whole chronology of the Seventy is arranged in various parallel series
of Astronomical time, Jubilees, Metonic cycles, and the larger cycles of
the universe;” and, that these “depend upon the _exclusion_ of the 60
years added to Terah’s generation by Usher; for if that period be
_inserted_, they are all destroyed. This, then, is complete evidence
that the _framer_ of the Septuagint chronology, did not consider the 60
years as any part of the chronology of the book of Genesis, which is
utterly incredible, had it then existed. _Therefore, it did not exist._”
On the other hand, he has shown that “in the formation of the Hebrew
chronology, the _insertion_ of the 60 years was essential to the
preservation of a Jubilean character; therefore, since there was a time
when” this period was “not a part of the chronology, the unavoidable and
necessary inference is, that the _Greek_, and _not_ the _Hebrew_, is the
_original chronology_.”

From the Postdiluvian tables, it appears that the birth of Abraham took
place, according to the Masorete text, 292 years after the flood; but,
according to Usher’s interpretation of it, 352 years. The Samaritan text
gives 942, and the Septuagint 1072 years; the latter number being that
given by Eusebius, at the beginning of his Chronicon, translated by
Jerome, as testified by Scaliger in his “Thesaurus Temporum,” p. 10, and
referred to by Usher, in his “Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vi. p. 97;
although in some of the finest copies, we have seen it absurdly printed
1720 years, by an unaccountable transposition of the figures! See the
edition by H. Stephans, in 1542. The following table exhibits the whole
amount of the discrepancies of the three texts, in the first two ages of
the world:[16]—

                               TABLE VII.
 AGES OF THE WORLD.    HEBREW.       USHER.    SEPTUAGINT.   SAMARITAN.
       Years.           Years.       Years.       Years.       Years.
 Antediluvian Age            1656         1656         2262         1307
 Postdiluvian Age             367          427         1147         1017
 ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
   FIRST TWO AGES            2023         2083         3409         2324




                              CHAPTER III.
       DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.


Thus, it appears that there is a difference of _thirteen centuries and
a-quarter_ between the Hebrew-Usher and the Septuagint chronologies, at
the epoch of the Call of Abraham,—a difference which is increased by
another _century and a-half_, in the remaining ages of the world up to
the birth of Christ,—making in all, a difference of _fourteen and
three-quarters_ exactly, or nearly _fifteen centuries_! To account for
this difference, the advocates of the longer computation not only
impugn, as we have seen, the accuracy of the Hebrew text, but adduce
various important and conclusive arguments against the shorter
computation, in order to show the inconsistency of its statements. Mr.
Clinton, in citing these arguments, chiefly from Jackson and Hales,
endeavours to rebut them, and to defend the Hebrew chronology,
especially in the first two ages of the world; although he is forced to
yield to the mass of evidence against it, in the period of the Judges.

  1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the proportion
       between the Antepaidogonian Ages and Whole Lives of the
       Patriarchs—Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio, and the
       diminution of the length of human life.

The first argument, which is, that “the shorter generations are
repugnant to the course of nature,” is neither placed in a clear light,
nor fairly answered by Mr. Clinton; Fast. Hell. vol. i. p. 292. Although
the extraordinary longevity of man both before and after the flood, has
no parallel in the subsequent history of the world, and we are therefore
deprived of a satisfactory means of comparison; yet we perceive a
suitable proportion in the Greek numbers, between the Antepaidogonian
ages and whole lives of the Patriarchs in the first two periods, which
entirely fails in the Hebrew numbers. Thus, taking the averages of the
_six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the great discrepancy in the
Antediluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that
the former is about _one-fifth_ part of the latter in the Septuagint,
and about _one-ninth_ part in the Hebrew. If these ratios be applied to
the present average duration of human life, we find that men, according
to the former text, would beget children at the age of _fourteen_ years;
but, according to the latter, at the age of _eight_ years! Again, taking
the averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the chief
discrepancy in the Postdiluvian period, and the corresponding _whole
lives_, we find that the former is about _one-third_ part of the latter
in the Septuagint, and about _one-eleventh_ part in the Hebrew. Applying
these ratios as before, we find that men, according to the former text,
would beget children at the age of _twenty-three_ years; but according
to the latter, at the age of _seven_ years! On the supposition,
therefore, which we think not unreasonable, that in these periods, the
development of the powers of the human frame was proportional to the
length of human life, it is manifest that there is a propriety and
consistency in the Greek numbers, which are not only totally wanting in
the Hebrew, but which render the idea of generation at the ages now to
be found in that text, utterly impossible. It may be objected even to
the Greek numbers, that the ratio in the Antediluvian period is rather
premature, but it is not impossible; and we see in the enlargement of
the ratio, and in the diminution of the length of life in the
Postdiluvian period, according to the Septuagint, the wise arrangement
of an overruling Providence! For, the wickedness which led to the
destruction of the old world, appears to have had its origin in the
premature and unlawful connections which were formed between “the sons”
of the worshippers of the true God, “who kept not their first estate” or
original principles, and “the daughters” of those sensualists of the
Cainitish race, who are, with them, “reserved in perpetual chains under
darkness to the judgment of the great day!” In order, therefore, to
prevent such a fearful superabundance of vice in future ages of the
world, we see that the duration of the life, as well as the development
of the natural powers of man, was reduced to narrower limits.

  2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human
       generations—Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew text—Remark of
       Eusebius—Objections of learned men unanswered.

The second argument, which is, that the shorter computation is
inconsistent with the regular succession of human generations, is rather
too quickly passed over by Mr. Clinton; nor do we wonder at his haste,
for in our opinion, this argument possesses very great weight, and is
very difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. In the Postdiluvian
age, where he admits that it is more cogent, there were, according to
the Hebrew chronology, no less than _ten_ generations all alive on the
earth at the same time, contrary to the principles of providential
government so often referred to in Scripture, and the following strange
anomalies and paradoxes took place. The last two Antediluvian Patriarchs
were contemporary with all the Postdiluvian; and after having witnessed
the destruction of the old world, they were doomed to behold the
violence of Nimrod, the rebellious, the wicked project of the building
of Babel, and the judgment of God in the confusion of tongues and the
sudden dispersion of mankind. Noah also survived the deaths of Peleg and
Nahor; so that, contrary to the express words of Scripture, the earth
was divided in the days of Noah instead of the days of Peleg. Eusebius
has even remarked that Noah was the contemporary of Abraham for
_fifty-eight_ years! To avoid this obvious inconsistency was no doubt a
strong reason for Usher’s adoption of the _sixty_ years additional to
Terah’s Antepaidogonian age, the Hebrew chronology standing so much in
need of this extra time at the point of its greatest poverty. Shem, the
Antediluvian, survived the deaths of all the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,
excepting Heber; he was alive at the marriages of Isaac, Ishmael and
Esau; and, having buried nine generations of his descendants, including
the Father of the Faithful, witnessed the destruction of Sodom, and died
without partaking of the Covenant of Circumcision! Terah, the father of
Abraham, was an idolater; while Noah, the living witness of God’s
judgment on the old world, and a preacher of righteousness, and his son
Shem, the heir of his father’s blessing,—both Terah’s ancestors—were
still alive! The promise made to Abraham, that he should “go to his
fathers in peace,” and be “buried in a good old age,” most distinctly
implies that all those fathers,—the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,—were dead
and buried before him; but, according to the Masorete text, Shem, the
Antediluvian, and _seven_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, all his
ancestors, were alive at his death; and the same Antediluvian, with
_two_ of the Postdiluvians, Salah and Heber, even survived him! But it
is quite unnecessary to dwell on these paradoxes so contrary to the
ordinary providence of God, and to the whole tenor of holy writ. Enough
has been adduced to show the inconsistency of the shorter computation,
and the difficult problems which its advocates have yet to solve, in
order to establish it on a secure foundation, and to meet the unanswered
objections of the host of learned and pious men in all ages, who have,
either wholly or in part, adopted or defended the Septuagint chronology;
such as, the early chronographers, and historians down to Syncellus, the
early Christian Fathers, and in later times, Morinus, J. Vossius,
Pezron, Raleigh, Stillingfleet, Walton, Kennicott, Jackson, Hales,
Horsley, and Russell. This argument is ably enforced by Mr. Cuninghame
in the “Essay” to his “Chart of Sacred Chronology” pp. 17, 18, the
“Discourse,” in his “Dissertation on the Apocalypse” pp. 533–536, and
his other Chronological works.[17]

  3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence of
       idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and
       within a short period from the flood—Remarks on the building of
       Babel—Mr. Clinton refuted—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from
       Scripture—The judgments of God forgotten.

The third argument is, that the Hebrew computation is inconsistent with
the co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the
same family, and within so short a period from the flood. This argument
has been partly anticipated; but it receives additional strength from
the following considerations. If the short account of the building of
Babel, Gen. xii. 1–9, be critically examined, there can be no doubt that
this politico-religious project, which was headed by Nimrod, the “_Great
Intolerant_ before the Lord,” was the earliest attempt on record to
establish the Zabian system of idolatry. For the arguments in favour of
this opinion, we must, for brevity’s sake, refer to a work recently
published, alike remarkable for the novelty of its views and the
Scriptural simplicity of its style, entitled the “Religious History of
Man,” by Mr. D. Morison, pp. 157–168. Mr. Clinton sees “nothing
wonderful” in the fact that “idolatry should have sprung up during the
lives of Noah and Shem;” and he accounts for it on the principles of the
fecundity of mankind and their dispersion at the confusion of tongues.
It is very strange, however, that Terah, who is mentioned in Joshua
xxiv. 2, as the only idolater among the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, should
have dared to follow the practices of the Heathen, while all his pious
ancestors were yet alive! And, that, as Mr. Cuninghame justly remarks,
“the Scriptures should tell us nothing” of the matter, seeing that the
sacred historians invariably record such awful apostacies in the
families of the righteous, as a warning to all future generations.
Idolatry, in fact, sprang up in the family of Ham, in the _third_
generation; but, not in that of Shem, till the _ninth_; shewing that the
example and the memory of pious ancestry had the effect of so long
retarding the influence of surrounding evil among their descendants. The
whole history of the period, indeed, indicates that ages not a few, had
elapsed between the flood and the Call of Abraham; and, that during that
interval, the remembrance of the judgment of the old world was almost
obliterated, the worship of the true God virtually superseded, and the
memory of the early Patriarchs practically forgotten. Moreover, the
remarkable interposition of Providence in the confusion of tongues and
the dispersion of mankind, calculated so deeply to renew in the minds of
men the recollection of former judgments, and to put a stop to farther
progress in idolatry, appears in the lapse of time to have shared the
common oblivion, and to have failed in producing that striking
impression which was sure to be felt among contemporaries and their
immediate successors.

  4. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the accounts of Sacred and
       Profane History—Remark of Sir Walter Raleigh—Sir Isaac Newton’s
       objection refuted—Epoch of the Foundation of the kingdom of
       Egypt.

The fourth argument is, that the shorter computation is inconsistent
with the credible accounts of profane history, and the existence of so
many populous kingdoms and empires in the days of Abraham. The
insuperable difficulties in reconciling the chronology of sacred and
profane history, which have perpetually puzzled modern historians, are
in a great measure removed by the longer computation. The often-cited
passage of Raleigh,[18] which contains his cutting remark on the danger
of “paring the times too near the quick,” lest thereby “the reputation
of the whole story might perchance bleed,” has, in fact, never been
fairly answered on the principles of the Hebrew chronology. The history
of the battle of the “four kings against five,” in Genesis xiv., implies
a very great degree of populousness and civilization in a single region,
and more than can be admitted on the shorter computation; nor can Sir
Isaac Newton’s answer to this objection be considered as decisive, in
which he implies that the numbers of the allied armies must have been
small, because they were overcome by Abraham with a very small force;
for, the Scriptures inform us that it was “the Most High God that
delivered his enemies into his hand,” and that it is His province “to
save by many or by few.” The account of Egypt, at the descent of
Abraham, in Genesis xii. 10–20, indicates that it was then an ancient,
populous, and long-established kingdom; and the profane records of its
history, though mingled with much that is fabulous, contain
well-attested facts which reach to a period far beyond that assigned by
the Hebrew text. In an excellent article, entitled “Annotations
Géologiques à la Genèse,” vol. iii. of the “Cours Complet,” it is shewn,
by a careful and critical analysis of the historical notices of Egypt,
in Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Artapan, Josephus, Eratosthenes, Pliny,
the author of the Old Chronicle, and Syncellus, that its various
dynasties were not _consecutive_ but _collateral_; and, from the
unsuspected agreement of the reigns of different kings, it appears that
“the epoch B.C. 2900,” or A.M. 2579, “may, in fact, be considered as
that of the foundation of the kingdom of Egypt.” This epoch, according
to the Septuagint, corresponds to the patriarchate of the _Junior_
Cainan, about 300 years after the birth of _Mizraim_, and about _fifty_
years after that of Salah;—now, it is universally admitted that Egypt or
Mizraim (Genesis x. 6) was one of the first kingdoms founded after the
flood. According to the Hebrew, however, the same epoch corresponds to
the patriarchate of the _Senior_ Cainan, upwards of 500 years before the
flood, and long before Mizraim was in existence!

  5. Arguments founded on the deficiency of the numbers of mankind—Epoch
       of the occupation of Babylon by the Medes—Calculation of the
       numbers of mankind on the Eulerian ratio—Mr. Clinton refuted.

As to the argument founded on the “numbers of mankind,” Mr. Clinton has
proved, Fast. Hell., vol. i. p. 282, that an army of Medes occupied
Babylon about B.C. 2233, that is, according to the Hebrew-Usher
computation, 115 years, and according to his own, partially interpolated
from the Septuagint, about 250 years after the flood,—when, as he says,
“the population of the earth would amount to _many millions_;” and yet,
in the same page, he remarks, it is not likely that “101 years” after
that event, the population “would exceed 50,000 persons, and this number
it would certainly have reached within 160 years of the flood!” Now,
even on the Eulerian ratio, cited from Malthus, this number would
increase only to about 6½ millions,[19] in his interval of ninety
years,—which is far from “_many millions_;” while, in the Usherian
interval, on his own showing, it would have barely reached the former
number! Such are only a few of the difficulties attending the shorter
computation, and such some of the shifts to which its abettors and
followers are driven for its support. The simple and consistent
chronology of the Septuagint places the above mentioned event at the
distance of nearly 1000 years after the flood, and rather less than a
century previous to the birth of Abraham; so that in his days the world
had had sufficient time to reach a state of populousness and
civilization corresponding to the history of the period, as recorded
both by sacred and profane authors.

  6. Argument founded on the alteration of the Hebrew text by the
       Jews—Testimony of the early Fathers on this point—Mr. Clinton’s
       admission as to the prophecies—His refutation as to the
       chronology—Motives of the Jews for shortening the genealogies.

Mr. Clinton states that “Jackson and Hales impute great alterations in
the Hebrew copies” of the Scriptures, “to the Jews of the second
century.” It would have been more correct to have said that Irenæus,
Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and
Abulfarajius imputed such alterations to the Jews, not only in the
passages which applied to Christ,—which he considers “very
probable,”—but also in the numbers relating to the Ante and Post
Diluvian genealogies; because the testimonies of these ancient authors
are either cited or referred to by the former. Mr. Clinton adds, that
“it is difficult to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had
for shortening the _genealogies_.” Not more difficult, in our opinion,
than to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for
shortening the _life_ of Jesus Christ! A difficulty, however, “to
imagine an adequate motive” for any transaction, is no proof that it did
not take place. The Jews did not attempt “to shorten the genealogies,”
that is, to corrupt the chronology of the Scriptures, till all the
witnesses were dead who knew Jesus, and who had “companied with them
that were witnesses of his resurrection!” But when they found afterwards
that the Christians constantly proved out of the Septuagint, that Jesus
was the Messiah, they had then a sufficient motive for “shortening the
genealogies,” if they could make it appear, from the Hebrew text, that
our Lord had come about _fifteen centuries_ earlier than the time fixed
by tradition; and that, as the chronology of that text did not agree
with the chronology of the Septuagint, the epoch of the true Messiah’s
advent had not yet arrived! They have accordingly continued to assert,
in contradiction even to their own Scriptures, and up to the present
day, that Jesus of Nazareth was not their Messiah!

  7. Motives ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters for enlarging the
       chronology—Pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a
       remote antiquity—Insufficiency of the scheme adopted by the
       Interpreters—Self-refutation of Mr. Clinton’s hypothesis.

Mr. Clinton finally asserts that “the first translators of the Hebrew
Scriptures had a very obvious motive for enlarging the chronology,”
because the “Chaldeans and Egyptians laid claim to a remote antiquity!”
The wished for inference is, that the Jewish translators, from a very
natural desire not to be behind their neighbours in these pretensions,
went upon an opposite tack, and “lengthened the genealogies!” This
statement, for argument it cannot be called, proves a great deal too
much; because the scheme which they adopted, falls immensely short of
the end proposed. We have seen that the difference between the Hebrew
and Septuagint chronologies, is only about _fifteen_ centuries! This
difference was, indeed, quite sufficient for the purpose of the Jews, in
denying the advent of the true Messiah; but, it was wholly insufficient,
nay, utterly useless, for the purpose of coping with the pretensions of
“the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a remote antiquity.” For, it appears,
from the testimony of Cicero, Diodorus, and others, that Berosus claimed
for the _first_ Chaldean kings, an antiquity of no less than 470,000
years! And, from the fragments of Manetho and the Old Chronicle,
preserved by Syncellus, that for the _first_ Egyptian kings, an
antiquity is claimed, of 36,525 years! But, what are _fifty-five_
centuries of antiquity, to 365 centuries, or to 4,700 centuries? To add
_fifteen_ centuries was to add nothing! The Jews should have added 1500
or 15000 centuries, in order to meet the exigency of their “obvious
motive!” The argument, therefore, founded on the supposition that the
Seventy Interpreters enlarged the chronology of the Scriptures, in order
to place the claims of the Jews to “a remote antiquity,” on a par with
those of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, is so very absurd, that it
completely refutes itself:[20]




                              CHAPTER IV.
                 EXTENT OF THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.

  Table VIII. Patriarchal Eras and Intervals from Usher—Table IX. Extent
      of the _first Three Ages_ of the World—Date of the Exodus of
      Israel from Egypt.


The extent of the _Third_, or Patriarchal age, is ascertained from the
text of Exodus xii. 40 and 41. That this passage originally stood in the
Hebrew as it now stands in the other two texts, is evident from
Galatians iii. 17; and as all commentators and chronologers are now
agreed that the commencement of the 430 years was reckoned from the date
of the Call, or the year following, it is unnecessary to revive former
disputes on this point. The following table, partly from Usher,[21] who
distinctly enumerates all the texts of Scripture on which their
determination depends, exhibits the _intervals_, between the
_Patriarchal eras_ of this period, and the corresponding _years of the
world_, according to the Hebrew and Septuagint computations:—

                               TABLE VIII.
     PATRIARCHAL              HEBREW.                 SEPTUAGINT.
        ERAS.         Intervals.      A.M.      Intervals.      A.M.
 From the Call                  0         2083            0         3409
 Birth of Isaac                25         2108           25         3434
 Birth of Jacob                60         2168           60         3494
 The Eisodus                  130         2298          130         3624
 Death of Joseph               71         2369           71         3695
 Birth of Moses                64         2433           64         3759
 To the Exodus                 80         2513           80         3839
                             ————                      ————
      THIRD AGE               430 years.                430 years.

In the above and following tables we omit the Samaritan computation, and
adopt the Hebrew as interpreted by Usher, as the question of the true
chronology in modern times is considered to lie between the latter and
the Septuagint. The next table exhibits, according to these two systems,
the extent of the first three ages of the world.

                               TABLE IX.
       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.
                               Years.              Years.
       First two Ages                  2083                  3409
       Third Age                        430                   430
                                       ————                  ————
        FIRST THREE AGES               2513                  3839

Mr. Cuninghame, “Fulness of the Times,” p. 36, gives an ingenious
explanation of “the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt,” and
shows that, strictly speaking, the period of 430 years should be
reckoned from the date of Abraham’s descent into that land, after his
arrival in Canaan, or _one_ year later than the date of the Call. Hence,
the Exodus took place in A.M. 3840, according to the computation of the
Septuagint.[22]




                               CHAPTER V.
                 EXTENT OF THE FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

  Palpable Forgery of this period in 1 Kings vi. 1.—Table X. Critarchal
      Eras and Intervals, from Usher and Cuninghame—Object of Usher in
      determining this period—Testimony of Paul and the Book of Judges
      as to its true extent—Testimony of Origen—Table XI. Extent of the
      _first four ages_ of the world—Verification of the true extent of
      the _fourth age_ by Chronographers—Agreement on this point between
      Mr. Clinton and Mr. Cuninghame.


The extent of the Fourth, or Critarchal age, is ascertained from the
books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, and confirmed by Acts iii.
17–22. Many disputes have arisen as to the true length of this period,
in consequence of the interpolation of a passage in 1 Kings vi. 1,—both
in the Hebrew and Septuagint,—which is now very generally admitted to be
a _palpable forgery_! The following table, partly from Mr. Cuninghame,
“Synopsis of Chronology,” p. 15, and partly from Usher, “Chronologia
Sacra,” p. 203, both of whom distinctly enumerate all the texts of
Scripture on which their determination depends, exhibits the intervals
of the _Critarchal eras_, and the corresponding _years of the world_,
according to the two systems:—

                                TABLE X.
     CRITARCHAL               HEBREW.                 SEPTUAGINT.
        ERAS.         Intervals.      A.M.      Intervals.      A.M.
 From the Exodus                0         2513            0         3840
 Passage of Jordan             40         2553           40         3880
 Division of the               6⅓         2559            7         3887
   Land
 1st SERVITUDE                  0                        28         3915
 Critarchate of                40         2599           40         3955
   Othniel
 2nd SERVITUDE                  0                        18         3973
 Cr. of Ehud and               80         2679           80         4053
   Shamgar
 3rd SERVITUDE                  0                        20         4073
 Cr. of Deborah and            40         2719           40         4113
   Barak
 4th SERVITUDE                  0                         7         4120
 Critarchate of              *49⅙         2769          *40         4160
   Gideon
 Of Abimelech, Tolah           48         2817           48         4208
   and Jair
 5th SERVITUDE                  0                        18         4226
 Critarchate of                 6         2823            6         4232
   Jephthah
 Of Ibzan, Elon and            25         2848           25         4257
   Abdon
 6th SERVITUDE                  0                        40         4297
   (Samson)
 Critarchate of Eli            40         2888           40         4337
 7th SERVITUDE                  0                        20         4357
 Critarchate of               *21         2909          *12         4369
   Samuel
 Reign of Saul                 40         2949           40         4409
 Reign of David                40         2989           40         4449
 To the Foundation
   of Solomon’s                 3         2992            3         4452
   Temple
                             ————                      ————
     FOURTH AGE               479 years.                612 years.

The object of Usher in determining the Hebrew computation of this
period, as given above, was evidently to square or fashion the intervals
so that their sum should not exceed the _interpolated period_ of 480
years! This he has effected by the omission of the intervals of all the
SERVITUDES, which are expressly recorded in Scripture, the interpolation
of 9⅙ years between the critarchates of Gideon and Abimelech, and the
addition of _nine_ years to the critarchate of Samuel. The remark,
therefore, of Mr. Cuninghame, in treating of the distinguishing marks of
the true and false systems of chronology, “Fulness of the Times,” p.
141, is no less just than severe:—“it is plain that had Usher given to
this part of his chronology the title of _An attempt to pervert the
testimony of the Book of Judges_, it would have been a just description
of it!” Moreover, Paul, when he addressed the Jews at Antioch in
Pisidia, with the book of the Law and the Prophets in his hand, must
have been perfectly well acquainted with the period in question, and his
summary of the intervals completely confirms the reckoning of the
Septuagint, which was followed by all the ancient chronographers,
notwithstanding the interpolated passage, which is manifestly the work
of a later age. In this summary, he marks out the intervals of “_forty_
years in the wilderness,” of the judges “about 450 years” from the
division of the land, “until Samuel _the prophet_,” and of the reign of
Saul “_forty_ years,”—the amount of which is 530 years. If to this be
added the intervals of the _five_ years’ war (Joshua xiv. 10), of the
_two_ years for the completion of the conquest of Canaan and the
division of the land, of the _twenty_ years’ abode of the ark at
Kirjathjearim, of _twelve_ years for the critarchate of Samuel, of the
_forty_ years’ reign of David, and of the first _three_ years of
Solomon’s reign, making in all _eighty-two_ years,—the whole amount is
exactly 612 years. The only _one_ of these intervals not now mentioned
in Scripture, is the critarchate of Samuel at Mizpeh, which has
fortunately been preserved by Josephus and Theophilus, both of whom,
without doubt, had more perfect copies of the Hebrew and Septuagint
texts, and who state its length at _twelve_ years. Independently,
however, of this interval, the Book of Judges clearly establishes the
_true_ period as far as 600 years, and completely overthrows the
_forged_ period of 480 years. It is worthy also of remark, that Origen
cites the immediate context of the interpolated passage, giving the
sentences both _before_ and _after_ it, but making no mention whatever
of the number itself;[23] which clearly shows that it was not in the
Hebrew text in his time. The following table exhibits, according to the
two systems, the extent of the first four ages of the world:—

                               TABLE XI.
       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.
                               Years.              Years.
       First three Ages                2513                  3840
       Fourth Age                       479                   612
                                       ————                  ————
        FIRST FOUR AGES                2992                  4452

In the learned works of Russell, Clinton, and Cuninghame, will be found
numerous and important verifications of the true extent of the _fourth_
period, from different authors, ancient and modern, of which the
following are the most important. Josephus makes it 612 years in two
different places of his works, and 592 in another, where he omits the
7th Servitude;—Dr. Russell, 592 years, following Josephus in the latter
number;—Theophilus, 612 years, some of his intervals being inaccurate,
but the errors balancing each other;—Eusebius, 613 years in his
“Preparatio,” and 600 in his “Chronicon,” where he omits the critarchate
of Samuel;—Jackson, 579 years, by the omission of both; and Hales, 621
years, by the interpolation of an interregnum of _ten_ years;—lastly,
Mr. Clinton, 612 years, his intervals being very nearly the same as
those of Mr. Cuninghame. Thus, by the double testimony of Scripture, and
by the admission of the ablest defender of the _Hebrew verity_ in modern
times, it is manifest that the forged period of 480 years current, or
479 complete, falls short of the truth by 133 years! Hence, Mr. Clinton
places the creation of the world in the year B. C. 4138, instead of the
Usherian year B. C. 4004.[24]




                              CHAPTER VI.
                 EXTENT OF THE FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

  Table XII. Monarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
      Cuninghame—Correction of the mistakes of chronologers as to the
      true extent of this period, by Mr. Cuninghame—Table XIII. Extent
      of the _first five ages_ of the World—Confirmation of the true
      extent of the _fifth age_ from sacred history and prophecy.


The extent of the _Fifth_, or Monarchal Age, is ascertained from the
Books of Kings and Chronicles, and confirmed by chronological notices of
the Prophets. The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint
chronologies in this period, amount only to about fifteen years, which
is chiefly owing to an interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and
Uzziah not acknowledged by Usher and his followers. The following table,
from Usher’s “Chronologia,” pp. 2–23, and Mr. Cuninghame’s “Synopsis,”
p. 73, where the texts of Scripture containing them are distinctly
enumerated, exhibits the intervals of the _Monarchal Eras_, and the
corresponding _years of the world_, according to both systems:—

                               TABLE XII.
        MONARCHAL                HEBREW.               SEPTUAGINT.
          ERAS.          Intervals.     A.M.     Intervals.     A.M.
 From the Foundation of            0        2992           0        4452
   Solomon’s Temple
 Death of Solomon                 37        3029          37        4489
 Reign of Rehoboam                17        3046          17        4506
          Abijah                   3        3049           3        4509
          Asa                     41        3090          41        4550
          Jehoshaphat             25        3115          25        4575
          Jehoram                 *4        3119          *6        4581
          Ahaziah                  1        3120           1        4582
          Athaliah                 6        3126           6        4588
          Jehoash                *39        3165         *40        4628
          Amaziah                 29        3194          29        4657
 Interregnum                      *0                     *12        4669
 Reign of Uzziah                  52        3246          52        4721
          Jotham                  16        3262          16        4737
          Ahaz                   *15        3277         *16        4753
          Hezekiah                29        3306          29        4782
          Manasseh                55        3361          55        4837
          Amon                     2        3363           2        4839
          Josiah                  31        3394          31        4870
 Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim,             11        3405          11        4881
   and Jehoiachin
 To the Destruction of           *11        3416         *10        4891
   Solomon’s Temple
                                ————                    ————
        FIFTH AGE                424 years.              439 years.

The discrepancies in the different columns of this table, have been very
carefully and laboriously investigated by Mr. Cuninghame, in his
“Chronology of Israel,” pp. 18–39, 87, 88, 115 and 116; and in his
“Fulness of the Times,” part i. pp. 193–197, and part ii. pp. 32–49, and
56–60, where the errors of Usher, Lightfoot, Hales, Russell and Clinton,
and of the “Seder Olam Rabba,”[25] are clearly pointed out and refuted
on Scripture authority; and, by the correction of obvious mistakes of
two or three current years in their computation, the testimonies of
Josephus, Clemens, Theophilus, and Eusebius in favour of the true
chronology, are satisfactorily established. By excluding the
interregnum, and reckoning the years of each reign complete, Dr. Russell
and Mr. Clinton, both estimate the length of this period at 430 years;
the latter, however, in his tabular view, p. 329, vol. i., ultimately
reduces this number from 430 current, to 426 complete years, by
reckoning from Rehoboam to Zedekiah 389 years. Jackson reckons this
period at 428, and Hales at 441 years. The true extent of the _fifth_
age being determined at 439 years, the following table exhibits
according to the two systems, the extent of the _first five_ ages of the
world:—

                              TABLE XIII.
       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.
                               Years.              Years.
       First four Ages                 2992                  4452
       Fifth Age                        424                   439
                                       ————                  ————
        FIRST FIVE AGES                3416                  4891

The true extent of the fifth age is strongly confirmed by Ezekiel iv.
1–8, where, in the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, or in A. M.
4885, the prophet is commanded to predict in a striking manner the siege
of Jerusalem, and to lie on his left side 390 _days_, according to the
_number of the years_ of the iniquity of the house of Israel; and, on
his right side _forty days_, according to the _number of the years_ of
the iniquity of the house of Judah; EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. The sum of
these prophetic days, namely 430, is therefore, the whole _number of the
years_ of the iniquity of Israel and Judah. This number of years
singularly coincides with that of the period appointed for the
“sojourning of the fathers and children of Israel,” and has no doubt a
very extensive prophetic signification. But the period of 390 years more
particularly points at some _great general defection_, when the iniquity
of Israel was particularly prominent. This iniquity in fact, rose to its
highest pitch, when the Ten Tribes separated themselves from the house
of Judah, and took to the worship of the golden calves. Now, it appears
from 2 Chronicles xi. 13–17, that the general defection from the worship
of the true God, both in Israel and Judah, did not take place till
_three_ years after the accession of Rehoboam to the throne of David,
and the election of Jeroboam to the kingdom of Israel. For a period,
therefore, of _forty years_ after the foundation of the Temple, the
iniquity of the Twelve Tribes was restrained, and an apparent desire to
worship God aright, prevented the full manifestation of their idolatrous
propensities. After this, however, “Rehoboam forsook the law of the
Lord, _and all Israel with him_,” (2 Chron. xii. 1); and by this time
the subjects of Jeroboam had become more accustomed to the “new gods
that came newly up” at his accession, and had begun to think that it was
indeed “too much for them to go up to Jerusalem” to worship; and
accordingly, they went to worship a golden calf, “even unto Dan,” (1
Kings xii. 30). If from this epoch, A. M. 4491, therefore, the period of
390 years be computed, it will terminate in the first year of the
_captivity of Jehoiachin_, A. M. 4881; and, if the whole period of 430
years be computed from the epoch of the _completion of the Temple_, A.
M. 4459, it will terminate in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, A. M.
4889, when the _holy city was besieged_ by Nebuchadnezzar; and when,
according to Ezekiel’s prophecy, “he and all his host came against
Jerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it round
about,” (2 Kings xxv. 1). Moreover, in two years after this epoch, in A.
M. 4891, and when the 439 years from the _Foundation of the Temple_ in
A. M. 4452, were completed, the “city was broken up,” the “walls were
broken down,” and the Temple was “burned with fire!” (2 Kings xxv.
1–10). Thus, the true extent of the _fifth_ age is established by Sacred
History, and confirmed by prophecy. On this subject, see Mr.
Cuninghame’s “Synopsis,” p. 47, and “Fulness of the Times,” p. 195.[26]




                              CHAPTER VII.
                 EXTENT OF THE SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

  1. Table XIV. Hierarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
       Cuninghame—Determination of the Intervals from Scripture—Period
       of the Seventy years Captivity—Period of the Seventy prophetic
       weeks of Daniel—Table XV. Date of the Crucifixion
       determined—Truth of the Ancient Tradition respecting the First
       Advent of the Messiah demonstrated.


The extent of the _Sixth_, or Hierarchal age, is ascertained from
chronological notices interspersed in the Historical and Prophetical
Books of Scripture, and confirmed by the Astronomical Canon of
Ptolemy.[27] The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint
chronologies in this period, amounts only to two years, its length,
according to Usher’s “Chronologia,” p. 44, being 583 years, and,
according to the following table, 585 years. This table, in which we
have taken the Hebrew dates and intervals from Usher’s “Annals,” because
they are wanting in the Chronologia, exhibits only the Scriptural
intervals of the _Hierarchal eras_, and the corresponding _years of the
world_, according to both systems:—

                               TABLE XIV.
     HIERARCHAL               HEBREW.                 SEPTUAGINT.
        ERAS.         Intervals.      A.M.      Intervals.      A.M.
 From the
   Destruction of               0         3416            0         4891
   Solomon’s Temple
 The Edict of Cyrus            52         3468           52         4943
 The Commission of            *69         3537          *78         5021
   Ezra
 The Commission of             13         3550           13         5034
   Nehemiah
 The Return of                 12         3562           12         5046
   Nehemiah
 To the Birth of             *437         3999         *430         5476
   Christ
                             ————                      ————
    THE SIXTH AGE             583 years.                585 years.

The first interval in this table is determined from the following
texts:—Jeremiah xxv. 12, and xxix. 10; 2 Kings xxiv. 1, and xxv. 2; 2
Chron. xxxvi. 21; and Daniel ix. 2; from these, it appears that the
_seventy_ years’ captivity in Babylon commenced in the _fourth_ year of
Jehoiakim, and the first of Nebuchadnezzar; and, that it preceded the
destruction of the Temple by _eighteen_ years. Consequently, it
terminated exactly _fifty-two_ years after that epoch, namely, in the
_first_ year of Cyrus, when, by his permission, the Jews “went up out of
the Captivity,” in A.M. 4943. The second interval is determined in the
following manner:—from Zechariah vii. 5, it appears that in the _fourth_
year of Darius, _seventy_ years had elapsed from the destruction of the
Temple; consequently, _eighteen_ years must have elapsed from the first
of Cyrus. This computation agrees with that of Ptolemy’s Canon, which
gives _seven_ years to Cyrus, and _eight_ to Cambyses, or Ahasuerus,
making, with the _three_ complete years of Darius, the same amount.
Again, we find, from Ezra vii. 8, that in the _seventh_ year of
Artaxerxes, A. M. 5021, Ezra received a commandment from that king, to
establish the Jews in their own land, and to beautify the Second Temple.
Now, Ptolemy’s Canon gives _thirty-three_ years for the rest of Darius’s
reign, and _twenty-one_ for that of Xerxes, making, with the _six_
complete years of Artaxerxes, the amount of _sixty_ years; consequently,
the whole interval, from the _first_ of Cyrus to the _seventh_ of
Artaxerxes, is _seventy-eight_ years. That the epoch of Ezra’s
commission is the _commencement of the prophetic period_ of _seventy_
weeks, or 490 years, is evident from Daniel ix. 24–27. Hitherto, the
Jews had been hindered in the building of the city and temple; the
latter was indeed built and dedicated; but the walls of the city were
still in ruins, and the inhabitants were exposed to the insults and
inroads of their enemies! Now, by the liberal decree of Artaxerxes, Ezra
was furnished with money and means to forward the work at Jerusalem; and
their enemies were not only silenced, but compelled to assist in
carrying the king’s order into execution. This was, therefore, the epoch
of “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem,” and the beginning of the period “determined upon the people
and the holy city,” until the time, when “the Messiah, the Prince,”
should “be cut off, but not for himself;” when “the transgression should
be finished or consummated” in his crucifixion; and, when
“reconciliation” should be made “for iniquity,” by his death and
resurrection.

The third and fourth intervals in the table are clearly pointed out in
Nehemiah ii. 1; v. 14; and xiii. 6; the date, indeed, recorded in the
latter text, being the _last note of time_ to be found in the present
Hebrew text. At this period, or very soon afterwards (according to Mr.
Cuninghame, in A.M. 5055),[28] the Old Testament Canon was closed by the
prophecy of Malachi, and a long night of darkness reigned, “until at
length the Day-spring from on high” visited the world. Thus we have
proved, from Scripture evidence alone, that at the date of Ezra’s
commission, which was upwards of 5000 years from Creation, and even
before that period, the Jews were in possession of a prophecy extending
nearly 500 years into futurity, and pointing to the Advent of a mighty
Saviour who should restore all things, and “bring in everlasting
righteousness.” The date of the passion of Christ is fixed and
determined as in the following table:—

                               TABLE XV.
          The Date of Ezra’s Commission             A.M. 5021
          The period of seventy weeks, or 490 years       490
                                                         ————
                THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION,        A.M. 5511

Hence, it is clearly demonstrated that the general belief among all
nations, that the Messiah should appear in the middle of the _Sixth
Millenary_ from Creation, had its real origin in a knowledge of the true
chronology of the sacred Scriptures! In arriving at this conclusion, we
have been obliged, in order to establish the exact lengths of the
Critarchal and Hierarchal ages, to borrow _twelve_ years from the
writings of the ancient chronographers, and _seventy-eight_ from the
canon of Ptolemy, amounting only to _ninety_ years in all,—a period
which may be considered as almost evanescent in the long range of 5500
years. Probably the Scriptures originally contained notices even of
these intervals, and in the course of ages, they may have been either
lost, through the negligence of transcribers, or omitted through the
wilfulness of enemies to the truth.

  2. Determination of the Epoch of the Birth of Christ—Labours of Mr.
       Cuninghame on this point—Coincidence of the extent of the period
       of Patriarchal pilgrimage with that of Hierarchal Bondage—Table
       XVI. Extent of the _Six Ages_ of the World—Difference between the
       true and vulgar dates of the Nativity—Mr. Cuninghame’s dates of
       the Nativity and Public Ministry of Christ, deduced from the
       chronology of the Septuagint.

The determination of the dates of the Nativity and Passion of our Lord,
is a question of considerable difficulty, and of great importance in the
true system of chronology; but much has been written upon it to very
little purpose. We agree, however, with Mr. Cuninghame, in the
conclusion to which he has arrived, after a very laborious and complete
investigation, in his “Fulness of the Times,” part i. pp. 60–107, and
part ii. pp. 1–27, and in his “Season of the End,” pp. 73–90, where he
refutes the opinions of Newton, Hales, Gresswell and others, and
demonstrates that the Passion of Christ took place in the _thirty-fifth_
year of his age, that is, according to the vulgar reckoning in A. D. 33:
and, that consequently, the true date of his Nativity was B. C. 3. The
Scriptural evidence for this conclusion recommends itself to the mind,
both by its simplicity and sufficiency. It appears from Luke iii. 23,
that Christ was baptized when he was _thirty_ years of age; and from
Luke iv. 16–24, that soon after that period, he began his public
ministry. Moreover, from the whole of the Gospel history, particularly
that of John, it appears that he was present at _four_, if not _five_,
public celebrations of the Passover; and consequently, that his
_thirty-fifth_ year was coincident with the date of the Crucifixion.
Hence, it clearly follows, that the _epoch of the birth of Christ_ was
coincident with the 455th year of the prophetic period of _seventy_
weeks, this being the difference between 35 and 490 years. Again, the
intervals of _thirteen_ years between the commissions of Ezra and
Nehemiah, and of _twelve_ between that of the latter and his return to
the court of Artaxerxes,—amounting to _twenty-five_ years in all,—being
deducted from the 455 years, gives the last interval of 430 years to the
Nativity. Thus, we perceive a singular coincidence in the period of the
pilgrimage and afflictions of the Hebrews in Canaan and Egypt, till the
time of Moses; and that of the persecution and sufferings of the Jews in
Syria and Egypt, till the Advent of the Messiah! The following table
exhibits, according to the two systems, the extent of the _six ages_ of
the world:—

                               TABLE XVI.
       AGES OF THE WORLD.      HEBREW.           SEPTUAGINT.
                               Years.              Years.
       First Five Ages                 3416                  4891
       Sixth Age                        583                   585
                                       ————                  ————
          THE SIX AGES                 3999                  5476

Usher states in his “Chronologia Sacra,” p. 45, that the true period
from Creation to the Birth of Christ, is 3999 years, _two_ months,
_four_ days, and _six_ hours; but, according to the vulgar reckoning
4003 years, _two_ months, _eleven_ days, and _six_ hours! Hence,
according to his computation, the true date of the Nativity in current
years is A.M. 4000, and the vulgar date A.M. 4004. It is indeed admitted
by all chronologers that an error of two or three years was committed by
Dionysius Exiguus, who first introduced the Christian era, in A.D. 532;
and, by Bede, who followed him, in A.D. 720. Accordingly, Mr. Cuninghame
very properly places the commencement of the vulgar era in A.M. 5478;
and that of the Public Ministry of Christ, in A.M. 5508, which was in
fact the true period of his appearance to the world! In the whole of
this interesting inquiry, now approaching a close, we must candidly
acknowledge the invaluable assistance we have received from the learned
and original works of Mr. Cuninghame, which have been, as it were, our
guide through the labyrinth of chronological difficulties, till we have
at last arrived at the open field of well-known History.




                              SECTION II.
                   CONFIRMATION OF THE GREAT EPOCHS.


The epochs of the Nativity and Epiphany of Christ, determined in the
preceding Section, receive very strong confirmation from the histories
and chronicons of ancient writers both sacred and profane, from the
writings of the early Fathers, and from the prophetic arrangement of
“the Times and the Seasons” by the Great Θεος, or Supreme “Disposer” of
all human events. It is plain, however, that a multiplicity of views
both of the Hebrew and the Septuagint chronology may be taken, according
as more or fewer of the errors, which we have pointed out in the
computation of the different ages of the world, are either adopted or
rejected. Dr. Hales, in his “Analysis,” vol. i. pp. 3–7, gives a list of
more than a _hundred and twenty_ different dates of the birth of Christ,
under the title of “Epochs of the Creation;” and he adds that the list
might be swelled to the number of _three hundred_! In such a multitude
of discordant dates we might, at first sight, despair of ever arriving
at the truth; but let us remember that error is a hydra-headed monster,
which in chronology as well as in more sacred subjects, can only be
successfully destroyed by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
God.

It is easy to see the source of the differences of opinion among the
learned, in regard to the point under consideration. Instead of taking
the sacred Scriptures as their guide, men have chosen rather to follow
their own fancies; and, because discrepancies were found to exist in the
ancient texts, they have with one consent agreed to abandon the light of
internal evidence, and to take refuge in the obscure glimmerings of
heathen tradition or the doubtful testimony of Jewish writers and
Christian fathers. Hence, we have all varieties of dates, from the bold
conjecture of Alphonsus, king of Castile, who supposed that the Mundane
Cycle of 7000 years had nearly expired at the birth of Christ, to the
traditionary epoch of the Chronicle of Axum in Abyssinia, which,
according to Bruce, places that event in the year of the world 5500;
and, from the Alexandrian or Constantinopolitan era, which, according to
the computation of the Greeks, places it in A. M. 5508, to the Jewish
epoch of the “Seder Olam Rabba,” which according to Ganz, dates it in
A.M. 3751.

The following Table of the extent of the different ages of the world
according to the three texts, will serve the double purpose of showing
the leading varieties in the computation of the date of the Nativity
from Creation, and of bringing before our readers, at a single glance, a
condensed view of the result of our investigations in the preceding
pages. As the Samaritan text comprehends only the chronology of the
first two ages, the extent of the remaining four ages is borrowed from
the Hebrew.

                               TABLE XVII.
        AGES OF THE WORLD.          HEBREW.    SEPTUAGINT.   SAMARITAN.
                                     Years.       Years.       Years.
 1. Antediluvian age                      1656         2262         1307
 2. Postdiluvian age                       427         1147         1017
 3. Patriarchal age                        430          431          430
 4. Critarchal age                         480          612          480
 5. Monarchal age                          424          439          424
 6. Hierarchal age                         583          585          583
                                          ————         ————         ————
    Birth of Christ          A.M.         4000         5476         4241
    Error in the Sixth age                   2            0            2
    Error in the Vulgar date                 2            2            2
                                          ————         ————         ————
    Extent of the Six ages                4004         5478         4245

In the preceding Table we have reckoned the date of the Birth of Christ
in current years, and included the year of Abraham’s sojourning in Egypt
in the Patriarchal age of the Septuagint computation.—See page 66 of
this Dissertation.




                               CHAPTER I.
       HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUE SYSTEM OF CHRONOLOGY.

  Testimonies of the ancient chronographers and historians before
      and after Christ, in favour of the chronology of the
      Septuagint—Demetrius, Eupolemus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, and
      all the early fathers of the first three centuries—Theophilus,
      Hippolytus, Africanus, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius,
      Epiphanius, Ambrose, Ephrem Syrus, Augustine, Chrysostom,
      Sulpicius Severus, Annianus, Syncellus, Eutychius, the author
      of the Paschal Chronicle, and the Council called “Synodus in
      Trullo”—Probable cause of minute variations among the ancient
      chronographers.


In confirmation of the true epoch of the birth of Christ, and the
accuracy of the Septuagint chronology, we select the following examples
of ancient testimony, for which we are chiefly indebted to the learned
works of Russell and Clinton, “Connection of Sacred and Profane
History,” vol. i., pp. 113–120, and “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i., pp.
286–291. Demetrius, who lived B.C. 220, and is cited by Eusebius and
Polyhistor, states that “from Adam to the Eisodus, were 3624 years; from
the flood 1360; and from the Call of Abraham 215.” It follows, that he
reckoned the _Antediluvian_ age 2264 years, and the _Postdiluvian_ 1145;
adding two years to the former, and taking them from the latter by
mistake, but preserving the correct sum of both 3409 years, and the true
epoch of the Eisodus A.M. 3624, see Tables VII. and VIII. Eupolemus, who
lived B.C. 174, and is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, states that “from
Adam to the 5th year of Demetrius [Poliorcetes], the 12th of Ptolemy
[Soter], were 5149 years.” If to this number, as Dr. Russell remarks, we
add 296, as the date B.C. of the 5th of Demetrius, the epoch of the
nativity is, according to Eupolemus, A.M. 5445. From the works of
Josephus, who flourished A.D. 90, both Russell and Jackson have
determined the same epoch at A.M. 5481. Justin Martyr, who wrote A.D.
140, speaking of the prophecies concerning Christ, says, “some were
delivered 5000 years before his appearing, some 3000, some 2000; and,
some again 1000, and others 800 years.”[29] Ignatius, Clemens Romanus,
Irenæus, Polycarp, Tertullian, and all the early fathers of the first
three centuries, held similar opinions respecting the antiquity of the
prophecies, and the appearance of the Saviour of the world in the sixth
millennium.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 180, placed the epoch of the
Nativity in A.M. 5507, according to Kennicott; and Clemens Alexandrinus,
who lived A.D. 194, placed the same epoch in A.M. 5444, according to
Clinton and Cuninghame, on the supposition that he follows Eupolemus.
Mr. Cuninghame, however, has shown, in his “Fulness of the Times,” Part
ii. pp. 59, 60, that by correcting an error of thirty-four years, the
epoch of Clemens is A.M. 5478; and, by the most indefatigable scrutiny
of his numbers, that the epoch of Josephus is A.M. 5472, the difference
of _six_ years arising from his well-known error of this amount in the
_Antediluvian_ age. Hippolytus, A.D. 200, states that “the first advent
of our incarnate Lord took place in the 5500th year of the world.”
Julius Africanus (apud Syncellum) A.D. 220, says that “the Jews have
transmitted to us, from the extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500
years from creation to the epiphany of the Saviour,”—a conclusion,
which, as Syncellus remarks, was received by all the learned Christians
of his day. It is also remarkable, that although both Theophilus and
Africanus seem to omit the second Cainan in the Postdiluvian age, yet
their dates of the foundation of Solomon’s temple agree with that of Mr.
Cuninghame to a year or two; thus showing that an error of 130 years in
relation to an epoch so generally known, was wholly inadmissible into
any system of chronology pretending to be founded on the sacred
writings. Origen, A.D. 230, states that “our Lord descended from Heaven
for the salvation of man, 6000 years after the Almighty had formed the
first of the human race.” Cyprian, A.D. 250, says that “6000 years are
already almost accomplished since the devil made his first assault on
man.” Lactantius, A.D. 300, says, “philosophers who calculate the
thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, must know that the
6000th year [that is, the sixth millenary,] is not yet finished.”
Epiphanius, A.D. 368, says “the preaching of Christ began in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, in the 30th year of his age, which was
in the 5509th year of the world’s creation.” This date differs only by
_one year_ from that which we have assigned to the same epoch.
Hesychius, a contemporary of Jerome, says, “the incarnation of the
Redeemer took place nearly 6000 years from the foundation of the world.”
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, A.D. 375, says, “but now more than 6000 years
are counted from the foundation of the world.” Ephrem Syrus, A.D. 378,
says, “the Saviour was to appear after 5500 years, [from creation,] to
deliver man.” Augustine, A.D. 398, says, “since from the first man, 6000
years are not yet completed.” Chrysostom, his contemporary, says, “after
5000 years and more, Christ came as the substitute of our race.”
Sulpicius Severus, A.D. 400, makes the date of the Nativity A.M. 5469,
according to Clinton. Annianus A.D. 405, Syncellus A.D. 792, Eutychius
A.D. 937, and a host of later writers, adopt the epoch A.M. 5500,
following Africanus. The author of the “Paschal Chronicle,” makes the
epoch A.M. 5507; and the meeting of the council, called “Synodus in
Trullo,” A.D. 691, reckoned it A.M. 5508, which is the same as our date
of the Epiphany. In short, the epochs of the Nativity, the Epiphany, and
the Resurrection, (ἡ παρουσία, ἡ ἐπιφάνεια, και ἡ ἀνάστασις) appear to
have been so inseparably connected in the minds of the ancient writers,
as to make them sometimes put the one for the other; a circumstance,
which may account for not a few of the small varieties in their
computation of the year of the world which was the commencement of the
Christian era.[30]




                              CHAPTER II.
              REDUCTION OF THE MUNDANE ERA OF REDEMPTION.

  Errors of Eusebius, Jerome, and the Western churches—Consistency of
      the Eastern and Southern churches to the latest period—Chronology
      of the Russians and Armenians that of the Septuagint—Testimony of
      Abulpharajius—Chronological innovations of the Venerable Bede—His
      denouncement as a heretic on this account—Chronology of the Roman
      church different from that of the Latin Vulgate—The chronology of
      the Masoretes an abridgement of the true—The chronology of the
      Roman Martyrology preserved by Pontifical authority to the present
      day—Extract from Strauchius—An important testimony in favour of
      the true chronology.


Having shown by incontestable evidence, that the computation of the
Septuagint was universally received as the true chronology of the Church
of Christ from the earliest periods of its history, and that it was also
received by the Jews themselves, at least _two_ centuries before the
Christian era; let us now shortly inquire how it came to be abandoned,
and the chronology of the Masorete Hebrew text adopted in its stead.
Eusebius of Cesarea, A.D. 325, or some one for him, acting under Jewish
influence, reduced the era of Redemption from A.M. 5478 to A.M. 5200, by
the exclusion of the _Postdiluvian_ Cainan, the adoption of the forged
_period_ for the _Critarchal_ age, and the omission of _fifteen_ years
in the _Monarchal_. In these errors, he was followed by Jerome,[31] A.D.
378, and some of the Western churches; but his system was resolutely
opposed by all the Eastern and Southern churches, in which the
chronological authority of Africanus and Epiphanius prevailed. This
opposition has indeed preserved the true chronology in some countries to
a very late period; for we find that the Russians, who received it from
the Greeks, still reckon that the Christian era commenced in A.M. 5509,
as may be seen by reference to their native historians. The remoter
Eastern churches, with some slight variations, also adhered to the
longer chronology; as testified by Abulfarajius, the celebrated Armenian
historian, who flourished in the thirteenth century, and who reckoned
the same epoch at A.M. 5586, apparently to adjust it to the birth of
Peleg, in A.M. 2793, the former number being just double the latter;
for, “in his days was _the world_ divided,” at the command of (θέος των
ἀίωνῶν) the God of the ages, or the worlds. The Western Churches indeed,
can scarcely be said to have followed the chronology either of Eusebius
or of Jerome, till the time of the venerable Bede, A.D. 720; and the
innovations of the latter were so ill received by his contemporaries,
that he was denounced as a heretic, because he dared to assert, in
opposition to all the fathers of the Church, that Christ was _not_ born
in the sixth millenary of the world; see Usher’s “Chronologia Sacra,” p.
50. The chronology of the Roman Church appears to have remained in this
state during the dark ages till the meeting of the Council of Trent,
A.D. 1563, when the Protestants, under the double influence of prejudice
against the errors of the Church, and overweening confidence in the
Hebrew text, adopted the modern and corrupted chronology of the Jews!
The Roman chronologists had, however, abridged the true computation of
the ancient Church of Christ only by 278 years; while the Masoretes and
their followers had abridged it by no less than 1474 years! The system
of the former continues to prevail in the Church of Rome, though
contrary to the Latin Vulgate, and the system of the latter in the
Reformed Churches, even to this day. In the “Roman Martyrology,”
published by the authority of Pope Gregory XIII., in A.D. 1582, and
revised by command of Pope Urban VIII., in A.D. 1640, we find the
following statement, which according to Strauchius, “Breviarium
Chronologicum,” p. 382, is read in the churches every year on the 25th
of December:—“In the 5199th year from the creation of the world, when
God created heaven and earth; and the 2957th after the deluge; the
2015th from the birth of Abraham; the 1510th from the time of Moses and
the Israelites leaving Egypt; and the 1032nd from the time of David
being anointed king; in the 65th annual week of Daniel; in the 194th
Olympiad; in the 752nd year since the building of Rome; in the 42nd year
of the Emperor Octavius Augustus, when the whole world was blessed with
peace; in the _sixth_ age of the world; Jesus Christ, Eternal God, and
Son of the Eternal Father, conceived from the Holy Ghost, was born of
the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea.”[32] There are several
contradictions among the synchronisms contained in this statement, which
are acknowledged by Roman Catholic writers themselves, as may be seen in
the works of Baronius and Petavius; but, it is a noble public testimony
to the true faith of the Church of Christ, and an important public
evidence in favour of its ancient chronology.




                              CHAPTER III.
         CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY ERRONEOUS.

  Chronology of the English Bible erroneous—Usher influenced by the
      Masoretes—Tradition of the House of Elias—Its complete refutation
      both from Scripture and fact—Utility and application of Mr.
      Cuninghame’s “Chart of Chronology”—Reasons assigned by the Jewish
      Rabbis why their expected Messiah is not yet come—Their curse upon
      all who calculate the Times.


From the whole of the preceding testimony and argument, it must appear
evident that the chronology of Usher, which places the Christian era in
A.M. 4004, which is adopted in all the larger editions of the English
Bible, and which is still strenuously maintained by English divines, is
but of comparatively recent origin, and rests upon a very unsound
foundation. We have no doubt that the pious and learned Archbishop was
influenced in his determination to adopt the Masorete chronology,
contrary to his better judgment, by a tradition current among the Jews
from a very early period, which appears to be only a corruption of the
more ancient one referred to at the beginning of this Dissertation.
After their rejection of Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, the Jews, in
order to cover their retreat from the truth, gave out in their Talmud
the following gloss on the universal belief of the Church:—“Traditio
Domus Eliæ: Mundus sex millibus annis durabit; duobus millibus inanitas;
duobus millibus lex; duobus millibus tempus Messiæ;”—the meaning of
which is, that according to the tradition of the house of Elias, the
world shall last 6000 years; of which 2000 shall pass without the law;
2000 under the law; and 2000 under the Messiah. It is proper to observe
that the inventor of this tradition was neither Elijah the Tishbite, nor
his antitype, John the Baptist, but a certain famous doctor of the
Jewish schools, who flourished after the Messianic age; and, that not
the slightest trace of the tradition itself is to be found in the Holy
Scriptures! As some writers, however, consider it a confirmation of the
modern Hebrew chronology, we may show that it is not only quite
erroneous, but inconsistent with itself, even in its details. Referring
to Mr. Cuninghame’s “Chart of Sacred Chronology,” in which he has
arranged the Hebrew and Septuagint chronologies in parallel columns, and
exhibited the most remarkable events in ancient history, both according
to the years of the world and before Christ, we see that according to
the Masorete text, the law was delivered on Mount Sinai in A.M. 2513,
more than 500 years after the time said to be predicted by Elias! Hence,
it follows that the interval from that epoch till the end of the next
2000 years, is less than 1500 years, and terminated in A.M. 4000, when,
according to the tradition, the Messiah was _expected to appear_! With
respect to the 2000 years allotted to the reign of the Messiah, they
are, on their own showing, nearly past; inasmuch as 1844 years of this
period have already elapsed, and yet, according to their opinion, _he is
not come_! The reason assigned by the Jewish Rabbis for this long delay,
is that their sins have prevented his coming! This grievous
falsification of their famous Doctor’s prediction, has made them so
ashamed of their traditions, that they have pronounced a curse upon all
who dare to calculate the times: ‏קצין מחשבי תפחרוחן של‎—“Animam
exhalent illi qui supputant terminos.” On this and other curious matters
relating to the Hebrew chronology, see Father Le Quien’s “Defense du
Texte Hébreu et de la Vulgate,” reprinted in the “Cours Complet,” vol.
iii. pp. 1525–1586.[33]




                              CHAPTER IV.
                CYCLICAL CHARACTER OF THE MUNDANE TIMES.

  1. The Revolutions of the Heavenly bodies appointed for Cycles—Origin
       of the cycles of the year and the month—The subject of Enoch’s
       prophecy—Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of the cycle from the
       Creation to the Era of Redemption—Scriptural Cycles of frequent
       occurrence—The numbers of Jubilee and of Pentecost—of Pilgrimage
       and Persecution—of Omnipotence, glory, and wisdom; and of
       mystery, vengeance, and forgiveness—The prophetic numbers of
       Daniel—Discovery of their connection with the Higher Cycles of
       Astronomy, by M. de Chesaux and Mr. Cuninghame


The true system of chronology receives its grandest confirmation from
the cyclical character of the times appointed by (ὁ πατηρ τῶν ἀιῶνων)
the Father of the ages. In Genesis i. 14, the word of God created two
luminaries in the firmament of Heaven, for giving light upon the earth,
and for separating day and night; and, _for signs, and times, and days
and years_! Thus early were the phenomena of the sun and moon appointed
to indicate the arrangements of Divine providence, as well as to
regulate the ordinary periods of time. Before man, however, could
understand the nature of these periods as they were gradually unfolded
by the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, or by the still higher cycles
of prophecy which were afterwards revealed to God’s chosen people, the
_natural_ division of the day, and the _sacred_ division of the week
were appointed for his observance. The origin of the year is considered
by the learned as involved in obscurity; but we think there is a
striking indication of its length in the life of Enoch. This favoured
Patriarch lived a year of years on earth, that is, a year of 365
prophetic days; and he himself was a prophet, who, by the Spirit of God,
was enabled to see far into the womb of futurity. It is also very
remarkable that, according to Mr. Cuninghame’s singular discoveries, the
birth of Him, who was the great subject of Enoch’s prophecy, took place
at a period of _fifteen_ years of years, or _fifteen_ years of prophetic
days from the creation! The origin of the month is referable to the same
age; for we recognize the month of _thirty_ days in the account of the
year of the Deluge; and, a period of four prophetic months, or 120
prophetic days, is visible in the 120 years of grace before that awful
catastrophe. The sacred period of _seven_ days also assumed a prophetic
character. In Pharaoh’s dream, the _seven_ years of plenty, and the
_seven_ years of famine, were vividly depicted. After _seven_ days
previous warning, the Diluvian rain descended in torrents for _forty_
days. After Jericho was encompassed _seven_ days, the last day _seven_
times, by _seven_ priests with _seven_ trumpets, the walls were levelled
with the ground. The number _forty_ is prophetic; the Israelites
wandered _forty_ prophetic days, that is, _forty_ years, in the
wilderness; Moses was in the mount _forty_ days; and, Christ was tempted
_forty_ days. In _forty_ days, Nineveh was to be destroyed; Christ was
seen of his disciples _forty_ days after his resurrection; and, in
_forty_ years, after his baptism, was Jerusalem destroyed. The number of
_seven_ days and _seven_ years, with their multiples and higher powers,
perpetually recur in the Mosaic institutes; and the period of _seven_
times _seven_, or _forty-nine_ days and _forty-nine_ years, is
particularly signalized in the feasts of the Jews. Balaam, who knew the
sacredness of the number _seven_, in the divine institutions, at _three_
different times and places, built _seven_ altars, and slew _seven_ oxen
and _seven_ rams, in order to propitiate the favour of God. In the land
of Canaan, _seven_ nations were destroyed in _seven_ years. Solomon’s
temple was _seven_ years in building, and in 430 years after the
celebration of the first passover within its walls, it was destroyed.
The latter number, as we have seen, is highly prophetic, corresponding
to the 430 prophetic days of Ezekiel, and having a mysterious reference
to the 430 years of promise to Abraham, the 430 years of Gentile
persecution, and the _three_ times 430 days, or 1,290 years of Daniel.
But time would fail us to speak of the _seven_ spirits of God, the
_seven_ eyes, the _seven_ lamps, the _seven_ stars, the _seven_ golden
lamp-stands, the _seven_ churches, the _seven_ angels, the _seven_
seals, the _seven_ vials, the _seven_ plagues, the _seven_ heads, the
_seven_ crowns, the _seven_ mountains, and the _seven_ kings; the
_seven_ times, yea and the _seventy_ times _seven_—the perfect numbers
of omnipotence, glory and wisdom; and, of mystery, vengeance and
forgiveness!

We have already seen the prophetic nature of Daniel’s _seventy_ weeks,
and it now only remains to notice his other prophetic periods. In Dan.
xii. 14, mention is made of “a time, times and half a time,” which
should be accomplished, before the wonders he had seen should come to an
end. This period is clearly shown by writers on the prophecies, to
signify _three and a-half_ prophetic years, _forty-two_ prophetic
months, or 1260 prophetic days; and this view is confirmed by the
mention of 1290 and 1335 prophetic days, in the context. Again, in Dan.
viii. 14, we read of 2300 prophetic days, after the lapse of which, “the
sanctuary shall be cleansed.” That these periods are all connected with
each other, and that they each signify so many years, has been long
known and generally admitted; but, that they are connected with the
revolutions of the heavenly bodies, appears to be but a very recent
discovery! Mr. Birks, of Trinity College, Cambridge, in his “Elements of
Prophecy,” just published, has very properly remarked, in p. 368, that,
“It seems to have been first unfolded by M. de Chesaux, a French writer,
purely as a curiosity of science; but it is Mr. Cuninghame who has
revived attention to this interesting topic.” The fact is, that the
original work of M. de Chesaux might have lain for ever on the shelves
of the library of the University of Lausanne, had not Mr. Cuninghame
searched it out with his wonted industry, and republished the author’s
discovery anew in his work on the “Jubilean Chronology.” We shall
endeavour to give our readers some idea of this curious discovery.

  2. Lengths of the tropical year and the synodical period of the moon,
       according to Sir John Herschel—Application of the method of
       _continued fractions_ to the determination of their approximating
       ratios—Various lunisolar cycles—The Octaëteris of the Greeks—The
       cycle of nineteen discovered by Meton, but probably known to the
       Hebrews—The period of Calippus—Proof that the numbers of Daniel
       are lunisolar cycles—Remarks of Mr. Birks in his “Elements of
       Prophecy”—Observations of Mr. Cuninghame in his “Scientific
       Chronology”—Proof that the prophetic month and the jubilean
       period are lunisolar cycles.

The latest determinations of the lengths of the tropical year, and the
lunar month, or synodical period of the moon, are, according to Sir John
Herschel, 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 49·7 seconds; and 29 days, 12
hours, 44 minutes, 2·87 seconds. “Astronomy,” pp. 205, 224. By the
method of _Continued Fractions_,[34] we find that the continually
approximating ratios of these periods are represented by the following
series of fractions:

 Numbers,  (1)   (2)   (3)   (4)    (5)     (6)      (7)       (8)       (9)
 Ratios,  ¹⁄₁₂, ²⁄₂₅, ³⁄₃₇, ⁸⁄₉₉, ¹¹⁄₁₃₆, ¹⁹⁄₂₃₅, ³³⁴⁄₄₁₃₁, ³⁵³⁄₄₃₃₆, ⁶⁸⁷⁄₈₄₉₇, &c.

where the numerators represent the numbers of years, and the
denominators the numbers of lunations, necessary to bring the sun and
moon again into the same relative position, very nearly at the same
point of time in the tropical year. Of these ratios, some have been long
known; the _fourth_ is the Greek cycle called _Octaëteris_, discovered
B.C. 600, and is a very rude approximation: the _sixth_ is the famous
cycle re-discovered by _Meton_ B.C. 432, but probably known to the
Hebrews from the earliest ages, as the lives of Seth, Methuselah and
Noah are exact multiples of this cycle, as well as the _Antediluvian
age_ itself, and is a remarkably near approximation to the truth; _four
times_ this ratio gives the period of _Calippus_, which was rectified by
the omission of _one_ day in _seventy-six_ years. These approximations,
however, are much inferior in accuracy to the higher terms of the
series; from which, in fact, any number of approximate ratios may be
deduced by the following principle:—If a series of fractions be all
equal to each other, the sum or difference of the numerators and
denominators of any pair will constitute a new fraction equal to each;
and the same is true of fractions whose numerators and denominators are
equi-multiples of those of any of the given or derived fractions. Hence,
from the terms of the preceding series, we derive the following
additional ratios, whose degree of approximation, of course, depends on
that of the fractions of which they are composed. From the _eighth_ and
_ninth_ ratios, by addition, we obtain the ratio ¹⁰⁴⁰⁄₁₂₈₆₃, which is so
remarkably correct, that the approximation is within about
_three-quarters of an hour_ of the truth. From the _sixth_ and _seventh_
ratios, by subtraction, we obtain, the ratio ³¹⁵⁄₃₈₉₆ = ¹²⁶⁰⁄₁₅₅₈₄,
which shows that the prophetic period of 1260 years is a scientific
lunisolar cycle. From the two new ratios thus obtained, by addition, we
have a third new ratio ²³⁰⁰⁄₂₈₄₄₇, which proves that the prophetic
period of 2300 years is another scientific cycle, in which the
approximation is nearly _twelve hours_.

Mr. Birks, in his “Elements of Prophecy,” pp. 368–372, distinctly
acknowledges the “Cyclical character of the Prophetic Times,” and gives
the numerators of the above series of ratios. He adds a very ingenious
explanation of these cycles, and remarks that, “the highest prophetic
period, 2300 years, is perhaps the only _secular_ cycle, composed of
centuries, known to exist!” The _secular_ cycle of 5200, though not, as
far as we are aware, a prophetic period, is “composed of centuries;” and
being _five times_ the cycle of 1040 years, is so close an approximation
to the truth, that it is within about 3¾ hours, and is therefore
considerably more accurate than the cycle of 2300 years! What then does
Mr. Birks mean in this passage? Perhaps the following sentence from Mr.
Cuninghame’s “Scientific Chronology of the year 1839,” will supply the
answer: “Moreover, 2300 years is the only centurial number, which is an
original cycle in astronomy; for though we have a cycle of 5200 years,
it is only as the multiple of the perfect one of 1040 by 5.” From the
_fifth_ and _sixth_ ratios in the series, we obtain those of ³⁰⁄₃₇₁ and
⁴⁹⁄₆₀₆, which shows that _thirty_ years, the prophetic month, and
_forty-nine_ years, the jubilean period, are also scientific cycles, but
not possessing such close approximation to the truth as the larger
cycles. In the same way, it may be easily proved, that the periods of
1290 years and 1078 years are scientific cycles; the former being _three
times_ the prophetic period of pilgrimage and trial, namely 430 years,
which is also a cycle of an inferior degree of approximation; and the
latter being exactly _twenty-two_ jubilees.[35]




                               CHAPTER V.
                    DISCOVERY OF NEW MUNDANE CYCLES.

  1. Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of the mystical signification of the
       Seventy years’ Captivity—Its connection with the Era of the
       French Revolution—Confirmed by the sentiments of the modern
       Jews—Prediction of Rabbi Joseph Crool—Prediction in the Hebrew
       Tract, “Explanation of the Times,” published in 1794—The latter
       prediction not fulfilled—Hope concerning Israel.


Besides developing the original views of M. de Chesaux, and applying
them in a very remarkable manner to the great epochs of the Septuagint
chronology, Mr. Cuninghame has suggested and confirmed the important
discovery, that the period of seventy years’ captivity in Babylon “has a
mystical signification,” as well as a literal one, “and probably
represents the whole period of the captivities and dispersions of Judah,
until the final redemption of the nation.”[36] He has more fully
developed his ideas on this subject, in his “Chronology of Israel,” and
in his “Fulness of the Times;” in which he shows, that the mystical
interpretation is a period of _seventy_ jubilees, or 3430 years in
Spiritual Babylon, at the expiration of which “the Redemption of Israel
draweth nigh.” Reckoning this period to commence at the epoch of the
first Redemption of Israel, the Exodus from Egypt, he finds that it
terminates at the era of the French Revolution, A. D. 1792. This opinion
is strongly confirmed by the sentiments of the modern Jews. Thus, in a
book entitled “_The Restoration of Israel_,” published in 1812, by Rabbi
Joseph Crool, Teacher of Hebrew, in the University of Cambridge, the
author says, p. 59, “By this calculation we may learn that the _Jubilee_
of the Restoration of Israel has begun already these _twenty_ years
back, that is, just when the Revolution began in France; at that very
time, the seventy jubilees were at an end.” The following is still more
curious, p. 60:—“There are yet _thirty-six_ years to the end of the
Jubilee of Israel, _and before the end of these thirty-six years, Israel
will be restored, and the Messiah will take possession of his empire_;”
that is, in A. D. 1848! Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Chronology of Israel,”
p. 69, refers to a Hebrew tract, published in 1794, entitled
“Explanation of the Times,” in which the Advent of the Messiah is placed
at the end of 112 jubilees from Creation, an epoch which, according to
the true chronology, was A.M. 5488, and corresponded exactly to the
_fourteenth_ year of Christ, when, according to the law, he first
appeared in his own person in the Temple, and was no longer a child. It
is also worthy of remark, that, if this period be reckoned according to
the curtailed system of Jewish chronology,—which is even shorter than
that of the modern Hebrew text, placing the birth of Christ in A. M.
3760,—the advent of their Messiah was expected in A. M. 5600, that is,
according to them, in A. D. 1840! The Jews, in this calculation,
erroneously reckon the Jubilee at _fifty_ years instead of _forty-nine_;
for 50 multiplied by 112, gives the product 5600. The epoch being now
past, which, according to the latter computation was to be the era of
their Redemption, let us hope that they will no longer look for the
_first advent_ of the Messiah, seeing that it has long since taken
place; but that, embracing the religion of the New Testament, which is
virtually the same as that of the Old, they will turn with their whole
heart to seek “the angel of Jehovah’s presence, who saved them;” who,
“in his love and pity redeemed them;” and, who “bare them and carried
them all the days of old.”

  2. Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of seven streams of time, of seventy
       jubilees each, in the true system of chronology—This test wholly
       inapplicable to any other system—His discovery of five streams of
       time of different jubilean periods—Utility of his “Fulness of the
       Times,” where these discoveries are developed—Notice of his more
       recent works.

Mr. Cuninghame proves that the periods of all the great eras in the
history of the Israelites and Jews, are measured by great jubilean and
astronomical cycles. In his “Fulness of the Times,” he demonstrates
the existence of _seven_ streams of jubilean time from the era of the
Exodus and establishment in Canaan, each containing a period of
seventy jubilees, in the true system of chronology; and that these
seven streams are marked at their beginning and end, and at several
intermediate points, by great eras in history. He shows also that all
other schemes of chronology, particularly those of Usher, Hales, and
the Jewish Rabbis, cannot stand this test of accuracy and perfection,
and consequently, none of them can be the true system. To these great
streams of jubilean time, he adds other five streams, consisting of
different periods of jubilees, which he has discovered in the true
system, all marked, in like manner, by remarkable historical events.
In the course of his laborious investigations, in order to establish
these general streams of cyclical time, he touches on many interesting
and disputed facts both in sacred and profane history, which renders
the work a complete storehouse of information on chronological
questions; while the Supplements, Prefaces, Dissertations, and
Appendixes, to which we had such frequent occasion to refer, partake
so much of the same general character, as to make it a work of
universal reference. In the general preface to the second edition, the
author announced some new discoveries in regard to the cyclical
character of the mundane times. These he has more fully developed and
applied with the most extraordinary industry and ingenuity, in the
following recent works:—“The Scientific Chronology of the year 1839;”
“A Supplement to” the preceding work, “comprising the Arithmetical
Solution, and Chronological Application of the Number 666;” “The
Season of the End;” “A Chart of Sacred Chronology,” with an “Essay to
accompany” it; “A Dissertation on the Apocalypse,” with “A Supplement
in two Parts:—I. On the Scientific Chronology, as a Test of
Apocalyptical Interpretation;—II. On the Scientific character of the
Great Numbers of Daniel;” also “A Discourse on the Scientific Measures
of the Mundane Times, and the Reasons for the Greek Chronology;” and,
“A Table of the Greek and Hebrew Chronologies from Creation to the end
of the Jewish War,” 4th Edition. We shall now endeavour to give a
short notice of these discoveries.

  3. Various cycles which enter into the true system of chronology—Mr.
       Cuninghame’s discovery of the _trinal fraction_—Its explanation
       and application by an Algebraic formula—Original form in which it
       was discovered—Its superiority to the formulæ of the _figurate
       numbers_—Remarkable instance of its application to Scriptural and
       other numbers, and to lunar and solar cyclical numbers—Mr.
       Cuninghame’s definition of the trinal fraction the most
       correct—The series deduced from its formula possesses curious
       properties.

It has been already shown that according to the will of Him, who (τοὺς
ἀιῶνας ἐποίησεν) _constructed the ages_, the septenary cycle, with its
multiples and higher powers, and the lunisolar cycles, with their sums,
differences and multiples, including the Metonic, the Jubilean, the
Prophetic and the Secular, enter into the structure of the true
chronology. To these, Mr. Cuninghame adds the Duodenary cycle, and its
multiples and higher powers; the Undenary cycle, which is also
Lunisolar; the Quinary cycle, which is indicated no less than _four_
times in the formation of man; and the _Trinal fraction_, which alone
seems to require explanation. The author was led by circumstances
detailed in “The Scientific Chronology” pp. 5–8, to give the name of
“Trinal fraction” to the general term of a series of numbers of which
each is composed of the root, its square, and unity, that is, in
Algebraic language, _n_^2 + _n_ + 1; an expression, in which _n_ may be
zero, unity, or any whole number whatever, and giving, by the
substitution of 0, 1, 2, 3, &c. as roots, the series itself, namely, 1,
3, 7, 13, 21, 31, 43, 57, 73, &c. To the discovery of this series, as
_new in mathematics_, of course, he makes no claim; because, a mere tyro
in that science could write out a hundred such in as many minutes; see
“Dissertation on the Apocalypse,” fourth edition, pp. 522, 523; but, to
the discovery of its application to the cyclical character of the
mundane times, he has a decided claim, and we think he has fully
substantiated it by a reference to chronological facts.

As to the formula itself, its most general form is (_n_^3 + _n_^2 +
_n_)/(_n_) as originally discovered by the author; and in this form it
is manifestly more simple and general than any of the formulæ of the
_figurate numbers_; for, if _n_ be taken equal to zero, in any of the
latter, the value of the vanishing fraction is always equal to _zero_;
but, in the former, it is equal to _unity_, the first term of the
series, and the basis of all numerical calculation. Let us take some
other examples of its application: the _sacred_ number 3, is the trinal
fraction of unity, and although it includes the higher powers of the
root, is only the sum of _three_ units, mysteriously indicating a
trinity in unity. The _sacred_ number 7, is the trinal fraction of 2,
which is the basis of the binary system of numeration so natural to man.
The number 13, is the trinal fraction of 3, and is a lunisolar cycle of
years, the hebdomadal measure of the seasons of the year, and the actual
number of the tribes of Israel. The number 21 is the trinal fraction of
4, and the product of the sacred numbers 3 and 7, the trinal fractions
of 1 and 2. The number 31, is the trinal fraction of 5, the basis of the
Quinary scale so incorporated with the human frame, and is the measure
of the life of the _first man_. The number 57, is the trinal fraction of
the sacred number 7, and three times the Metonic cycle of _nineteen_
years, being an element of the Mundane Times. Lastly, the number 73, is
the trinal fraction of 8, a lunisolar cycle of years, and gives, when
multiplied by 5, the number of days in the solar cycle.

The trinal fraction has been compared also with the formula _n_^2 − _n_
+ 1, which is only a particular case of it, namely, where _n_ is
negative. It is true, that if in this formula, −1, −2, −3, &c., be taken
for values of _n_, it will still give the series of trinal fractions;
but it does not therefore follow that the two formulæ are the same; for,
if in the latter, _n_ be taken equal to zero, it will give the same
result as when _n_ is taken equal to −1! The definition given by Mr.
Cuninghame, is therefore the most accurate, simple, and general, and one
which can be easily comprehended without any reference to the formulæ of
the _Figurate Numbers_. Moreover, the author has shown in the works last
referred to, that the series of trinal fractions possess higher
properties of science, mathematically, astronomically, and
chronologically, than the triangular numbers, from which it is pretended
that they have been derived. To some very curious properties and
applications of the trinal fractions, the author has added a “Table of
the Trinal Fractions from 1 to 85, showing the sums of the Roots and
Fractions at each Pentad,” p. 519 of the “Dissertation;” and he has
shown how these numbers enter so extensively and so mysteriously into
the whole structure of the Mundane Times!

  4. Application of the Theory of the Trinal Fraction to the discovery
       of the meaning of the _Number of the Beast_ in the Revelation of
       John—Proof that the number 666 is the number of a Man—Its
       indication of _Spiritual_ and _Secular_ dominion—Of Tyranny and
       Persecution—Recent efforts to raise the Beast again to power—A
       warning to Protestants.

We may just give another example of the application of this theory to
the discovery of the meaning of a very much disputed number both in
chronology and history. If we look into Mr. Cuninghame’s table, we find
that the number 111 is the trinal fraction of 10; and if it be
multiplied by the _mathematically perfect_ number 6, the number of
blessing and cursing (Deut. xxvii. 12, 13) it will give the product 666,
the number of the Beast (Rev. xiii. 18). Now, we have seen that the
number 10, or 5 + 5, is a number indicated in the formation of man; it
is also the base of the Denary system of numeration employed by all
mankind; it is plain, therefore, that the number of the Beast, to which
was also given “_a mouth_ speaking great things and blasphemies,” is
thus discovered to be “_the number of a man_;” the _two fives_
indicating _both hands_, with which this human beast grasped at both
_spiritual_ and _secular_ dominion over the saints of God. But, we know
that when he attempted to use a _third_ and a _fourth_ five, by putting
his feet upon their necks, and trampling them under him, his wrath was
mercifully restrained by a higher Power, and he lost _one five_, that
is, _one hand_, even the _secular_ dominion! Nevertheless, we find that
_now_ he is endeavouring to use _both hands_, and is making a mighty
effort to recover strength in the “withered hand.” He has, however, been
compelled to abandon the use of _the foot_, and to declare aloud to
Christendom, not only that it is perfectly innocuous at present, but
that it shall never be used again! Let Protestants beware; if once he
recovers the use of the _lost hand_, he will be sure again to employ the
_sleeping foot!_ The solution of the problem is due to the author, the
commentary upon it is ours. For an extensive and curious application of
this number in the true system of Chronology, see the “Supplement to the
Scientific Chronology of 1839.”[37]




                              CHAPTER VI.
              DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY.

  1. Mr. Cuninghame’s application of the Lunisolar cycles and Septenary
       periods to the settlement of chronological questions—The
       Septuagint proved to be the _exact truth_ by a complex harmony of
       scientific time—His “Synopsis of Chronology” recommended.


In his “Synopsis of Chronology,” Mr. Cuninghame very fully developes the
nature of the Lunisolar Cycles and Septenary Periods, settles several
important chronological questions by means of this touchstone of
accuracy, and gives a great many remarkable series of historical events,
whose intervals are all measured by complete cycles from the era of
Creation, from the births and deaths of the Ante and Postdiluvian
Patriarchs, and from the Exodus and occurrences in the life of David the
King. In this manner, he shows that the Septuagint chronology “is proved
to be the exact truth by such a complex harmony of scientific time, or
in other words, of great astronomical periods, which do, as the web and
the woof, intersect and intertwine each other with multiplied and
variegated harmony of arrangement, knitting together all the great eras
of the world, and the most ancient antediluvian periods with the events
of our times, as to make it manifest that it is the workmanship, not of
a finite mind, but of Him who set forth the sun and moon in their
courses;”[38] see page 25. The author next recapitulates the series of
great periods to the birth and death of Christ, shows the use of the
scientific chronology in refuting false dates, &c.; and gives
astronomical evidence of the near approximation of the larger lunisolar
cycles to the exact truth. He then terminates this work with a series of
the most valuable tables of chronology from Creation to A. D. 1837,
including a curious table of the great periods which expire in that
year.

  2. Evidence in favour of the Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies
       compared and tested by Mr. Cuninghame—His detection of the Scheme
       of Fraud invented by the Jewish Rabbis for shortening the
       chronology of the Scriptures—His exposition of this Scheme in
       _three distinct Acts_, and the result of the whole.

In his work, entitled “The Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies Tried,” he
very carefully sifts the evidence in favour of both systems, by a minute
analysis of the Jubilean series from the Greek era of Creation B. C.
5478, and from the Hebrew era, B. C. 4004, and demonstrates, by a
comparative estimate of both series, that the former must be the true
chronology; he then applies the test of the lunisolar cycles to the same
era in both systems, and to other eras of marked importance,
illustrating the whole in a tabular form; establishes the accuracy of
the Greek series in the most irrefragable manner; and, finally, detects
the scheme adopted by the Jewish Rabbis in shortening the chronology of
the Scriptures, showing that, though it be one of deep and artful
contrivance, it will not stand the test of scientific investigation. The
following is their scheme of fraud which the author has detected, and
which they have employed for this nefarious purpose. The _first_ act of
the Rabbis in corrupting the chronology, was to determine the total sum
of years to be annihilated. The _second_ act was to divide it among the
great subdivisions of the Mundane Times. The _third_ act was to
distribute it among the reigns and administrations so as most
effectually to conceal the fraud. They _first_ determined to place the
Mundane era at the birth of Lamech B. C. 4005. This comes out at the 1st
of Nisan, of his first year B. C. 4004. Thus they annihilated 1474
years. Their _second_ act was to divide this sum of 1474 years, by
abstracting periods equal to the following from the great subdivisions
of the Mundane ages:—

I. Before the Deluge; 1st, A period equal to that from Noah’s birth B.
C. 3817, to the flood B. C. 3217, namely 600 years: 2nd, From the death
of Methusaleh to the Deluge, six years; making the total curtailed from
the Creation to the Flood, 606 years.

II. From the Flood to Abraham; a period equal to the interval from the
death of Noah B. C. 2867, to the year before the birth of Abraham B. C.
2146, (“Fulness of the Times,” p. 138), 721 years.

III. From the Exodus to the foundation of Solomon’s Temple; a period
equal to the interval from the Exodus B. C. 1639, to the administration
of Ehud B. C. 1506, 133 years.

IV. From the foundation of Solomon’s Temple to the Captivity; a period
equal to the interval from the Captivity of Jehoiachin B. C. 598, to the
carrying away the last remnant of the people B. C. 584, (Jer. lii. 30;
“Dissertation on the Apocalypse,” p. 504,) 14 years.

The total sum of all the years thus abstracted in these four periods is
1474; for in the

                       1st Period are  606 years.
                       2nd     „       721   „
                       3rd     „       133   „
                       4th     „        14   „
                                      ————
                           Total sum  1474   „

and the effect is, as above stated, to make the era of Creation, B. C.
(5478–1474) = B. C. 4004.[39]

  3. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Septuagint and Hebrew
       Chronologies Tried”—His description and Table of the Great
       Periods of 1838—His table of both Chronologies—His appeal to the
       disciples of Usher—His view of their chronological difficulties
       and paradoxes—His call to them to produce their evidence in
       favour of their system.

This work concludes with a description and Table of the Great Periods
which terminate in and mark the year 1838, as the point of time which
sums up and concentrates, as in a focus, the chronology of past ages.
These he divides into four great classes, viz., Mundane, Patriarchal,
Mosaic, and Intermediate Eras, illustrating the whole with tables and
arguments, and ending with “A Comparative Table of the Septuagint and
Hebrew Chronologies from the Creation to the accession of Uzziah, B. C.
810, showing their Jubilean difference to the Christian era at each
date.” The inconceivable labour which the author has undergone to find
out the true system of chronology, and his triumphant success in
establishing it on the double evidence of Scripture testimony and
Mathematical and Astronomical Science, entitle him to make the following
decided appeal to the disciples of Usher, “Septuagint and Hebrew
Chronologies Tried,” pp. 88, 89.

“They, it seems, possess the true chronology! incumbered indeed with a
few awkward difficulties and paradoxes; as that the people, whose sins
St. Paul declares to have been filled up, who had crucified the Messiah,
and were the persecutors of his Church, and are the chronological
forgers who have corrupted the times of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy
weeks, telling us in their almanacs, as I see from that of their year of
the world 5598, answering to 1837–8, now open before me, that from the
destruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar, to that of the second
by the Romans, were only 490 years, the true chronology being 657 years,
are yet more worthy of credit than the apostles of the Lord, and the
first churches, and the text of St. Luke!—As that Abraham was born only
two years after the death of Noah, and was the contemporary of Shem,
Arphaxed, Salah, Eber, the last of whom actually survived him; and thus
that there were different and discordant economies of the world
co-existent and co-etaneous!—As that, it is better to twist, and
crucify, and reject the chronological testimony of the whole book of
Judges, than expressly to admit that the immaculate Rabbis have
interpolated in a single text, 1 Kings vi. 1., a single false
number!—Yet, notwithstanding these few and awkward difficulties,—we
repeat it—the disciples of Usher can have no difficulty, seeing they
possess _the truth!_ in producing from their _hidden treasures_, greater
and more stupendous concentrations of the true chronology, at some given
point of time, than has now been evolved from the Septuagint!”

  4. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame’s later works—Summary of the
       remarkable and original subjects of which they treat—His remarks
       on the Theories of modern Geologists recommended—Their large
       demands upon time not warranted by the simplicity of the Mosaic
       narrative—The authority and authenticity of the Inspired Record
       endangered by their speculations—Another mode of solving
       Geological difficulties recommended—A boon of 1500 years
       additional granted to Geologists—Recommendation of Mr. Morison’s
       “Religious History of Man”—Mr. Cuninghame’s discoveries
       concentrated in his “Chart of Chronology” and “Essay,” and in the
       Appendices to the fourth edition of his “Dissertation on the
       Apocalypse.”

The views developed by Mr. Cuninghame, in the preceding work, are still
more fully exemplified and applied in his later works. In these, he
gives, 1st, A Table, accompanied with numerous cyclical demonstrations,
of the great periods which expire in 1839; a further elucidation of the
four great classes of Eras, the Mundane, the Patriarchal, the
Ecclesiastical, and the Prophetical; and remarks on the great periods
which expire in 1840 and 1841. 2nd.—Tables of the whole Eras from
Creation to the last year of Christ’s personal ministry, and of years
subsequent to that event, from which simple Trinal Fractions being
reckoned, terminate in 1839. 3rd.—Table of the Great Periods which
expire in 1840, with remarks and illustrations; Division of the Mundane
period from Creation to 1840, into eleven subordinate periods or ages,
marked by perfect cycles of scientific time; the arrival of the time of
the End, and of the Restoration of Israel.[40] To the latter work, he
prefixes some pertinent and pungent remarks on the modern Theories of
Geology as opposed to the Scriptures, in which we entirely coincide;
and, though our space will not permit us to enter into any discussion,
we cannot avoid remarking, that the principle of interposing, between
the first and second verses of Genesis, chap. i.—“_millions of
ages_”—“_unlimited drafts upon antiquity_”—“_an unutterable
period_”—“_unnumbered ages_,” &c.,—is wholly unwarranted by the truth
and simplicity of the Mosaic narrative, and extremely dangerous to the
authority and authenticity of the Inspired Record. Instead of demanding
“millions of ages,” therefore, we would seriously advise
Geologists—Christian Geologists, at least,—to be content with the
extraordinary rapidity of chemical operations and electrical
developements, within a very limited period of time, and to endeavour to
explain their Geological phenomena in a manner more in accordance with
the known chronology of the world, to the common estimate of which _must
now be added_ nearly 1500 years on the authority of Scripture! But on
this subject we must refer to the author’s work, “Season of the End,”
pp. viii-xiii., and to Morison’s “Religious History of Man,” ch. ii. pp.
25–46. In fine, we observe, that the results of Mr. Cuninghame’s labours
and discoveries are concentrated in the “Chart of Chronology” and
“Essay,” and in the fourth edition of the “Dissertation on the
Apocalypse.”

NOTE A.


  The number and variety of the author’s proofs of this general
  proposition are so great, that we can scarcely dip into a page of his
  chronological works without meeting them; the following are some of
  the most remarkable instances.

  _From Creation_ B. C. 5478,—to the birth of Enoch B. C. 4357, are 1121
  years, _a number_ which is 59 times the cycle of 19 years,—to the
  Deluge B. C. 3217, are 2261 years, which is 119 times or 17 weeks of
  the cycle of 19,—to Noah’s Egression from the Ark B. C. 3216, are 2262
  years, which is a Lunar cycle, the moon fast 15 hours,—to the birth of
  Arphaxad B. C. 3215, are 2263 years, which is the product of the
  Trinal Fractions 31 and 73,—and _from the death of Adam_ B. C. 4548,
  to the birth of Arphaxad, are 1333 years, which is the trinal fraction
  of 36, and the product of the trinal fractions 31 and 43.

  _To the Dedication of Solomon’s Temple_ B. C. 1019,—from Creation, are
  4459 years, which is 91 Jubilees or 13 cubes of 7, or the product of
  the cube of the trinal fraction of 2 by the trinal fraction of 3;
  otherwise, it is 13 weeks of the Jubilee, 91 and 13 being both trinal
  fractions, as well as 343 the week of the Jubilee,—from the birth of
  Arphaxad, are 2196 years, which is 12 times the trinal fraction
  183,—from the birth of Abraham B. C. 2145, are 1126 years, which is
  the sum of the trinal fractions 993 and 133,—from the birth of Isaac
  B. C. 2045, are 1026 years, which is 54 times the cycle of 19,—from
  the birth of Ishmael B. C. 2059, are 1040 years, which is a perfect
  Lunar cycle,—and from the Exodus B. C. 1639, are 620 years, which is
  20 times the trinal fraction 31.

  _From Creation_,—to the foundation of Rome B. C. 753, are 4725 years,
  which is 15 times the Lunar cycle of 315 years,—to the taking of
  Babylon by Cyrus B. C. 538, are 4940 years, which is 260 times the
  cycle of 19,—to the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey B. C. 63, are 5415
  years, which is 15 times the square of the cycle of 19,—to the death
  of Christ A. D. 33, are 5510 years, which is 290 times the cycle of
  19,—and from the Deluge to the death of Christ, are 3249 years, which
  is 9 times the square of the cycle of 19, or the product of the
  squares of 3 and 19.

  _From the death of Noah_ B. C. 2867, to that of Shem B. C. 2715, are
  152 years, which is 8 times the cycle of 19; thence, to that of
  Arphaxad B. C. 2677, 38 years, which is 2 times the cycle of 19; and
  thence, to that of Cainan II. B. C. 2620, 57 years, which is 3 times
  the cycle of 19,—to the birth of Abraham, are 722 years, which is 2
  times the square of the cycle 19,—to the death of Joseph B. C. 1784,
  are 1083 years, which is 3 times the square of the cycle of 19,—to the
  birth of David B. C. 1100, are 1767 years, which is 93 cycles of
  19,—and to the French Revolution of A. D. 1789, are 4655 years, which
  is 245 cycles of 19, or 95 Jubilees. From the flood to the death of
  Salah B. C. 2517, are 700 years; and from the death of Noah to the
  same, are 350 years.

  From the birth of Judah B. C. 1903, to the attempt to establish a
  Christian church at Jerusalem A. D. 1842, are exactly 3744 years,
  which is two times the square of 12, added to 3 times the cube of 12.
  From the capture of Jerusalem by David B. C. 1063, to A. D. 1842, are
  exactly 2904 years, or 2 times the square of 11, added to 2 times the
  cube of 11. Hence, from the birth of Judah to the capture of
  Jerusalem, are 840 years, which is the product of 70 and 12, or of 7
  and 120. From the Exodus B. C. 1639, to the capture of Jerusalem, are
  576 years, which is 4 times the square of 12, and to A. D. 1842, are
  3480 years, which is 2 times 12 added to 2 times the cube of 12; and
  from the entrance of Israel into Canaan B. C. 1599, to A. D. 1842, are
  3440 years, which is 8 times 430, (see Exodus xii. 40.)


                                NOTE B.


  It is utterly impossible to give our readers any correct idea of the
  extraordinary labour which the author must have had in the
  construction of these Tables, or of the astonishing coincidences which
  he has discovered in the cyclical periods of time which connect remote
  events in the history of the world with those which are passing under
  our own eyes in these latter days; we must positively refer our
  readers to the works themselves, particularly the “Season of the End.”
  We shall take however one event from this work, as an example of the
  rest, namely, the “Accession of Victoria,” A. D. 1837, and show how he
  connects it with past history in the true system of Chronology. From
  the birth of Seth, B. C. 5249, are 7085 years, which is the sum of the
  trinal fractions 6973, 91, and 21; the corresponding epochs being a
  Grand conjunction of the Planets in A. D. 1725, the first year of
  General Peace in A. D. 1816, and the Accession; or, the sum of the
  trinal fractions 6963, 91, and 31, the corresponding epochs being the
  Rebellion of A. D. 1715, the fall of Prussia in A. D. 1806, and the
  Accession.

  From the birth of Enos B. C. 5044, are 6880 years, which is the sum of
  the trinal fractions 6807 and 73. From the death of Seth B. C. 4337,
  are 6173 years, which is the sum of 5932, or 4 times the fraction
  1483, and the fraction 241; the corresponding epochs, being the Divine
  defeat of the Spanish Armada in A. D. 1596, and the Accession. From
  the birth of Methuselah B. C. 4192, are 6028 years, which is the sum
  of the fractions 6007 and 21, the corresponding epochs being the
  General Peace in A. D. 1816, and the Accession. From the birth of
  Japhet B. C. 3317, are 5153 years, which is the sum of 4820, or 20
  times the fraction 241, and 333, or 3 times the fraction 111. From the
  Egression of Noah from the Ark B. C. 3216, are 5052 years, which is
  the sum of 4995, or 45 times the fraction 111, and the fraction 57 or
  3 times the cycle of 19.

  From the death of Eber B. C. 2416, are 4252 years, which is the sum of
  the fractions 4161 and 91, the corresponding epochs being the defeat
  of the Pretender at Culloden in A. D. 1746, and the Accession. From
  the Call of Abraham B. C. 2070, are 3906 years, which is the sum of
  3885 or 35 times the fraction 111 and the fraction 21, the
  corresponding epochs being the General Peace in A. D. 1816, and the
  Accession. From the beginning of the 3rd servitude of Israel B. C.
  1426, are 3262 years, which is the sum of 3219, or 29 times the
  fraction 111, and the fraction 43, the corresponding epochs being the
  fall of Robespierre A. D. 1794, and the Accession. From the captivity
  in Babylon B. C. 606, are 2442 years, which is 22 times the fraction
  111, and terminates at the epoch of the Accession. From the birth of
  Christ B. C. 3, are 1839 years, which is the sum of 1776, or 16 times
  the fraction 111, and 63, or 3 times the fraction 21, the
  corresponding epochs being the Accession of Louis XVI. in 1774, and
  the Accession of Victoria I. But we must stop here, having cited only
  12 instances out of 30 given by the author, in which the latter event
  is shown to be linked to great events in the former history of the
  world by curious and remarkable cycles of time.




                                   A

                              DISSERTATION

                                   ON

                       THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD.




                               =Part II.=




                               CHAPTER I.
             THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

  Primeval prophecy concerning the Messiah—Errors in the translation of
      it, in different versions—Correct in the Septuagint—Tradition of
      this prophecy in the Ante and Post Diluvian ages—Its clearer
      development in the Patriarchal Age—Dr. Lamb’s explanation of the
      word _Shiloh_—Prophecy of Balaam in the Critarchal Age—Predictions
      of Moses and Hannah—The glorious revelations of the Monarchal
      Age—The testimony of the Psalms to the Messiah—Explanation of the
      last words of David from Kennicott—Application of the term _Sun_
      to Jehovah—Testimony of the Prophecies to the Messiah—Isaiah, the
      Evangelical Prophet—The predictions at the close of the Monarchal
      and the commencement of the Hierarchal Age—Testimony among the
      Heathen.


In the Introduction to the first part of this Dissertation, we very
shortly alluded to the tradition and prophecies concerning the first
Advent of the Messiah, which were prevalent in the world before the era
of Christianity. That, in consequence of the prophecies, traces of such
a tradition, from a very remote period, should be found among all
nations, will not be deemed improbable by those who attentively read and
sincerely believe the records of Inspiration. There indeed, we find that
the first sweet note of Jubilee which sounded in the ears of Fallen Man,
was the distant promise of Redemption by the hands of a Mediator,
announced in the Divine prediction of the punishment to be inflicted on
the Author of Sin by the Seed of the woman:—“HE shall bruise thy _Head_,
and thou shalt bruise his _Heel_;” Gen. iii. 15. The meaning of this
very remarkable passage is greatly obscured in our vulgar translation by
the use of the neuter pronoun _It_ (Ipsum), instead of the masculine
_He_ (Ipse), which clearly refers to the _Seed_ of the woman, who is
_Christ_. The Seventy Interpreters have correctly employed the masculine
pronoun _He_ (ἄυτος) in the Greek Version; while, in the Latin Vulgate,
the feminine pronoun _She_ (Ipsa) has very absurdly been inserted, as if
the prediction referred to the _Woman_ herself and not to her Seed! Some
have attributed this error to Josephus; but we do not think it is at all
borne out by the passage referred to in his Antiquities, although it is
quite evident that he was utterly ignorant of the true meaning of the
prophecy.[41] To us, it appears to savour more of a Rabbinical or Roman
Catholic gloss; be this, however, as it may, it is evident that had the
translators or editors of the Latin version remembered that “the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” they would not have
committed such an egregious mistake.

With the reign of sin, began the reign of mercy. Thus early was it
declared that the Messiah should come to destroy the _works_ of the
Devil; and thus early was it announced that the Christ should _suffer_
and enter into his glory! All the attempts of the Wicked One for ages
have never been able to obliterate this first and glorious prophecy of
God from the remembrance of the human mind. Onward it has passed from
father to son, and from patriarch to patriarch, gathering fresh vigour
and clearness in its descent; brightly did it beam, even in the
Antediluvian age, through the righteous preaching of Enoch and of Noah;
and having survived the deluge, anew did it shine forth in the
Postdiluvian age, in the glorious anticipations of the ancient Idumean
prince, and in the Divine revelations vouchsafed to the great Father of
the Jewish nation. “I know,” said Job (xix. 25), “that my Redeemer
liveth, and that he shall stand at the _latter day_ upon the earth.”
Again, “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made;” for, God said
not “_And to seeds_, as of many; but as of one, _And to thy seed_, which
is Christ.” See Genesis xiii. 15; xv. 18; xviii. 7; xxii. 18; and
Galatians iii. 16.

The divine predictions concerning the person and work of the Messiah
were more clearly developed in the Patriarchal age. To Isaac and to
Jacob, they were at first announced in terms very similar to those in
which they were conveyed to Abraham; Genesis xxvi. 3; xxviii. 13; and
xxxv. 10. But to Israel, was it given, to declare to the Twelve
Patriarchs, while uttering his dying benediction, the celebrated
prophecy concerning _Shiloh_, which was fully verified in the Advent of
our Saviour, whatever may be deemed the true interpretation of the name;
Genesis xlix. 10. Although we cannot agree with Dr. Lamb, in his theory
of the existence of a Hieroglyphic language previous to a Phonetic one,
we think that he has struck out the real meaning of this term _Shiloh_,
when he says, “The word is literally ‏ש‎, ‘who’ or ‘who is’
‏ילוה‎(Jelovah), the very same word as ‏יהוה‎ ‘Jehovah,’ with the
original ‏ל‎ restored. Thus Jacob points out the Messiah by a title
which could be applied to no other individual, and declared the Divinity
of our Saviour about seventeen hundred [1838] years before his birth.
The three words, (omitting ‏יס‎ which implies an attribute of omniscience)

                  ‏אליה‎ Alovah, The Creator,
                  ‏יהוה‎ Jehovah, The God of Israel,
                  ‏ילוה‎ Jelovah, The Promised Messiah,

are one and the same. We need no farther comment upon the 58th verse of
the 8th chapter of St. John: Ἀμὴν, Ἀμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ
γενεσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. “Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I
am.” See his work entitled “Hebrew Characters derived from
Hieroglyphics,” p. 86.

During the Critarchal Age, the predictions concerning Christ were less
numerous; but it commenced with the brilliant prophecy of the Star which
was to come out of Jacob, and terminated with the first announcement in
Scripture of the name of the Messiah. To Balaam it was permitted to
foresee in splendid vision, the glory of Israel in the latter days, and
the rise of a Sceptre or King who should possess universal dominion; see
Numbers xxiv. 17. Dr. Gill, in his comment on this passage, seems to
think that the Star which the Eastern Magi saw at the birth of Christ,
is here clearly foretold, and that the Jews themselves were at that
period in expectation of such a phenomenon. That this universal King was
to be a Jew, is manifestly the opinion held by the Seventy Interpreters;
for in their version, the prophecy is thus rendered, “A star shall arise
out of Jacob, and _a man_ shall be raised up, or shall raise himself up,
out of Israel.” How strongly does this passage remind us of our
Saviour’s own words, when speaking of his Mission, he said, “I have
power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again;” John
x. 18. Moses, who had so often spoken to the children of Israel
concerning Jehovah their God, and the “Angel of his presence,” was at
last commissioned to predict the Advent of Christ in the following
words: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like
unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth;” Deuter. xviii. 15. To
this prophecy is added an awful sanction, to which our Saviour plainly
alluded when speaking of the unbeliever he said, “the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day;” John xii. 48. But to
the mother of Samuel, the prophet, was it first given to announce in
holy prayer and song, the name of the Messiah, the anointed of the Lord;
for she said “Jehovah shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall
give strength unto our king, and exalt the horn of his _Messiah_;” 1
Samuel ii. 10.

The clearest revelations of this divine personage, however, were
reserved for the glory of the Monarchal Age, the acme of the Levitical
dispensation, which all along prefigured the good things to come. In the
Psalms written by David the king, “the sweet Psalmist of Israel,” we
find the brightest anticipations of the happiness and universality of
Christ’s kingdom, accompanied with the most distinct intimations of his
estate of humiliation and exaltation. We refer particularly to the 2nd
Psalm, which speaks of him by name as the Messiah; the 8th, of his
assumption of our nature; the 16th, of his resurrection and ascension;
the 22nd, of his words and his feelings on the cross; the 24th and 68th,
of his reception and glory in heaven; the 40th, of the union of his
divine and human nature; the 45th and 72nd, of the eternity and glory of
his reign; the 91st of his temptation; the 97th of his adoration by the
angels; the 102nd and 110th, of his divinity, perpetual priesthood, and
eternal duration; the 118th, of his rejection by the Jews; the 132nd, of
his name and office as the Messiah; and, the 146th, of his final and
everlasting dominion. Moreover, in the last words of David, as
elucidated by the critical industry and acumen of Dr. Kennicott, we have
a remarkable prophecy of the coming of Christ, couched in one of the
most splendid and pleasing figures which can be drawn from the phenomena
of the natural world: “And as the light of the morning, shall arise
_Jehovah_ the Sun, a morning without clouds, with the glittering of the
dew on the tender herb of the earth;” 2 Samuel xxiii. 4. In this passage
of the printed Hebrew text the word _Jehovah_ has been omitted; but the
corresponding words Θεος and Κυρισς have been preserved in the
Septuagint; and Dr. Kennicott found the word ‏יהוה‎ Jehovah, which is
wanting in the printed text, in one of the oldest Hebrew MSS. in the
Bodleian library, marked by him No. 2; see his “Dissertation” entitled
“The Printed State of the Hebrew Text, &c.” vol. i. pp. 468–471. As ‏ש‎
_Shin_ or _Sin_, in the Hieroglyphics of Dr. Lamb, signifies the _Sun_,
being the first and last letter of the Hebrew word ‏שמש‎, _Shemesh_, the
Sun, it is possible that even the term ‏שילה‎ _Shiloh_, which he has so
ingeniously explained, may have originally signified the _Sun Jelovah_:
and hence, the origin and propriety of some of the figurative and
prophetical expressions to be found in the Psalms and the Prophets.
Thus, in Psalm lxxxiv. 11, “The Lord God is a _Sun_ and shield:” in
Isaiah xix. 18, “One shall be called the City of the _Sun_;” xxx. 26:
“the light of the _Sun_ shall be sevenfold, as the light of _seven_
days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people;” lx.
20: “thy _Sun_ shall go no more down, neither shall thy moon withdraw
itself, for the Lord shall be thine everlasting _light_;” and, in
Malachi iv. 2, “But unto you that fear my name, shall the _Sun_ of
righteousness arise with healing in his wings.”

Almost all the predictions concerning Christ to be found in the writings
of the prophets, were delivered to the Jews during the Monarchal age;
and so clearly and distinctly have some of the prophecies, particularly
those of Isaiah, pointed out his generation, his person, his office, his
character and his sufferings, that rather than yield to conviction,
infidels have even dared to assert that the descriptions which they
contain were written _after_ the events took place! This Evangelical
prophet first unfolded the true meaning of the primeval prophecy, by
announcing, in the 7th chapter, that he should be born of a Virgin, and
that his name should be called _Immanuel_, or _God with us_; by
ascribing to him, in the 9th, the names and attributes of Deity; by
declaring, in the 11th, his descent from David according to the flesh;
by describing in the 11th, 32nd, and 61st, his offices as a prophet,
priest and king; by foretelling, in the 40th, the words and the office
of his Forerunner, John the Baptist; in the 11th, and 49th, the calling
of the Gentiles to his kingdom; and, in the 49th, 60th, and 65th, their
willingness to receive him as the Messiah; in the 52nd, and 53rd, his
external appearance and circumstances; in the 6th, 8th, and 28th, his
unbelieving reception and final rejection by the Jews; in the 53rd, the
gracious design of his sufferings, and the striking manner of his trial,
death and burial: and by declaring in the 35th, 40th, and 55th, his
glory as the Almighty conqueror, the compassionate Saviour, and the
righteous Judge of all; in the 9th, his heirship to the throne of
_David_, as the _beloved_ king of all the true Israel of God; and in the
35th, 62nd, and 65th, his glorious reign in the new Jerusalem above, in
the heavenly and eternal Zion, as the King of kings and Lord of Lords,
the Omnipotent Creator, the everlasting Ruler, and the immortal
Preserver of Angels and of Men.

Towards the close of the Monarchal age, during the Babylonish captivity,
and near the beginning of the Hierarchal age, many splendid predictions
of the Messiah, were vouchsafed to the Prophets, for the comfort of
those who mourned in Zion for the abominations of the land and the sins
of Judah, and for the solace of those who piously submitted to the
righteous judgments of God. Thus, in the 23rd chapter of Jeremiah, we
have a prophecy of the future elevation of a king of the house of David,
whose name should be called _The Lord our Righteousness_; and in the
33rd, of the _perpetual humanity_ of the final heir to David’s throne;
in the 34th and 37th, of Ezekiel, of the _ultimate accession_ of the
Antitype _David_ as the Shepherd and Prince of his people; in the 7th of
Daniel, of the everlasting dominion of the _Son of Man_ over all the
kingdoms of the world, given to him by the _Ancient of Days_; in the 8th
and 12th, of the _opposition_ to the kingdom of the Prince of Princes,
and of the _Time of the End_ disclosed by the _Wonderful Numberer_; in
the 9th, 10th, and 12th, of the coming of the _Messiah_ the Prince, and
of the Defence of his people by _Michael_ the great and sole Archangel;
in the 2nd of Haggai, of the Advent of the _Desire_ of all nations, and
the _Glory_ of the Second Temple; in the 3rd and 6th of Zechariah, of
the springing up, in due time, of the righteous servant of Jehovah,
denominated _The Branch_; in the 13th, of the mystery of the
_Incarnation_, and the circumstances attending the _Crucifixion_; and,
in the 3rd and 4th of Malachi, of the Mission of John the Baptist, and
the unexpected appearance of the “Angel of the Covenant” in the Temple
at Jerusalem.

In the midst of all these glorious predictions from the fall of Adam to
the close of the Old Testament Canon, comprising a period of more than
5000 years,[42] we cannot suppose that the Heathen were left utterly
ignorant of their existence and their meaning; or, that the people of
God did not, in some way or other, make known to the nations by whom
they were surrounded, the glory of his grace and the manifestations of
his eternal power and Godhead. It is certain, indeed, that Jehovah never
left himself without a witness to his truth, his mercy and his goodness,
in any age of the world; and we shall now proceed shortly to enquire by
what means this testimony was begun and carried on among mankind, by the
perpetual exhibition of the natural and supernatural phenomena, which
accompanied the revelations of his will to his chosen people in all
ages.




                              CHAPTER II.
   TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO THE SUBJECT OF PROPHECY.

  1. Object of the Disposition of the Cherubim at Eden—Its disappearance
       from the earth—The remembrance of its glory transmitted to the
       Postdiluvians—Its occasional re-appearance to Abraham, to Moses,
       to Israel, to Elijah, and to Isaiah—Identity of the visions of
       Isaiah, Ezekiel, and John—Similarity of the visions of Daniel,
       John, the Three Disciples, and Paul—Object of these glorious
       representations in heaven and on earth—Known among the Heathen,
       and grafted on their religious worship—Origin of Zabaism, and its
       spread over the world.


The setting up of the Cherubim, and a Flaming Fire, likened to a sword,
as the emblems of the Divine glory and presence, in the garden of Eden,
after the expulsion of Adam, was an evidence of God’s mercy and favour
to fallen man, and a symbolical indication of the ultimate fulfilment of
the primeval prophecy; Gen. iii. 24. As God set the _Bow_ in the cloud
to be a memorial of his covenant with all flesh regarding the future
preservation of the earth from the waters of a flood, so he set the
_Shechinah_ in paradise to be a memorial of his covenant with man
regarding the future destruction of his implacable enemy, and the future
restoration of himself and his posterity to innocence and happiness,
through the Almighty power of Him who dwelt between the Cherubim. That
man was appointed to reside in the vicinity of Eden, and to worship
before this supernatural evidence of the divine glory, is manifest even
from the very short notices of the history of the Antediluvian world,
which now remain. The sacrifice of Abel is supposed to have been
consumed by _fire_ from the Shechinah, as a proof of its acceptance
through faith in the promised Saviour; and the punishment of Cain
appears to have consisted chiefly in his banishment from the face or
presence of the Lord at Eden. There, indeed, did men first begin to call
on the name of Jehovah; and thence, no doubt, was Enoch first translated
to the kingdom of glory.

The flood at last came, and the Shechinah disappeared from the earth;
but the remembrance of its supernal glory was preserved in the family of
Noah. There was nothing, however, in nature with which it could be
compared, for beauty and for dazzling brightness, but the _Sun_ itself,
or a _Flaming Fire_ most terrible to the beholders. Such, indeed, have
always been the terms of comparison used by those whom God hath favoured
with the heavenly vision; and such, no doubt, was the description of the
appearance of the Edenic Cherubim, given by the sons of the great
Antediluvian to their posterity. In the appearance of Jehovah to Abraham,
the divine presence was accompanied by a _flame_, a smoking furnace, and
lamps of _fire_, Gen. xv. 17; to Moses in Horeb, by a flame of fire out
of the midst of a bush, Exodus iii. 2; and to Israel, in the wilderness,
by a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of _fire_ by night, xiii. 21;
at Sinai, by thunders and lightnings, devouring _fire_, and smoke as the
smoke of a furnace, xix. 16, and xxiv. 17; and at the setting up of the
tabernacle of the congregation, by cloud and _fire_, and the _glory_ of
the Lord, the Insessor of the Cherubim, lx. 34. At the destruction of
the priests of Baal, God answered Elijah[43] by _fire_, 1 Kings, xviii.
38; at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, the _glory_ of the Lord
appeared with cloud and _fire_, 2 Chronicles vii. 1; and, in the year
that King Uzziah died, Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and spake of Him;
then was the house filled with smoke, and His _glory_ filled the temple
and the whole earth; and then was that glorious _Trisagium_ pronounced
by the Seraphim, in the hearing of the prophet, and afterwards repeated
by the four Living Creatures in that of the beloved disciple, which
establishes for ever in the mind of the believer, His eternal power and
Godhead, Isaiah vi. 1–4; John xii. 41; and Rev. iv. 8.

In the land of Chaldea, by the river of Chebar, and in the Temple of the
Lord at Jerusalem, Ezekiel saw the _glory_ of the God of Israel,
accompanied with a great cloud and a _fire_ infolding itself, and a
brightness about it like the rainbow; the appearance of the _Living
Creatures_, which he knew were the _Cherubim_, was like burning coals of
_fire_, like the appearance of lamps, and out of the _fire_ went forth
lightning; and the voice of the Almighty was like the noise of many
waters, and the earth _shined_ with his _glory_, Ezek. i. x; lxiii. In
his night visions at Babylon, Daniel beheld the _glory_ of the Ancient
of Days, having a throne like the _fiery_ flame, wheels as burning
_fire_, and a _fiery_ stream issuing from before him, vii. 9; and by the
side of the river Hiddekel, he saw a man whose face had the appearance
of _lightning_, and his eyes as lamps of _fire_, his arms and feet like
polished brass, and his voice like the voice of a multitude, x. 6.
Peter, James, and John saw the _glory_ of Christ on the mount of
transfiguration, when his face did shine as the _Sun_, and his raiment
was white as the _light_, and a bright cloud overshadowed them, Matthew
xvii. 2, 5; Paul, at mid-day, saw his _glory_ as a light from heaven
above the brightness of the _Sun_, Acts xxvi. 13; and he declared to the
Hebrews of that age, as Moses did to the children of Israel 1700 years
before him, in language of the strongest metaphor, that Jehovah our God
is a consuming _fire_, Heb. xii. 29, and Deut. iv. 24. John, who said
that God is _light_ and in him is no darkness at all, and that Christ is
the _Light_ of the World, saw, in the Isle of Patmos, his eyes as a
flame of _fire_, his feet like unto fine brass, as if they _burned_ in a
furnace, and his countenance as the _Sun_ shineth in his strength, and
heard his voice as the sound of many waters, Rev. i. 14–16; he beheld
the mighty angel clothed with a cloud, and a rainbow over his head, and
his face as it were the _Sun_, and his feet as pillars of _fire_, x. 1;
and he saw the _Faithful and True Witness_, whose eyes were as a flame
of _fire_, and on whose head were _many crowns_, who possesses _the
Incommunicable Name_, and who is called _the Word of God_, the KING OF
KINGS, and the LORD OF LORDS, xix. 11–16.

From all the splendid and glowing imagery, which is thus employed in
Scripture, to shew forth the glory of Christ, and under which human
language, though the gift of God, seems to labour and groan as under an
insupportable burden, it is manifest that He, who is the brightness of
his Father’s _glory_ and the express image of his person, hath, by
symbolical representations of himself, both under the Old and the New
Dispensations, declared the being and attributes of God from the
beginning of the world. The Angel of Jehovah has, in fact, in all ages,
made the heavens declare the _glory_ of God, and the firmament shew
forth his handy work; in them, he hath set a tabernacle for the _Sun_,
to demonstrate the wonders of his grace; and, he hath ordained the moon
and the stars, not only to rule the night and direct the seasons, but to
utter all his _praise_ in a universal language, which he has imparted to
all nations under the whole heaven; Deut. iv. 19; Psalm viii. 3; and
xix. 3. Thus it appears, that even among the heathen, the remembrance of
the true God and his Son the Redeemer, was kept up by tradition and by
symbol; and that traces of the grand truth first announced in the
primeval prophecy, and afterwards gradually developed to God’s chosen
people at sundry times and in divers manners, are to be found in the
history of the religious worship of mankind in all ages, and from the
remotest times. Before the flood these traces are no doubt very obscure,
but they are not altogether obliterated. Soon after the deluge, however,
was the light of the _Sun of Righteousness_ bedimmed in their gross
minds by that of the natural emblems of his glory; and soon was _“the
truth of God” changed into “the lie” of the devil_; for they began to
worship and serve the _creature_ more than the _Creator_, who is God
over all, and blessed for ever. Hence, arose the earliest and the most
extensive system of idolatry ever known in the world, the worship of the
_Sun_, and the _Moon_, and all the _Host of Heaven_; with this also was
connected the worship of _Fire_, _Light_, and _Ether_, and of all those
symbolical representations of these natural phenomena, which are to be
discovered in the ancient records of the Babylonians, Assyrians,
Chaldeans, Egyptians, Phenicians, and Persians, as well as in the early
histories or traditions of the Chinese and the Hindoos or Eastern
Indians of the Old Continent, the Britons, and the Celts or Gauls who
overspread Europe, and the Peruvians and Mexicans or Western Indians of
the New World.

  2. The Sun worshipped by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans,
       under the names of Baal, or Beelsamen—By the Egyptians, under the
       names of Orus and Osiris—Connection between the Sun and
       Sirius—The Sun and his Satellite worshipped by the Israelites,
       under the names of Molech and Remphan, Baal, and Ashtaroth,
       during the Critarchal age—The Zabian idolatry set up at Jerusalem
       in the Monarchal age—The partial Reformation of Josiah—The
       ancient Persians, Sun and Fire worshippers—Origin of Mithras—The
       gods of Phenicia, Elioun, and Adonis or Tammuz.

It is of some importance to our general argument, to refer to a few of
the evidences of this universal species of idolatry, which are still to
be found in the names ascribed to the gods which these different nations
worshipped. Among the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans,
there existed from the age of Nimrod to the destruction of Nineveh and
Babylon, the worship of _Baal_, in Hebrew ‏בעל‎ _Lord_, which signifies,
astrologically speaking, _Lord of the Ascendant_; this term is in fact
the same as ‏בל‎, _Bel_, or _Belus_, βῆλος, βέλις, or Ἡλιος, and
signifies the _Sun_, who is called in Chaldee ‏בעלשמין‎, βεελσαμεν, or
_Beelsamen_, the Lord or _Master of the Heavens_, and Leader of the
Heavenly Host. Among the Egyptians arose, at a period perhaps prior to,
or, at least, coeval with the age of Nimrod, the worship of _Orus_ and
_Osiris_, and at a later period, their attendant or identical gods,
_Isis_, _Apis_, _Serapis_, _Anubis_, &c.; yea, “all the gods of Egypt.”
The earliest of these is _Orus_, from the Hebrew ‏הרס‎ _Eres_, or ‏חרס‎
_Heres_, the _Sun_; or from ‏אור‎ _Aur_, or ‏האור‎ _He Aur_, the
_Light_, or _Fire_, a term also applied to the Sun; whence, evidently
comes the Greek ὡρος,[44] and ὡρα, or _Horus_, _Hora_, and _Era_, Time,
a period of Time, and the beginning of Time, all of which are measured
by the revolutions of the _Sun_. Next comes _Osiris_, from the Hebrew
‏הרס‎, _Eres_[45] inverted, that is _Sere_, the Sun, or from ‏השר‎ and
‏הסר‎, _He Ser_, _the Prince_ or _Chief_; whence also, ὁ Σείρ and ὁ
Σείριος, _the Sun_, or _Sirius_ (and the English terms _Sir_, or _Sire_,
and _Sirrah_), the former denoting the _Chief_, or _King_ of Heaven, and
the latter, his _Satellite_ or _Companion_, in Hebrew ‏סריס‎, _Seris_, a
_Double_, or _himself_, as in Hesiod, “Opera et Dies” line 417, where he
is called Σείριος ἀστὴς; otherwise, the terms Σείρ and Σείριος may be
derived from ‏זהר‎ _Zeer_, _Light_; ‏שחר‎ _Seher_, _Morning_; or ‏זרח‎
_Zereh_, the East or Sun-rising. All these terms, both in Hebrew and
Greek, have evidently an intimate connection with each other, and
indicate that there was originally some astronomical relation between
the _Sun_ and _Sirius_, the largest and brightest of all the stars in
the firmament. The term Σείριον, _Sirion_, indeed, derived from Σείριος,
_Sirius_, is applied indiscriminately to every star, because all the
stars were either supposed to follow the Sun in his daily course, or to
borrow their light from that luminary. From this source, there can be
little doubt that the Israelites, during their period of bondage in
Egypt, borrowed their ‏מלך‎, _Moloch_, or ‏מלככם‎, _Molekem_ and
_Milcom_, that is, their _king_, and the Star of their god _Remphan_ or
_Chiun_ ‏כיון‎; whence comes Κύων, or _Canis_ and _Canicula_, the
Dog-star or Sirius, idols of which they made to themselves figures to
worship in the wilderness, Amos v. 26; Acts vii. 43.

This kind of idolatry appears to have been pursued with more or less
obstinacy by the children of Israel, during the whole period of the
Critarchal and Monarchal ages; notwithstanding the strict prohibitions
of the _First_ and _Second Commandments_, and the awful sanctions with
which their promulgation was accompanied at Mount Sinai. Passing over
the rebellion of the _Golden Calf_ and the sin in the matter of
_Baalpeor_, in the wilderness, we find that the Israelites forsook
Jehovah, after the death of Joshua and of all the elders who outlived
him, and served _Baalim_, or _Baal_ and _Ashtaroth_, ὁ βααλ and ἡ βααλ,
the _King_ and _Queen_ of Heaven; and as often as they repeated this
iniquity, so often were they punished for it, by subjection to the yoke
of their enemies; Judges ii. 13; iii. 7; vi. 30; and ix. 46. After the
worship of the true God was set up in all its magnificence and glory in
the Temple at Jerusalem, how soon, alas! was it forgotten, and that of
_Moloch_ or _Milcom_, _Chemosh_ and _Ashtaroth_ adopted in its stead;
and how consoling must it have been to the real worshipper of Jehovah,
to be informed, that even in the worst of times, there were 7000 in
Israel who had not bowed the knee to _Baal_; 1 Kings, xi. 5; and xix.
18. Nevertheless, Israel was at last cut short for his idolatry, in
making images and groves, worshipping all the _Host of Heaven_, and
serving _Baal_; and Judah, being seduced by Manasseh to commit precisely
the same abominations, was threatened with a similar captivity; 2 Kings,
xvii. 16; and xxi. 3. A temporary suspension of this sentence, however,
took place; and a respite of _forty_ years was granted to the house of
Judah, because of the reform which was effected in the days of King
Josiah. For, he put down them that burned incense to _Baal_, to the
_Sun_, and to the _Moon_, and to the _Planets_, and to all the _Host of
Heaven_;[46] and he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had
given to the _Sun_, and burned the chariots of the _Sun_ with fire; but,
after his death, they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his
words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose
against his people, and there was no remedy: until, in fact, Jerusalem
was destroyed, and Judah carried captive into Babylon; 2 Kings xxiii. 5;
and 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 16.

Among the ancient Persians, the worship of the _Sun_ and _Fire_ appears
to have existed from a period so remote, that no record remains of its
commencement, though there can be no doubt that it was an offshoot from
the Babylonish idolatry. For ages, it appears to have existed in Persia,
in a state of greater purity than in Chaldea, if such a term can be
applied to a corruption of the worship of the true God; and to have been
mingled with more intellectual notions of the being and attributes of
Deity, than were to be found among other heathen nations. The Persians,
indeed, appear to have had a more distinct idea, though still a very
obscure one, of the method by which the human race were finally to be
rescued from the power of the Evil One, and raised to a condition of
purity and bliss. They worshipped the _Sun_ under the name of _Mihr_,
_Mithr_, or _Mithras_; the latter term, according to Mr. Morrison,[47]
signifying _the wounder or bruiser of the head_, and if derived from the
Hebrew ‏מות־ראש‎, _Muthras_, _Lord of Death_, conveying a beautiful
allusion to the primeval prophecy, and to him who, long afterwards was
declared in apocalyptic vision, to have the keys of hell and death, and
who “openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth” the
gates of Paradise. Among the Phenicians, we find, according to a
fragment of their ancient historian, Sanchoniatho, preserved by
Eusebius, that one of their earlier gods was called _Elioun_, from
‏עליון‎, _the Most High_, who was also considered _Man_; and that
Ὀυρανὸς και Γῆ, _the Heavens and the Earth_, were generated or created
by him. They also worshipped the _Sun_, under the names of _Adonis_ and
_Tammuz_; the former evidently from the Hebrew ‏אדוני‎, _Adonai_,
_Lord_; and the latter from the name of the Hebrew month appointed for
the celebration of his orgies. In the weeping for the absence, or
eclipse of _Tammuz_, Selden sees the lamentations for _Osiris_, which
originated in Egypt, and were observed in Phenicia; and in the rejoicing
for his return or resuscitation, Parkhurst discovers a prelude to the
joy of the nations at the advent of the promised Saviour, the true
_Adonai_, or Lord of all;[48] Ezekiel viii. 14; and 1 John ii. 8.

  3. The gods of the Hindoos, Vishnu, Buddha, Brahma, and Seeva, form no
       Trinity—The theft of their names and attributes from the Hebrew
       evinced by their meaning—Buddha an avatar of Vishnu—Origin of
       Fohi, the god of the Chinese—Druidical, Peruvian, Mexican, and
       Parsee worship—Origin of Surya, Suras, and Asuras—Russell’s
       citation of Macrobius on the worship of the Solar god—The
       concentration of Paganism.

Proceeding farther eastward, to nations whose origin is so remote and so
involved in darkness, that all traces of their derivation from the
Noachian stock is lost, we find in their ancient traditions similar
evidences of the truth, buried under a mass of the grossest and most
debasing idolatry. In the avatars, or transformations of _Vishnu_ and
_Buddha_, the gods of the Hindoos, we perceive the awful perversion of
the primeval prophecy, and its stupid admixture with more recent
revelations concerning the Messiah, which have been purposely mystified
and defaced by the agents of the Evil Spirit, in order that poor
besotted mortals might be led away from the truth as it is in Jesus. But
their own traditions testify against the Hindoos, and show, that in not
seeking to know him who had placed his witness in the physical heavens,
they were without excuse; for when they knew God, they glorified him not
as God. The names of their chief gods, _Brahma_, _Vishnu_ and _Seeva_,
plainly indicate their Hebrew origin and meaning. _Brahma_ signifies the
_great Creator_, and is evidently derived from the word ‏ברא‎ _Bra_, _He
created_, which occurs in Genesis i. 1, and ‏אם‎ or ‏אים‎, _Am_ or
_Aim_, _terrible_; and _Vishnu_ or _Veeshnu_, _the Preserver_, from the
copulative ‏ו‎ _Ve_ or _Vau_, and ‏אישנו‎, _Aishnu_ or _Ishnu_, _the Man
for us_; these two, therefore, constitute a _Binity_ or _Duad_, by
reason of the copulative particle between them, and not a _Trinity_ or
_Triad_ in conjunction with _Seeva_, as is generally supposed by
mythologists. As to the latter name, which signifies _the Destroyer_, it
is derived from ‏שואה‎, _Seevah_, _Storm_, or _Destruction_, or from
‏שוע‎, _Seeva_, the _noise_ which accompanies it, thus exemplifying the
idea of the poor untutored Indian, who sees God only in the fearful
storm, and hears Him only in the thunder’s dreadful roar; or, perhaps,
from ‏שוא‎, _Seeva_, a _dream_ or _vain error_, an “insubstantial
pageant,” or even an _idol_, which is _nothing_ in the world. The
exhibition of this triple absurdity in the temples of Hindoostan, not
like _Janus_ at Rome, with _two_ faces, but like _Cerberus_ in Hell,
with _three_ faces, shows not a _Trinity_, or _Sacred_ _Three in One_,
in which Christians believe, but a threefold exhibition of the same God,
as the _Creator_, the _Preserver_, and the _Destroyer_, in which the
Hindoos, like the devils, believe and tremble. These are, in fact, the
attributes of the _true Deity_; for He is Jehovah, and there is none
else; there is no God besides him; he forms the light and creates
darkness; he makes peace and creates evil; but, inasmuch as “they had
not the sense to acknowledge God (literally to have God in
acknowledgment), God gave them over to a senseless mind, to do those
things which are not lawful (i. e. not appointed by God)”; Romans i. 28.

In the name of _Boodh_ or _Buddha_, an avatar of Vishnu, the principal
God worshipped in the Transalpine, or Ultra-Gangetic regions and islands
of Asia, we again trace the early idea of a Saviour of celestial origin.
This name is evidently derived from the Hebrew ‏פדע‎ or ‏פדה‎, _Phudah_,
_to deliver or redeem_, by interchange of the labials ‏ב‎ and ‏פ‎; and
from the same roots are derived a variety of words, signifying either
Redemption, or the Price of Redemption, and reminding us delightfully of
Him, who, by his own blood entered _once for all_ into the holy place,
having obtained eternal Redemption for us; Heb. ix. 12. In the name of
_Fohi_, the chief god, worshipped in China from the earliest times, we
discover also, by its Hebrew origin from ‏פחה‎, _Phohe_, _Prince_ or
_Governor_, the foreshadowing of Him whom God sent to be a _light_ to
lighten the Gentiles, and the _glory_ of his people Israel; Luke ii. 32.
The Druids of ancient Europe were worshippers of the _Sun_ and _Fire_,
and the name of their god was _Hesus_, most probably derived from the
Hebrew ‏השש‎, _Hesus_, _burns up_ or _consumes_, emblematic of the
physical objects of their devotion, but still prefiguring the advent of
Him whose _fan_ is in his hand, who will thoroughly _purge_ his floor,
and _burn up_ the chaff with unquenchable fire; Matt. iii. 12; and Isa.
v. 24. Among the Peruvians and the Mexicans were found similar traces of
_Sun_ and _Fire_ worship, accompanied with the apparatus of the _Incas_
or _Children of the Sun_, and the _Vestal_ or _Solar_ virgins, as in
ancient Rome. Nor should we omit that the _Parsees_, the most learned
sect among the Hindoos, are worshippers of the _Sun_, which is called in
their language _Surya_, evidently of a similar origin with the Greek
Σειρ and Σειριος; moreover, in their fabulous histories of the “War
between the Gods and the Giants,” the spirits, who were the worshippers
or children of _Light_ or the _Sun_, are called _Suras_, and the demons
of darkness, _Asuras_, _A_ being evidently privative in Sanscrit as in
Greek. In fine, the names of the gods which were worshipped among the
Greeks and the Romans, as every classical reader knows, carry abundant
evidence of their having been borrowed from the earlier systems of
idolatry already described. Dr. Russell remarks, that “in the 1st book
of the Saturnalia, from the 17th to the 23rd chapters inclusive,
Macrobius establishes, from the writings of the philosophers, as well as
of the poets, that all the gods of Assyria, Egypt, and Greece, were mere
personifications of the _Solar_ influence; and, moreover, that all their
names, however varied, might be resolved into some attribute of the
_Sun_.” He further states, that all the nations of the East acknowledged
originally but one deity, the _Sun_, and he ingeniously accounts for the
rise of _Hero-worship_ and _Polytheism_; he also observes that, however
the titles of the gods may be separated and distinguished from each
other, they are all plainly resolvable into those of the _Solar_ deity.
The same is to be observed of the gods of the Romans. Indeed, it is well
known that the magnates of the Pantheon, Apollo, Phœbus, Bacchus,
Jupiter, &c.,[49] were all severally addressed by the poets, as
possessing the power supposed to reside in the _Sun_, to direct the
seasons of the year, to give success to the operations of agriculture,
to decide the fates of nations, and to influence all the affairs of men.

  4. Origin of the Greek and Latin names of the Supreme God—Ingenious
       derivation by Dr. Hales—Confutation of that given by Francoeur in
       his “Uranographie”—Origin of the New Testament titles of
       Christ—Citation of Theophilus on this subject—Irrefragable proof
       of the Divinity of our Lord—Original temple of the Sun—Connection
       of Religious worship and Astronomical observation—Antiquity of
       the Hindoos and Chinese.

Thus it appears, that the heathen nations have, in all ages and
countries, borrowed the names and attributes of Jehovah, the God of
Israel, and applied them to the absurd creations of their own
imagination, the physical objects of the world around them, or the
stupid fabrications of their own hands. The origin of the name Ζεύς or
Δὶς in Greek, and _Jupiter_ in Latin, as applied to the supreme God,
appears to be distinctly traceable to the Hebrew. Dr. Hales endeavours
to deduce the former of these from the Phenician form of ‏יהוה‎,
_Jehovah_, or _Jahoh_, which in Greek letters is Ιευω, or Ιαω; and he
cites the answer of the oracle of the Clarian Apollo, to the enquiry
“Which of the gods is he to be reckoned, who is called Ιαω?”—

             Φραζεο τον, παντων ὑπατον θεον ἐμμεν ΙΑΩ.

               Learn this, that JAH is greatest God of all.

This derivation is ingenious; but it is more specious than solid. The
name Δὶς, which gives its oblique cases to Σεύς, is evidently derived
from the Hebrew ‏די‎, _Di_, _the Sufficient_, or _Self-sufficient One_,
or, with the relative, ‏שדי‎, _Sdi_ or _Shaddai_, _He who is
Self-sufficient_, _the Almighty_, a Scriptural name of God; Genesis
xvii. 1. From the former comes Δὶς, and from the latter Σεύς,[50] by the
addition of the Greek terminations. The derivation of _Jupiter_ from
_Jah pater_ is obvious; while the oblique cases _Jovis_, _Jovi_, &c.,
clearly show their descent, or rather theft from the Hebrew word
_Jehovah_. These observations on the origin of the Greek and Latin names
of the Supreme Being are rendered the more necessary, in consequence of
the following most extraordinary attempt on the part of an eminent
French writer, to give a different, and we hesitate not to say, a very
absurd account of their derivation. M. Francoeur, in his very curious
and useful work on Astronomy, entitled “Uranographie,” p. 382, 5th
edition, says, “Each PLANET was denoted by a letter; arranging these
bodies in the order of their supposed distances, these representative
characters were:—

       Saturn. Jupiter. Mars. The Sun. Venus. Mercury. The Moon.
         Ω,       Υ,     Ο,      Ι,      Η,      Ε,       Α.

The Sun seemed to be placed in the middle of the motions, in order to
regulate their march; thus he governed the universe. It was supposed
that the planets revolved round the earth in crystalline concentric
spheres. The world was denoted by the extreme letters Α and Ω; the
letter Ι, of the Sun, united to these, formed the name ΙΑΩ, of the god
of light, of Bacchus, of Osiris, &c.; whence was derived the words
_Jévo_, _Jeova_, _Jovis_, _Jovis pater_, or _Jupiter_!!” It is a
sufficient refutation of this learned derivation, that the name of
Jehovah was known among the Hebrews at least 1000 years before the
doctrine of the crystalline spheres was invented; and that the answer of
the Clarian oracle itself, instituted before the fall of Troy, testified
its well-known antiquity. The Latin term _Deus_, _God_, is evidently
derived from the Greek Θεὸς, by interchange of the dentals Θ and Δ, and
not from Δὶς or Σεύς; and the term Θεὸς itself, from Τίθημι, _Pono_, _to
place, order, or arrange_, the old form of which, Θέω, signifies _to
dispose_ or _create_. This appellation, Θέος, _the Disposer_ or
_Creator_, is peculiarly applicable to Him into whose hands the Father
hath delivered all things, and who of old created and arranged the
universe; John i. 3; and iii. 35. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, has
given the same derivation in the following eloquent passage, to which we
can never give the spirit of the original: “But God is called Θεὸς,
because he hath _reposed_ all things on his own _infallibility_, and
because he _created_ [all things]; for to _create_, is to originate, and
put in motion, and work upon, and put together, and prepare, and direct,
and put life into, all things; and he is called Κύριος, because he rules
over the whole universe, &c.”[51] Now, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
is perpetually called in the New Testament, ὁ Κύριος ὁ θεὸς, _the Lord_,
_the Disposer_ or _Creator_; hence, his _Divinity_ is established beyond
dispute; his _Unity_ with the Father is demonstrated; and his _claim_ to
the title of the _Sun of Righteousness_, is placed on the triple
testimony of the Heavens, and the Earth, and the Everlasting God.

From the observations of this chapter, we draw the conclusion that all
the various kinds of idolatry which have existed in the world, can be
traced to a common source, namely, the Satanic substitution of the
worship of the _Sun_, _Fire_, or _Light_, which was the emblem of the
glory of God, for the worship of the Great Insessor of the Cherubim, who
_dwelleth in the Light_ which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath
seen, nor can see; and who only hath immortality. We further conclude,
that the tradition respecting the _Shechinah_, or glorious emblem of his
Divine presence, passed through the family of Noah, and on it was
grafted the idolatrous scheme which raised a temple to the _Sun_ at
Babel; that traces of the existence of this worship among Europeans and
Asiatics, and Indians of both hemispheres, from the remotest times, are
to be found in their traditions respecting the heavenly bodies, and in
the names and attributes ascribed to their false divinities; and that
the antiquity of the Hindoos and Chinese, as nations, within the limits
of the true system of Chronology, is no more to be doubted than that of
the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. In fine, the astronomical
observations and religious worship of the former appear to have been so
intimately connected, that, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, a
higher degree of credence must be yielded to the ancient records or
traditions of both, than they have hitherto received among the learned
world.[52]




                              CHAPTER III.
              TRADITIONARY AND POETICAL AGES OF THE WORLD.

  1. Tradition concerning the Seventh Age—Prophecy of the Universal
       Saviour—Traditions of the Jews—Opinion of Irenæus and
       the Christian Church in his time—Dr. Russell’s opinion
       confuted—Testimony of the Heathen to the Tradition of the _Seven
       Ages_—Digression on the Corruptions of the Septuagint and the
       Hebrew text—Arguments against the numerical accuracy of
       the latter—Remarkable prophecy contained in the names of
       the _Antediluvian_ Patriarchs—Opinions of Augustine and
       Abulfarajius—Notion of Dr. Isaac Barrow—Important admission of
       Eusebius—Opinion of Ephrem Syrus.


The idea that the improvement and the happiness of the human race is
progressive, and that the succeeding age is always to be superior to the
present, appears to have prevailed in every clime and in every age of
the world. Such a sentiment seems indeed to be interwoven with our very
nature and constitution; and the words of the Poet are true, not only of
each individual of the species, but also of every successive
generation:—

               “Hope springs eternal in the human breast,
               Man _never is_, but _always to be_ blest.”

When we take an extensive review of the past, we also find that there
have been ages of the world previous to our own, in which mankind
enjoyed a length of days, and a degree of innocence and happiness, now
altogether unknown. All have, in fact, heard of the blessedness of the
Paradisaical state, and all sigh for its return. The restoration of man
to this state, has been the subject of promise, and the theme of
prophecy and song; the sentiment has been found in all countries, and
under every Dispensation; and many of the Divine appointments, both of
nature and of Providence, seem to have had an express reference to the
accomplishment of this glorious and benignant purpose. The Septenary
division of time was impressed on the human mind from the era of
creation; it was perpetuated in the Mosaic institutions; and a constant
succession of Septennial changes in the frame of man himself from his
birth to his death, has tended to keep alive the idea that the Great
period of the Restoration of all things is measured by the number
_Seven_. Hence, arose the universal opinion, corroborated by tradition,
that the World was to continue for _Six_ successive ages, appointed ages
of trial and probation, and that the _Seventh_ age would be a state of
never-ending felicity and joy. Poets and philosophers, always the most
sanguine of our race, have in every nation seized upon this idea, and by
the splendid efforts of their genius, engrafted it upon the early
history of their respective countries. Thus, compositions which were at
first admired only as the production of superior intellect, became early
incorporated with the popular creed, and were at last admitted by all as
the true records of antiquity.[53]

The Jews, with whose forefathers no doubt the true ideas concerning the
various ages of the world originated, had, as we have seen, divided the
Grand Interval from Creation to the time assigned by prophecy for the
coming of the Messiah, into _six_ subordinate periods, the true extent
of which we have already determined. More than a _thousand_ years,
however, before the latter event took place, the great Hebrew Warrior
and King prophesied in Sacred Song, concerning the only begotten Son of
God, who was to receive the Heathen for his inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the Earth for his possession; concerning Him who was
to be fairer than the children of men, and whose throne, like that of
the Eternal, was to be for ever and ever; whose dominion should be from
sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth; and before whom
all kings should fall down and worship, and whom all nations should
serve and call the _Blessed and only Potentate_; Psalms ii., xlv.,
lxxii. About _three centuries_ later than the time of David, Isaiah
received his Divine Commission to deliver the prophecy concerning Him of
whom Moses and the Prophets did write, in which He was described as “the
Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, and the
_Father of the Future or Everlasting Age_.”[54] During the _Fifth_ or
Monarchal Age, therefore, the idea had spread abroad, not only among the
Jews, but among all nations, that the Renovation of the World would be
accomplished in the _Sixth_ or succeeding age, and that the Great King,
called in Scripture, Σωτηρ or Saviour, would then set up his kingdom in
eternal justice, and establish his dominion with everlasting peace; and
nation should no longer lift up the sword against nation, neither should
they learn the Art of War any more.

According to the Jews, however, who lived in the time of our Saviour,
the grand object of the mission of the promised Messiah was not to be
consummated till the _Seventh_ age, when should commence, to use the
words of the Apostle, who applied them very differently, the keeping of
the eternal “Sabbatism which remaineth for the people of God.” This
notion of a _Seventh_ age was not entirely unknown to the Heathen, for
we find some traces of it in their writings; but it seems to have
originated in the mysticism or glosses of those who at that period, had
made “the word of God of none effect through their traditions.” It is of
great importance to our argument, to give some instances of this
mysticism, as it incidentally proves that the Jews originally held the
longer computation. One of the reasons assigned by their Rabbins for the
tradition of the _Seven ages_, from time immemorial, is that because the
Hebrew letter ‏א‎ _Aleph_, which (pointed) stands with them for a
_thousand_, is found to occur _six times_ in the 1st verse of the 1st
chapter of Genesis; therefore, the world is to last in its corrupt or
fallen state for _six thousand_ years; and that then it is to be
restored and purified as at the beginning! Another reason, to which
indeed, we have already adverted in our First Part, is that because God
employed _six days_ in the work of Creation, and rested on the _Seventh
day_; therefore, there are to be _Seven ages_ of the World, each
containing a _thousand years_! Such notions as these appear to have been
current among both Jews and Christians in the days of the Apostles; and
we find them transmitted with even a higher degree of mysticism, to the
first age of _Apostolical Succession_! Irenæus, who flourished A. D.
170, in commenting on the number of the Beast, endeavours to connect the
_Six_ ages of the world, with the number _Six_, which occurs in the
units, tens, and hundreds of that number, and adds, “For in as many days
as the world was made, in so many thousand years is it being brought to
an end”. And on this account, the Scripture says—and the heavens and the
earth were finished and all their garniture; and on the _Sixth day_, God
finished the works which he made; and on the _Seventh day_, God ceased
from all his works—but this is a narration of the prototypes of things,
and a prophecy of things that shall come to pass; for the day of the
Lord is as a _thousand years_: but in _Six days_ the creation was
finished; it is manifest, therefore, that its consummation is the _six
thousandth year_.[55] In this curious passage, it is evident that the
disciple of John, the beloved Apostle, has followed the ideas of the
Jews rather than those of his inspired Master, and has mingled up the
mystical notions of the Rabbins with the sacred truths of Revelation.

While we admit, however, that the followers of Christ and his Apostles
had erroneous views respecting the Jewish tradition, which we have thus
traced to its real source, we cannot adopt the opinion of Dr. Russell,
p. 103, vol. i. of his “Connection,” that the apostles themselves
_wrote_ under the influence of such views, or that it formed any part of
_their theological system_, although it entered deeply into those “of
the age which witnessed the introduction of our holy faith.” They wrote
under the influence of that Spirit which Christ promised to send, in
order to lead and to guide them into _all the truth_; it is impossible,
therefore, to imagine, that the Apostles Paul and John in their
writings, “partook of those impressions relative to the speedy arrival
of the first resurrection, and the beginning of the Messiah’s reign,
which prevailed among their countrymen;” nor, can we agree, as he does,
“with Grotius, who hesitates not to state that St. Paul thought it
possible that he might be alive at the time of the general judgment,” as
we see no evidence for such a statement in any part of the New
Testament. The reply of our Saviour, while yet on earth, to the inquiry
put by his disciples,—“When shall these things be, and what the sign of
thy coming, and of the end of the world?”—sufficiently points out their
mistake in supposing, as the unbelieving Jews did, that the first advent
of the Messiah and the consummation of all things, were contemporaneous
or approximate events: and clearly shows that instead of the “general
judgment” after or upon his advent, there would only be a particular
one, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and that it
would be fulfilled in the experience of that generation, for their
rejection of the true Messiah, as the filling up of the measure of the
iniquities of their fathers. So much hold, however, had the tradition in
question taken on the minds of the Jews as a nation, that we find the
words of Paul, in 1 Thess. iv. 15–17, respecting the resurrection of the
dead, and the Second Advent of Christ, were either misunderstood or
misinterpreted by some of those to whom they were addressed. Hence, he
was obliged to address them a second time, in the following words; 2
Thess. ii. 1: “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not
_soon_ shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor
by _letter_ as from us, as that the _day of Christ_ is at hand.” The
rest of the Apostle’s warning advice in this chapter, plainly indicates
that many ages were to elapse before the epoch of the Second advent, and
the arrival of the end of the world. The time, indeed, necessary for the
fulfilment of the prophecies, of both the Old and New Testament,
especially those contained in the books of Daniel and the Revelation of
John, must have clearly evinced to the minds of well-informed
Christians, as well as those of the Apostles themselves, that many
predicted events had yet to receive their accomplishment; and, that
God’s controversy with the nations, and particularly with his ancient
people Israel, required a longer interval than that which the Judaizing
teachers among them had dared to assign, and which, to give it greater
currency, it appears that they were desirous to father upon the great
Apostle of the Gentiles.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a very considerable degree of
plausibility might attach to such sentiments among the early Christians,
from the occurrence of such expressions as the following in the writings
of the Apostles: 2 Peter iii. 8, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day.” This expression, however,
merely exhibits in words suited to our ordinary conceptions, the great
truth which should ever be present to our minds, that all time appears
but as a single moment to the eternal Jehovah, who sees the end from the
beginning, and to whom the ideas both of space and time, as they exist
in our finite understandings, are altogether unknown. The same sublime
sentiment, similarly expressed, is also to be found in one of the
Psalms, the authorship of which is ascribed to Moses, the man of God:
thus, “a thousand years in thy sight, are but as yesterday, when it is
past, and as a watch in the night.” It is evident, therefore, from the
extreme generality of the expressions employed, that no specific
conclusion can be drawn from these and similar passages of Scripture,
respecting the true period of the world’s duration. Their simple intent
is to convey to our minds an idea of the eternity of the Almighty, and
they are of the same import as the following, which proves the eternal
Divinity of our Lord; namely, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever.” Hence, it is plain that the idea, entertained by many
divines, of the duration of the world for a period of only _Seven
thousand_ years, (a period, which, in fact, as we have shown in our
_First Part_, it has already passed) is a figment of the human
imagination, which has no foundation in real tradition or prophecy, and
which is contrary to the express revelations of Scripture. In a note to
this paragraph, consisting chiefly of references to the authors who have
treated of or touched upon the opinion of Irenæus and the whole
Christian church after the Apostolic times, the learned reader will find
sufficient ground for the belief that the longer or Septuagint
chronology was universally held by ancient writers both before and after
the Christian era.[56] We proceed to notice the evidence on this point,
which may be gathered from the testimony of the Heathen.

“The belief of this singular notion, concerning the _Seven ages_,” says
Dr. Russell, p. 76, vol. i. of his _Connection_, “has been detected in
the writings of Heathens, Jews, and Christians. It is traced in the
Sybilline oracles, in Hesiod, in the work ascribed to Darius Hystaspes
the King of the Medes, and in Hermes Trismegistus, the celebrated
founder of Egyptian learning and science. Plato quotes from Orpheus the
same mystical doctrine; handing down to more recent times the persuasion
of the first generations of the human race, that the earth, which was
given to them for a habitation during _Six ages_, was doomed in the
_Seventh_ to be consumed by fire.”[57] Dr. Russell discovers in the
prevalence of these opinions and expectations, however ill-founded and
absurd they may seem, the principal motive which actuated the Jews about
the beginning of the Second century, in their attempt to vitiate the
most ancient of their chronicles. “Their rejection of Christ,” says he,
“rendered necessary an extensive change in their dates and calculations;
and if we may trust to the assertions of Justin Martyr and other
primitive apologists for our holy faith, we cannot doubt that their
fraudulent purpose was realized to a considerable extent. ‘I entreat you
to remember,’ says the Father now named, when addressing Trypho the Jew,
‘that your Rabbis have taken away entirely many texts of Scripture from
that version which was made by the Elders who were at the court of
Ptolemy, in which it was declared, that Jesus who suffered death upon
the cross was both God and man: and wherein it was also predicted that
he was to be crucified and submit to the power of the grave. These
texts, because I know that your nation now rejects them, I will not
insist upon in the course of our inquiries, but shall content myself
with appealing to those prophecies and descriptions respecting the
divine power, which are still allowed to remain in your sacred books.’
After quoting a passage from Jeremiah, which the Christian author
applies to the point in discussion, as an argument in favour of the
views adopted by the Church, he reminds his antagonist, that the text
now in question was still found in certain copies of the Old Testament
which continue to be read in the Synagogues; for, says he, this portion
of Holy Writ has been but lately expunged by your doctors; and that on
account of the unanswerable demonstration founded upon it, in regard to
the conduct of the Jews towards Christ, against whom it was predicted
that they would take counsel, and afterwards put him to death.”
Archbishop Usher, in reference to this passage of Justin Martyr, says,
in his “Syntagma,” pp. 44, 45, that this Father produces _four_
testimonies concerning Christ the Saviour which he affirms were
abstracted from the version of the Seventy Elders: the _second_ of which
is still found entire in all our books, namely, Jeremiah xi. 19. But the
_first_, abstracted from the book of Ezra, chap vi., which is testified
by Lactantius, lib. 4. Institut. cap. 18, is as follows: _And Ezra said
unto the people, This passover is our Saviour and our Refuge; and if ye
did consider, and it came up into your heart, that we shall humiliate
him in a sign, and if afterwards ye shall believe upon him, this place
shall never be left desolate, saith the Lord of Hosts; but if ye will
not believe on him, nor hearken to his preaching, ye shall be a
laughing-stock to the Heathen_. The _third_ testimony, which is found in
Irenæus, lib. 5, cap. 26, is said to have been cut out of Jeremiah: _But
the Lord God of Israel remembered his dead who slept in the land of
heaps, and descended to them to declare unto them the good news of his
salvation_. The _fourth_ and last is taken from Psalm xcv. (or xcvi.
according to the Hebrew) v. 10, where the reading should be, _Declare
among the Heathen, The Lord reigned from the tree_; the words “_from the
tree_” are said to have been erased by the Jews, although they are to be
found in the ancient editions of the Latin Psalter, and are cited by
several ancient authors whose names and works the Archbishop enumerates.

The best proof, however, that the Jews have tampered with some passages
of Scripture, is to be found in the discrepancy which exists between
most of the passages which are cited in the New Testament out of the
Old, and which agree more nearly with the Septuagint, mutilated as it
has been, than with the present Hebrew Text. The most striking case of
this kind is to be found in the passage cited by Paul, Hebrews x. 5,
from Psalm xl. 6; where instead of the words “mine ears hast thou
opened” as in the Hebrew, we have “A body hast thou prepared me,” as in
the Septuagint. The straining of commentators to make these totally
different readings signify _exactly_ the same thing is perfectly
astonishing, when we consider that the simple admission of the
corruption of the Hebrew text in this passage at once solves the
difficulty! Another remarkable case is the passage cited by the same
Apostle, Romans iii. 10–18, from Psalm xiv. 3, where the greater part of
the quotation, from v. 13 to v. 18 inclusive, is entirely omitted in the
present Hebrew text, but is to be found verbatim in the Septuagint,
Vatican edition. The reason assigned by Dr. Wall for its insertion in
this edition, and its omission in the Alexandrine MS., is not at all
satisfactory; because it does not in the least account for the full
quotation of the passage by the Apostle; it does not at all answer the
question, where did St. Paul get the verses? A third case is that of the
celebrated passage in Psalm xxii. 17, where, instead of the words “they
pierced my hands and my feet,” as in the Septuagint, the Hebrew has to
this day, the reading “as a lion my hands and my feet;” but as this
passage had no sense or meaning, the English translators were fain to
avail themselves of the reading of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
But it is unnecessary to multiply discrepancies of this kind; enough has
been adduced to show that implicit reliance is not to be placed on the
present Hebrew text. As to the discrepancy in Gen. ii. 2, between the
Hebrew and Septuagint, regarding the day on which “God ended his work,”
it can only be accounted for on one or other of the following
principles: either a mistake has been committed in transcribing the
Hebrew text; or, a change has been wilfully introduced into that text.
For it is quite inconsistent with the fact, and with the preceding
context, to say that God _ended_ his work on the _Seventh_ day! In that
context, Gen. i. 31, we are told that “God saw ALL that He had made, and
behold it was very good; and the evening and the morning were the _Sixth
day_.” It is manifest that to _end work_ on the _Seventh day_, would be
to perform a _part_ of it on _that day_; and, consequently, the _whole_
of the Sabbath could not be said to have been _devoted to rest_, nor
_wholly_ blessed and sanctified _on this account_. It is easy to see
that a loop-hole is thus given, by an error in that text and in our
translation, we fear more wilful than accidental on the part of the
Jews, to the _partial_ observance of the Sabbath, and to the _notion_
acted on by many in former ages, and by multitudes in the present, that
it is only _that part_ of the Sabbath devoted to religious services in
public, which is to be accounted _sacred_; the remainder of the day
being devotable either to work, to literary pursuits, or to sensual
enjoyment. Mankind, both Jews and Christians, has in all ages been too
anxious to throw off the strict and unalterable obligation of keeping
the Sabbath holy to the Lord; but the true Christian, he who is a “Jew
inwardly,” though “not outwardly,” feels his highest enjoyment in the
Scriptural employment of that Holy Day, considering it as a foretaste
and an earnest of the glorious and eternal Sabbath in Heaven.

A strong argument against the accuracy of the present Hebrew text, is
derived, as we have seen, from the different accounts of the census of
the Hebrew Patriarchs and their families, at the epoch of their
migration into Egypt, to be found in the Old and New Testaments. In Acts
vii. 14, we find that the martyr Stephen, in his defence before the High
Priest of the Jews, gives this census, including the grandsons and great
grandsons of Joseph, who, as well as his sons, had previously migrated
in their father’s loins, as amounting in all to “threescore and
fifteen,” or “75 souls.” On referring to the Mosaic narrative, Gen.
xlvi. 27, we find, according to the _Hebrew text_, that this census
amounts only to “threescore and ten,” or “70 souls;” but, according to
the _Septuagint_, that it amounts to “75 souls.” Here, assuredly, the
authority of the Septuagint must be reckoned superior to that of the
Hebrew text, inasmuch as that version not only perfectly agrees as to
the census with the reckoning of St. Stephen in the place now cited, but
in the same chapter, it enumerates the names of the _three_ grandsons
and the _two_ great grandsons of Joseph, making up the _five_ persons
whose names are totally omitted in the Hebrew. The census of the
Septuagint also agrees with that of the New Testament, in other places
where Moses has occasion to remind the Israelites of the smallness of
their number when their fathers went down into Egypt; see Exodus i. 5;
and Deuteronomy x. 22. It is proper to remark, however, that the number
in the latter citation agrees with the Hebrew, in the _Vatican edition_
of the Septuagint; but, not in the _Alexandrine codex_, or the Grabian
edition, where it is correctly given as in the other places which have
been cited. Dr. Hales, in his “Analysis,” vol. ii. p. 159, has
grievously mistaken the composition of the census in question; for, he
includes in it, the wives of Jacob’s sons, amounting to nine persons in
all, according to his account. The Sacred text, however, includes Jacob,
and Joseph with his two sons, in the number 70; now if the nine _wives_
were also included, the census would amount to the number 79; because
the names of the 70 _men_ are all distinctly enumerated even in the
Hebrew text itself. In order, therefore, to get rid of this difficulty,
and reduce the number from 79 to 75, the Dr. excludes the _four men_
just mentioned, and includes the _nine women_, whether they are _kindred
or not kindred_! His solution, however, does not agree with the express
words of Scripture, which, in fact, _excludes the women_, the words
being according to the Septuagint, χωρὶς τῶν γυναικῶν, “without the
wives;” and _includes the men_, in the number 75, the words of Stephen
being “his father Jacob, and all his kindred,” descended, ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν
ἀυτοῦ, “out of his loins.”

In reference to the numerical statements of the Hebrew text, the
disingenuity of modern commentators renders the following remarks
necessary, for the sake of truth and common sense. It is well known that
the numbers which occur in the Old Testament are always expressed in
words at length, and not in abridged characters or arithmetical symbols;
hence, the possibility of transcribers mistaking one character or symbol
for another, in consequence of the similarity of the letters, is
completely removed. It is an unfair inference, therefore, to say,
because the Jews employed the letters of their alphabet to denote
numbers in their later writings, or to indicate chapters and verses in
the sacred writings, and because some of these letters are extremely
similar, though they denote very different numbers; that numerical
errors might arise from this cause in those parts of the Scriptures
where no such arithmetical characters or symbols were ever used. Among
unfair reasoners of this class, may also be placed those who maintain
that all knowledge of the ancient Hebrew is lost, because forsooth it
has been preserved in Chaldaic characters, and mystified by the
Masoretic points! It does not follow, however, that the language itself
is lost, because the characters are changed in their form, even
supposing this to be the fact. If so, then we might as well assert that
the English language is lost, because we have changed the Old English
character for the Roman; that it has become utterly unintelligible to us
by the change; or that the accented, punctuated and misspelt words of
Orthoëpists must render every genuine English word of doubtful meaning!
Moreover, it has likewise been gravely said that because some Hebraists
choose to assert that the same word in Hebrew signifies both _to bless_
and _to curse_; therefore, all or most of the words of that language may
be translated so as to mean any thing you please; this is at least the
conclusion which would be drawn from such random assertions on the part
of Lexicon writers and compilers of Hebrew dictionaries. We ask such
persons, if they know any thing at all of Hebrew, to arrange the names
of the Antediluvian Patriarchs in one line, so as to form a Hebrew
sentence, and to try whether, among the “thousand and one” varieties of
rendering of which it is affirmed the words are capable, it will not
bear the following translation, demonstrative of the fact that the
Antediluvians were, during the days of God’s grace, and in addition to
the tradition of Enoch’s prophecy, taught the knowledge of a Divine
Saviour, even by the symbolical names which the Patriarchs were directed
by the Spirit of God, to impose upon their children:—

‏‘.אדם‎—“Man _was_ appointed miserable _and_ wretched, _but_ the blessed
God shall descend, teaching _that_ his death shall send to the
afflicted, Rest.” The consolation which a sentence like this was
calculated to give to the Patriarch Noah, and to his family, in the near
prospect of the “end of the world that then was,” may be more easily
conceived than described; nor let it be forgotten that in continuation
of this Divine nomenclature, the Patriarch was instructed to call his
son, who was to be the progenitor of the wonderful Being whose coming is
predicted in this sentence, by the name of _Shem_, in prophetic
anticipation of the future development of that glorious _Name_, in which
both Jews and Gentiles were afterwards to trust, and on which the
salvation of both worlds was suspended.

To return from this lengthened digression; it is manifest that there is
great reason to suspect that the numbers contained in the Hebrew text
which have reference to dates and to the age of the world, have been
systematically and extensively altered. Dr. Russell cites a passage from
the celebrated Abulfarajius, in which he asserts that the Jews,
believing it to have been foretold that the Messiah was to have been
sent in the _last times_, altered the chronology in order to be able to
produce a reason or apology for their rejection of Jesus Christ. Thus
they made it appear by their new computation, that Christ was manifested
in the very beginning of the _fifth_ millennium, near to the middle of
the period to which the duration of the earth was to be limited, that
is, according to their glosses upon Scripture, not more than 7000 years
in all. But the computation of the Septuagint, he observes, showed that
Christ did actually come in the _sixth_ millenary age of the world; the
very time at which the prediction of the Old Testament led mankind to
expect his advent. The learned Dr. refers also to the candid Augustine,
who states that the Jews were suspected of having corrupted their copies
of the ancient Scriptures, and particularly of having altered the
generations and lives of the Antediluvian patriarchs, out of dislike to
the Christians, and in order to weaken the authority of the Septuagint,
which was used not only in their churches during divine service, but
also in their writings and controversies with the Jews. Though Augustine
saw that the temptation to vitiate the sacred text lay with the Rabbins,
and that the Greek translators had no inducement to alter the original,
he was unwilling to believe that either party could have intentionally
altered the Scriptures; thinking it more probable that the differences
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, had originated in the wish
entertained by an early transcriber, to render the _generations_ of the
patriarchs more natural, and less disproportioned to the total length of
their lives.[58] This disproportion, as we have remarked in our First
Part, was only partial in the Hebrew, and the discrepancy in this
respect is a strong argument in favour of the more natural proportion of
the Septuagint. But men in all ages have endeavoured to reduce the
Antediluvian standard of human life and generation, without regard to
the actual record of Holy Scripture. Some curious specimens of reasoning
on this point will be found in Usher’s “Syntagma,” cap. ii. p. 13 et
seq. What, for instance, can be more ridiculous than the following
remark on this subject by the learned Dr. Isaac Barrow? “No one,” says
he, “can pretend to assert, as a certainty, that the age of Methusalem
[Methuselah!] himself, who lived _a thousand years wanting one_, [999
instead of 969!] was really longer than that of a man, who now dies at
_a hundred_! _Why might not the Sun, being then younger and more
vigorous, have performed his periods ten times sooner than at this
time?_” See his “Geometrical Lectures,” translated by Stone, 1735.
_Credat Judæus!_

Dr. Russell states that Augustine was not aware that 400 years had
elapsed from the time when the Septuagint version was made, before any
discrepancy between the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures was ever
imagined to exist; and that there flourished in that interval, the
chronographers Demetrius, Philo, Euphorus, Eupolemus, and Polyhistor, in
whose writings, compiled from the books of Moses, we find the events,
numbers, dates and proper names, agreeing with the Septuagint, but
differing from the modern Hebrew. The ignorance of this early Father in
reference to these writers, though it were admitted, for which however
we see no good reason, and his want of reference to the works of
Josephus, form no ground of objection whatever to the facts of the case;
nor can we conclude from his silence regarding their testimony that he
was not biassed in favour of the Jewish system of chronology in
consequence of the high authority of Jerome in the Christian Church. Dr.
Russell gives a very full and clear account of the manner in which this
system originated. He states that the publication of the _Seder Olam
Rabba_ in A.D. 130, may with certainty be regarded as the epoch at which
the Jews altered their genealogies and changed the dates of the great
events which are recorded in their Sacred Books; and that Theophilus,
bishop of Antioch, was the first Christian chronologer who attempted to
compute the age of the world from the facts and dates only which are
contained in the Bible. He judiciously remarks that the bishop must have
possessed a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures or at least of the Pentateuch,
which had escaped the innovations of the Jews; for his dates of the
deluge and the birth of Abraham differ from both the Hebrew and the
Septuagint.[59] Moreover, we find that Eusebius, in the middle of the
fourth century, who was well aware of the discrepancies between the
Hebrew and the Septuagint in the matter of chronology, still writes as
follows: “On all sides therefore the version of the _Seventy_, being
demonstrated to have been translated from an ancient, as it appears, and
a correct copy of the Hebrew, we have with reason made use of it in the
present chronography, and the more especially since the church of Christ
spread through the whole world adheres to it alone, the Apostles and
disciples of our Saviour having from the beginning delivered that it is
to be used.”[60] Dr. Kennicott, in his “Dissertatio Generalis,” Sect.
83, p. 37, also cites the words of Ephrem Syrus, who flourished near the
end of the same century, in which he charges the Jews with having
abstracted 600 years from the generations of the Antediluvian patriarchs
in order that their own books might not convict them concerning the
coming of Christ, who had been predicted to appear for the deliverance
of mankind after 5500 years.

  2. Description of the Ages of the World from Hesiod—Error of
       Newton—The Golden Age corresponds to the Antediluvian—The Silver
       to the Postdiluvian—The Brazen, Heroic and Iron ages, to the
       Patriarchal, Critarchal and Monarchal—These ages relate chiefly
       to Greece—References to Scripture history in all—The Sixth or
       Cumæan age corresponds to the Hierarchal—Wisdom of the
       Heathens—Their expectation of a Divine Instructor—Socrates,
       Plato, Eupolis, Virgil, and others, anticipate his glorious
       Advent—The close of the _Sixth age_ indicates the arrival of the
       _Seventh_, or the return of the _Golden age_.

The Greek and Roman Poets borrowed their sublime ideas concerning the
Ages of the World, from the Sacred writings and traditions of the Jews;
and alas! they transmuted the fine gold of Mount Sion into the base
metal of Helicon and Parnassus. Hence arose the Poetical appellations of
the first _Six ages_ which are to be found in the most ancient and
celebrated writings of the Heathen. The distinct recognition of the
_Seventh age_ appears not to have been very general, at least among the
poets; or rather, it seems to have been frequently confounded or
identified with the _Sixth age_. The following, however, is an
enumeration of the _Poetical_ ages which is clearly to be traced in the
writings of the oldest authors; to each, we have added the names of the
corresponding _Scriptural_ Ages, for the sake of comparison and
connection. _First_, the _Golden_ Age which corresponds to the
_Antediluvian_; _Second_, the _Silver_ Age, to the _Postdiluvian_;
_Third_, the _Brazen_ Age, to the _Patriarchal_; _Fourth_, the _Heroic_
Age, to the _Critarchal_; _Fifth_, the _Iron_ Age, to the _Monarchal_;
and _Sixth_, the _Last_ or _Cumæan_ Age, to the _Hierarchal_. In this
enumeration, we do not mean, of course, to convey the idea that each of
the _Poetical_ Ages is precisely limited by the epochs which serve to
fix and determine the _Scriptural_ Ages of the Jews; but merely to
indicate that there is such a connection between them as serves to prove
their common origin, and to establish the chronology of both on a secure
and authentic foundation. There seems, however, to our mind, such a
striking analogy between the _real_ and the _feigned_ events ascribed in
history to the different periods above mentioned, as to justify us in
drawing the parallelism close, and in allotting to the various ages of
the world, the appellations which have been ingeniously assigned to them
by the poets and historians of Greece and Rome. One of the oldest
Heathen writers, whose authentic works have reached our times, is the
poet Hesiod, who, according to some authorities, was the contemporary of
Homer, and who, according to Mr. Clinton, flourished from 859 to 824 B.
C. His description of the _Six Ages_ contained in the poem entitled Ἐργα
καὶ Ἡμέραι, or _Works and Days_, is in many parts unquestionably
borrowed from Scripture History. Dr. Hales has advanced and defended
this opinion in his “Analysis,” vol. i. pp. 38–46; after having shewn,
in pp. 35–38, that Sir Isaac Newton has mistaken, and consequently
misrepresented Hesiod’s ages, in his “Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms,”
by confounding the word γένος, _a race_, employed by the poet to denote
_an age_, with γενεὰ, the usual word for _a generation_; and that this
error has not only deranged all his dates of Grecian history, but has
vitiated his entire system of ancient chronology. With the opinions of
Dr. Hales on the subject of _Hesiod’s Ages of the World_, we in general
coincide; but we think that he has neither carried out the above
mentioned analogy sufficiently far, nor applied it in so clear and
distinct a manner as he might have done, to the illustration of the
connection between Sacred and Profane Chronology. It may be of some
importance, therefore, to enlarge a little upon this interesting point.

The description of the _First_ or _Golden Age_ given in the _Works and
Days_, extends from v. 108 to v. 126,[61] and as Dr. Hales justly
remarks, bears no relation at all to Grecian history. It refers to the
time when “The immortal gods and mortal men were as members of the same
family, and (μερόπων) partook of the same likeness; when Saturn (Κρόνος,
quasi χρονος, Time) reigned in Heaven, and men lived as gods, with minds
free from care, without labour and sorrow, or the feebleness of old age;
and always the same (πόδας καὶ χεῖρας) in strength and activity, they
enjoyed continual feasting, free from all evils, rolling in wealth, and
beloved by the blessed gods; they died as overcome by sleep; to them,
all things were good; and the fertile field spontaneously brought forth
varied and abundant fruit; seeking only their own ease, they mingled
their operations with innumerable pleasures; and when (γαῖα) the green
sod covered their bodies, they became good angels, by the will of mighty
Jove, and were confined to the earth, as the guardians of mortal men;
they became observers of good and bad actions, and inhabiting the aerial
regions, they everywhere roamed through the earth, the dispensers of
riches; such indeed was the royal honour which they obtained.” This
description is a curious admixture of the traditions concerning the
_Antediluvian age_ to be found in the early history of all ancient
nations, and of the lofty but extravagant imaginings of the Poet derived
from the absurd mythology of ancient Greece. It evidently alludes to the
creation of man in the likeness of God, and to the Sacred communion
which Adam held with his Creator in the garden of Eden; to the wonderful
length of human life, amounting in the case of the Patriarchs, in
general, to _nearly a thousand years_, when indeed _Time_ might be said
to reign, and _Death_ for ages to be disappointed of his prey; to the
generation of sons and daughters to a late period of the lives of
mankind; and to the piety of the righteous generations of the line of
Seth, who were called the “Sons of God,” some of whom had communion with
God, and received peculiar marks of his favour. The description of the
“royal honour” of the happy dead, seems to have had its origin also in
the Scripture record of the frequent appearance of angels in the
likeness of men in the _Postdiluvian_ and _Patriarchal ages_, and of the
promises which God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, regarding the
number, the wealth and the glory of their seed; and of the appearance of
Samuel to Saul, when he predicted his speedy fall and admittance to
Hades: of the divine appearance to Solomon, when he was promised riches
and honour, so that no king was like to him: and of the divine vision of
the young man in Samaria, who saw the mountain full of horses and
chariots of fire round about Elisha: with many others of the very
singular and preternatural phenomena which were divinely vouchsafed to
the chosen people of God in all ages, before that in which the Poet
himself flourished. Hesiod is also cited by Josephus among the ancient
writers who before his time recorded that the men of the _first age_ of
the world lived a _thousand years_; but Dr. Hales observes that this
statement is “no where to be found in his present [extant] works.”

The description of the _Second_ or _Silver age_, extends from v. 127 to
v. 142, and refers to the time after the flood, when as the Poet says,
“the men were much inferior to those of the _Golden age_, being unlike
them both in body and mind; then, indeed, the boy of a _hundred years_
was brought up by his careful mother, as a child, passing much of his
time at home; but when he grew up and reached the age of puberty, his
life was speedily shortened, being embittered by ignorance; for they
manifested injurious pride towards each other, and refused to serve the
immortal gods, or to sacrifice at their sacred altars, which was the
customary rite among civilized people; these, therefore, Jupiter the son
of Saturn buried, being incensed because they honoured not the blessed
gods who inhabit Olympus; and when the green turf had covered their
bodies, then the blessed dead confined to the earth, were called
_Secondary angels_; thus, they also had their share of honour.” This
description contains internal proof that it refers to the _Postdiluvian
age_, in opposition to the sentiments of some modern writers, who have
supposed that the _Golden age_ referred solely to the _Paradisaical
state_, and the _Silver age_ to that which immediately succeeded it. The
_Golden_ age must have evidently included the _Post-Paradisaical state_,
because the Poet contemplates men as _mortal_, which they had become in
consequence of their loss of perfect innocence, and speaks of them as
having increased in numbers, or in other words, become “multiplied on
the face of the earth,” which took place only after the expulsion of the
great progenitors of the race from Paradise. The _Silver age_ must have
been after the flood, because the usual period of human life had not
been diminished till after that event, but had in fact been rather
increased just immediately before it, as in the case of Methuselah; and
Noah himself the connecting link of both worlds, was longer lived than
Adam. Moreover, the Poet’s account of the _Antepaidogonian age_ of
mankind, corresponds in a very remarkable degree to the statements of
the Septuagint, the Samaritan Text, and Josephus, on this point, and
proves almost to a demonstration that the Hebrew Text originally
contained the longer computation; for the traditions concerning the
_Postdiluvian age_ were, of course, known to Hesiod, about _Six
centuries_ before the Septuagint was in existence. The causes assigned
by the poet, for the shortening of human life, seem clearly to refer to
the breaking up of the ecclesiastical polity of Nimrod at Babel; and the
destruction of the impious, to the later event, the overthrow of the
“cities of the plain,” and the formation of the Lake Asphaltites. The
distinction drawn between the fate of the good, and the fate of the bad
in this age, evidently refers to the selection of a few among mankind,
as the depositories of Sacred Revelation, and to the appointment of
others as the friends of God, and the Fathers of the faithful to all
generations. Such statements as these plainly indicate a belief in the
immortality of the soul, or, at least, its existence after death in a
separate state, and forcibly remind us of the argument which our Saviour
held with the Sadducees, in proof of the resurrection of the dead: “Have
ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake to him,
saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye,
therefore, do greatly err;” Mark xii. 26. The conclusion was indeed
manifest; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, as to their souls;
therefore, their souls are immortal. Because God lives, they live also;
for he is still _their_ God. But life and immortality were brought to
light by the Gospel; and because Christ rose from the dead, they shall
also rise from the dead; for he has become the first-fruits of them that
slept. From the preceding remarks, it is evident that Dr. Hales is in
error, both when he limits the “termination of the _Silver age_ to the
days of Peleg;” and when he refers the latter clause of the Poet’s
description to the “first and purest Patriarchs of this age;” for the
upright and blessed Job lived in the latter part of it; and the divinely
honoured Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees at its close.

That Hesiod’s description of the three subsequent ages appears to relate
entirely to the history of Greece, is the opinion of Dr. Hales. Without
disputing the general accuracy of this opinion, we still think that we
can perceive traces of the history of other countries. The allusions to
Scripture are, it is true, more obscure in this part of the poem; but
they are not wholly imperceptible. Indeed, the ingenuity of the
“cunningly devised fables” which it contains, would not be deemed
complete without the admixture of some sacred truth, without the
addition of some egregious perversion of the Inspired records. The
description of the _Third_ or _Brazen age_, extends from v. 143 to v.
155, and refers to the time when the men, “wholly unlike those of the
_Silver age_, were strong and mighty in the use of the spear, rejoicing
in war and deeds of rapacity; they ate not (σιτον) the food of culture,
but, unyielding in their disposition, they had minds as hard as adamant;
possessing immense force and unpolished hands, nature furnished them
with powerful limbs, from the shoulders downwards; they had _brazen_
armour, _brazen_ houses, and they worked in _brass_; for _iron_ was not
yet in use; these, indeed, slain by their own hands, went to the dark
domains of gloomy Pluto, unrecorded in song; for sable death seized
them, though mighty in strength, and they left the shining light of the
Sun.” This passage seems very clearly to describe the state of the world
in the days of Abraham. The battle of the four kings against five in the
Vale of Siddim (Destruction), the slaughter of the kings and the sacking
of their cities, the capture of Lot and all his family and property, as
recorded in Genesis xiv., is a sufficient proof of the warlike and
rapacious character of this age; and then, no doubt, originated the
migration of those marauding parties which, proceeding from Assyria,
Phenicia, and Egypt, spread themselves over Greece and her islands for
colonization and settlement, and founded the early kingdoms of Sicyon
and Argos. The testimony of the Greek historians Herodotus and
Thucydides, respecting the state of society during this period, confirms
the description of the Poet; and, according to Dr. Hales, the rape of
Io, the daughter of Inachus, which was followed more than a century
afterwards by that of Europa, the daughter of Agenor, king of Tyre, are
instances of the wicked conduct of those whom Jove is reported to have
sent a flood to destroy, at the close of the _Brazen age_. Dr. Hales,
however, is in error when he refers this flood to the age of Deucalion;
it appears more clearly to belong to that of Ogyges, who was earlier
than Deucalion by more than _two centuries_, and in whose reign,
according to Dr. Russell,[62] the inhabitants of Bœotia were compelled
to leave the plains of their native country, which was that of our poet,
and to seek an asylum in the mountains of Attica.

The description of the hardihood of the men of the _Brazen age_
corresponds also to that of the King of Egypt, when he expressed his
fears concerning the increase of the children of Israel. The very weak
argument of Sir Isaac Newton against the longer computation, which he
draws from the speech of Pharaoh, Exodus i. 9, respecting Egypt being
“thinly peopled” before the birth of Moses, is very satisfactorily
answered by Dr. Hales in his explanation of the succeeding verse;
“Analysis,” p. 88. The correct translation, however, of the former
verse, according to the Septuagint, which appears to have retained the
true meaning of the passage, renders even Dr. Hales’ explanation
unnecessary. Thus, “And he said to his nation, Behold the race of the
sons of Israel is a great multitude, and their (bodily) strength is
greater than ours!” This observation will appear both natural and just,
when we consider that the Egyptians, as a nation, must have by this time
reached a degree of luxury and refinement, the consequences of extensive
empire and early civilization, which rendered them more effeminate or
less robust than the hardy sons of Israel. The dread, therefore, of the
increase of such a nation, which they held in cruel bondage, and which,
though vastly fewer in numbers, was greatly superior to their own in
individual and personal strength, was a sufficient reason for the
precautionary policy announced from the throne, by which the rigour of
the bondage of the Israelites was to be increased, in the expectation of
thus diminishing their numbers. This policy, however, having failed, the
king resorted to one still more cruel and sanguinary; but the very cause
which he had assigned as a reason for the adoption of cruel measures
towards an unoffending race, was wisely ordained, so as to render those
measures completely abortive; and, we thus perceive, from its
acknowledged truth, an additional force and beauty, in the simple
defence made before the king, by those heroic females who bid defiance
to his wrath, by refusing to become the detestable instruments of his
cruelty; Exod. i. 19.

That the Greeks from a very early period were distinguished from other
nations by the use of _Brazen Armour_ is well known; and it is
remarkable that in Scripture prophecy this characteristic is selected by
the Spirit of God to point out the nation to which it belongs, and to
predict the rise of that Universal empire which it once maintained over
all the kingdoms of the known world. In the description of the different
parts of the great Image which King Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream,
Daniel ii. 31–45, and which prefigured the four Great Monarchies or
Empires of antiquity, we find the _Assyrian_ or _Babylonian_ Empire
denoted by the head of _gold_, the _Medo-Persian_ by the breast and arms
of _silver_, the GREEK or _Macedonian_ by the belly and thighs of BRASS,
and the _Roman_ by the legs and feet of _iron_. Moreover, the Greeks are
commonly denominated by Homer in his Iliad, the χαλκοχίτωνες Αχαιοὶ, or
_Brazen-coated Achaians_, that is, wearing brazen coats of mail; and
they are described in Herodotus, according to the words of the oracle,
as χαλκέων ἀνδρῶν ἐπιφανέντων, or _men glittering in Brazen armour_.
Hence, it may be truly said with the poet, that they lived in _brazen_
houses, and performed their works in _brass_; for, they spent all their
time in deeds of arms, perpetually seeking to increase their wealth, and
to form new settlements, at the cost of the native inhabitants of the
soil, the natural consequence of such predatory incursions was premature
death in battle; and until they had gained a complete footing in Greece,
by a series of splendid victories, it could not be supposed that their
names would be transmitted to posterity with renown. Thus the hosts of
original adventurers belonging to this age, according to the poet,
descended to the grave, Νώνυμοι (pro Ἀνώνυμοι,), without name and
without fame, receiving no share of honour like the men of the former
ages, but sinking into irretrievable oblivion, both in this world, and
in the world of souls.

The description of the _Fourth_ or _Heroic age_, which Dr. Hales remarks
is included by Ovid in the Brazen age, extends from v. 157 to v. 174,
and refers to the time when the men “spread over the boundless earth,
were more upright and more just than those of the former age, and
received the name of _Demigods_; these also, calamitous war and
tremendous battle destroyed; some before the seven-gated Thebes, in the
territories of Cadmus, fighting for the wealth of Œdipus: but others
before the walls of Troy, having been transported across the broad sea
in ships, on account of the fair-haired Helen: to the former, death
brought final destruction; to the latter, father Jupiter, the son of
Saturn, having granted life and a settlement apart from mankind, he
planted them at the ends of the earth, far from the immortal gods, where
Saturn reigns their king; and these happy heroes, having minds free from
cares, dwell in the Islands of the Blessed, near the deep deep Ocean; to
them, the fertile soil produces ripe fruit, as sweet as honey, three
seasons of the year.” In this description there seems to be a very
considerable want of incident, when we compare it with the history of
Greece during the _Heroic age_. For, it was in this age, that the
Kingdom of Athens was founded; that the flood of Deucalion took place;
and that the chief founders of the Greek nation made their descent into
the country itself, namely, Danaus, Pelasgus, Cadmus and Pelops. It was
in this age also, that the events most celebrated in history and poetry
took place; such as, the birth and the labours of Hercules; the
expedition of the Argonauts; the wars at Thebes and the fall of Troy,
which the poet has particularly noticed; the Return of the Heraclidæ;
and the Æolic and Ionic Migrations. The meagreness of detail in this
portion of the poem, therefore, would lead us to adopt the opinion of
many critics, that it has not reached us in a perfect but in a
fragmentary state; enough of it, however, remains to enable us to
determine the limits of the poetical ages. We have seen that the flood
of Ogyges was the event which, according to the testimony of the
ancients, terminated the _Brazen age_, and of course, formed the
commencement of the _Heroic age_; now, according to the testimony of
Julius Africanus and others, this event was _coeval_ with the Exodus
from Egypt; and, according to the testimony of Eratosthenes and others,
as expiscated by Mr. Clinton, the Ionic migration was a few years
earlier than the foundation of Solomon’s temple, and may, therefore, be
considered as the event which terminated the _Heroic age_, and not the
fall of Troy, as stated by Dr. Hales, which, according to the best
authorities, occurred about a _century and a-half_ before the Scriptural
era in question. No shorter period than this at least would be
sufficient to settle all the mighty events which resulted from the ἰλιὰς
κακῶν, or multitude of evils springing from the Trojan war, and the
final catastrophe of the ancient city of Priam; and in no less a time,
would the heroes who survived this great event, and who went in quest of
new settlements and peace, far from the scenes of strife, be able, in
the name and power of their posterity, to build cities and plant
vineyards, and to form new states and create dynasties in foreign lands.

               “Tantæ molis erat Romanam condere gentem.”

The description of the men of this age as “divine,” and the idea of
giving to heroes the name of _Demigods_, thus commingling earth and
heaven, seems to have originated in the Sacred history of the wars of
the Israelites in Canaan, at the beginning and during the progress of
the _Critarchal age_. The remarkable interpositions of Providence which
accompanied this people, under the guidance of Moses in the wilderness,
under the command of Joshua in the promised land, and under the
government of the Judges when settled there, would lead all the Heathen
nations around them to ascribe to their leaders _more than mortal
power_; hence would naturally arise the title of _demigod_. Moreover,
the history of the transactions recorded in “the book of the wars of
Jehovah” (Numbers xxi. 14), of which no doubt our poet had “heard by the
hearing of the ear,” would inspire him with feelings and language
similar to that which the Philistines uttered when they heard that the
Israelites had brought the ark of God into their camp: “Woe unto us! who
shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods? these are the
Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues of the wilderness;”
(1 Sam. iv. 8). The extraordinary exertions of the Judges to deliver
their countrymen from a foreign yoke, roused and assisted as they always
were by the hand of God, might well strike terror into the hearts of
their enemies, and give rise to the name and the notion of their being
of supernatural origin. For instance, the remarkable atmospheric and
celestial phenomena which occurred under the leadership of Joshua, when
“the Lord cast great stones from heaven” upon the enemy, and when, at
the voice of a man, the _Sun and Moon_ “stood still” in the heavens for
“a whole day,” would not be soon forgotten among the Heathen; because
“there was no day _like that_ before it or after it, for the Lord fought
for Israel;” (Josh. x. 13, 14). Again, we are told in the song of
Deborah and Barak, that “the stars fought from heaven; the stars in
their courses, fought against Sisera;” and when we consider that the
Heathen worshipped the heavenly bodies, including the stars, as
divinities, we see how the idea of gods and demigods fighting the
battles of men, would naturally arise in their minds from the recital of
such a song as this; and we can thus trace the origin of the
mythological machinery which is so finely wrought and so eloquently
described in the pages of Heathen poesy.

In like manner, we find that the description of the settlement of the
“Happy Heroes in the Islands of the Blest,” at the close of this age,
savours strongly of the lofty ideas and the poetic language to be found
in the prophecies concerning the future happiness of God’s chosen
people. The establishment of the Israelites in the promised land, so
long the subject of prophecy, was no doubt the great prototype, which
the Poet had in his “mind’s eye” in this description; and the fame of
God’s gracious dealings with them having spread abroad throughout the
whole world, was no doubt the inciting cause which led mankind in
general to think of improving their condition, and to make those
frequent descents and migrations into other countries, which were so
common in this and the preceding age. Our Poet had no doubt heard of the
blessing of Jacob, which predicted the coming of Shiloh and the
happiness of the tribe of Judah, who, as its representative, should
“wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of grapes;” and whose
“eyes should sparkle with wine, and whose teeth should be whiter than
milk;” also, the felicity of the tribe of Joseph, who, in like manner,
should be blessed “with blessings of heaven above, and blessings of the
earth beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the matrix, and blessings
of his progenitors, which should prevail beyond the everlasting
hills.”[63] But the Song and the Blessing of Moses, which belonged to a
later age, and which heightened the expectations of the twelve tribes by
a clearer revelation, were still more likely to have reached the poet’s
ears through the traditions of those early times. From the former, he
would learn that the “Lord’s portion is his people;” and “Jacob the lot
of his inheritance;” that “the Lord alone did lead them,” and “there was
no strange god with them;” that “he made Israel ride on the high places
of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made
him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the
breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and he
drank the pure blood of the grape;” Deut. xxxii. 12–14. By the latter,
he would be informed that Jehovah “was King in Jeshurun, when the heads
of the people, the tribes of Israel were gathered together;” that “the
land” of Joseph was Blessed of the Lord, “for the precious things of
heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath; and for the
precious fruits of the changes of the _Sun_, and for the precious things
produced by the _month_, and for the chief things of the ancient
mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the
precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will
of him that dwelt in the Bush;” that “there is none like unto the God of
Jeshurun, he who rideth upon the heaven thy helper, even the most
glorious of the sky;” and that “_Israel should dwell alone_: the
fountain of Jacob should be in a land of corn and wine; and his heaven
should drop down dew.” In the contemplation of such a glorious prospect,
he might be led to say with the great lawgiver himself: “Happy art thou,
O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people, saved by the Jehovah, who is
the shield of thy help, and the sword of thy excellency!” Deut. xxxiii.
5, 13, 26. Truly as the poet said “the Eternal (Κρονος, _Time without
end_) now reigns their King.”

The sudden transition of the Poet from the description of the _Fourth
age_, to that of the _Fifth_, with his rapid glance at the _Sixth_,
which extends from v. 174 to v. 201, shows that his mind must have been
wrought up to a great pitch of feeling and sublimity, in reflecting on
the glorious deeds of the past age, and the splendid anticipations of
the future. With the description of the _Fifth_ or _Iron age_ in which
he himself lived, we cannot but deeply sympathise, feeling as we do that
it has returned in our own days, and that its features are precisely the
same as those which now characterize this _age of Bronze_.[64] “Oh! how
I wish,” says he, “that I had not lived in the _Fifth age_ (πέμπτοισι
ἀνδράσιν), but had either died before it, or lived after it; for, now
indeed is the _Iron age_; and they will rest neither day nor night from
labour and misery, corrupting each other; but the gods shall give them
unutterable sorrows; still even to these shall good and evil be
intermingled; but Jupiter shall destroy the men of this age, for they
shall become grey-headed soon after their birth; because the father will
not live in unity with his children, nor the children with the father;
the guest with his host, nor the friend with his companion; and the
brother will be no longer affectionate, as in former ages; and soon
shall they dishonour their parents growing old; then also shall the
wicked attack them, speaking cruel words, and not fearing the wrath of
the gods; nor shall the lawless then yield to their aged parents the
rewards of their education; but one shall destroy the city of another;
and no favour shall be shown to the pious, or the just, or the good; but
they will rather honour the evildoer, and encourage injustice; nor shall
there be any justice or modesty in their hands; and the wicked man shall
injure the good, addressing him with hard speeches, and even be guilty
of perjury; and croaking envy of hateful countenance, rejoicing in evil,
shall pursue the whole race of miserable mortals; and then shall
blushing Modesty and indignant Virtue, clothed in their white robes,
having forsaken mankind, pass from the spacious earth to Olympus, to
mingle with the immortal gods; then shall they leave direful woes to
mortal men; and there shall be no help for the evil.” In this
description, the Poet, who, according to the best authorities, lived
about the end of the first century of the _Iron age_, seems to have
partly borrowed his description from the sacred poetry of the Jews, and
having himself experienced the evils of injustice at the hands of his
own kindred, to have partly anticipated the wickedness of the age, in a
fine prophetic vein. Solomon, with whose glorious reign the _Monarchal
or Iron age_ began, uttered sentiments concerning the wicked, to which
the ideas of our poet have a striking similarity: “For they,” said he,
“sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken
away, unless they cause some to fall. For they eat the bread of
wickedness, and drink the wine of violence;” Prov. iv. 16, 17. The
following passages in the book of Proverbs, to which we shall only
refer, with others which might be cited, would almost lead us to imagine
that Hesiod had been familiar with the writings of Solomon: Prov. i.
11–19; v. 3–14; vi. 16–19; ix. 13–18; xxiii. 27–35; xxiv. 1, 2, 15–22;
and xxx. 11–23; but in the psalms of David, we find a more vivid and
sustained description of the wickedness of the wicked, and one to which
that of the Poet bears a more marked similarity than any of the passages
yet cited: thus, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They
have corrupted themselves, they have done abominable works, there is
none that doeth good, there is not even one. The Lord looked down from
heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did
understand, or seek after God. They are all gone out of the way, they
are together become useless, there is none that doeth good, no not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used
deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of
cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction
and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known:
there is no fear of God before their eyes.” Psalm xiv., according to the
Septuagint. When we consider that even on the lowest computation, the
poet Hesiod must have preceded the prophet Micah, by at least 100 years,
we cannot but be struck also with the similarity of their descriptions
of this age in which they both lived, and we cannot but admit that the
description of the former written as it is in the future tense, partakes
strongly of the character of inspiration. “The good man,” says the
latter, “is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among
men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother
with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince
asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he
uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is
a brier, the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy
watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust
ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of
thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the
father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own
house;” Micah. vii. 2–6.[65] This passage, which was frequently
appropriated by our Saviour when on earth, as describing the effects of
his Mission upon the wicked, to whom the Gospel is the savour of death
unto death, (Matt. x. 21, 35, 36; Luke xii. 53 and xxi. 16,) was
eminently descriptive of the _Iron or Monarchal age_, from its beginning
to its end, Hesiod, Micah and Ezekiel, as well as all the prophets,
being Judges; (Ezek. xxii. 6–13; and 29–31). The Poet’s description of
envy is strikingly just, and is manifested in a powerful degree in every
unregenerate human heart; and to their shame be it said, it is not
completely rooted out of the hearts even of Christians, till death has
done its part: see the confession and exclamation of Paul, and the
pointed description of James, to which the heart of every one must fully
respond: Rom. 18–25; James iv. 1–5. The idea of the flight of Modesty
and Virtue to heaven, leaving nothing but sorrows behind them, is also
conceived in the finest vein of true poetry, which is always correct in
its descriptions; nor is there any remedy for the evil until (as the
Poet perhaps said, had we his works entire,) the return of the _Golden
age_, when earth shall be as heaven.

With regard to the _Sixth age_, it is true, as Dr. Hales remarks, that
Hesiod does not expressly announce that it shall succeed the _Iron age_,
nor that it should be a state of _regeneration_ or a revival of the
_Golden age_; but his language strongly implies that it would be
superior to the _Fifth age_, inasmuch as he earnestly expresses his wish
that it had been his lot to have lived after the latter, in the words ἤ
ἔπειτα γενέσθαι. Moreover, in his address to his brother Persa, we find
a description of the happy effects which would result from doing
justice, extending from v. 225 to v. 237; and this description
corresponds exactly to the language used by the poets of the succeeding
age, in describing the return of the _Golden age_ at the close of the
_Sixth_: thus, “But they who grant strict justice to strangers and
citizens, and depart not in the least from equity, shall have a
flourishing city, and flourishing people within its walls; and peace,
the nurse of the young, shall dwell in the land; and Jupiter who sees
afar, shall never bring upon them the horrors of war; neither shall
famine or destruction annoy men strictly just; to them also the earth
shall bring forth plenteous subsistence; and on the mountains, the pines
shall produce apples at the top, and honey at the middle; and the
fleece-bearing sheep shall be laden with wool; and wives shall give
birth to children like their parents; and they shall flourish among the
good with perpetual bloom; and there shall be no need of navigation; for
the fertile ground shall produce all manner of fruit.”

It is to the poets and other writers of the _Sixth age_ itself, however,
that we are to look for the prophetic anticipations of the glorious
event which was to illuminate its close. At the beginning of this age,
flourished the _Seven Wise Men_ of Greece, whose laconic, but excellent
aphorisms, indicated the approach of better times. To them we owe,
according to Plato, the celebrated maxim Γνῶθι σεαυτόν,—_Know thyself_;
but even to know himself was more than man could attain, without a
revelation from heaven;—how much more necessary was it, therefore, that
the knowledge of the everlasting God should emanate from the same
source! Accordingly, we find in the Scriptures, the following maxim
perpetually inculcated, which is as much above that of the Seven Sages,
as the Heavens are above the earth. “The fear of the Lord is the
_highest_ wisdom;”[66] to which we may add, with Solomon, David, and
Job, who all uttered the same aphorism—“And to depart from evil is
understanding;” (Prov. i. 7; Psalm cxi. 10; and Job xxviii. 28.) and it
is easy to give it the laconic form, if this be any recommendation to
the admirers of the wisdom of the Heathen, who prefer to drink at their
muddy streams, and neglect the fountain of truth; for we have only to
say Γνῶθι θεὸν,—_Know God_; and we concentrate in these two words, all
that is necessary for man’s happiness, both in this world, and that
which is to come: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;” John xviii. 3.
He indeed, who knows God, knows himself also; for he knows that in the
sight of God, he is “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and
naked;” and that he must buy of God, through Jesus Christ, “gold tried
in the fire,” that he may be rich; and “white raiment,” that he may be
clothed, and that the shame of his nakedness may not appear; and
“eye-salve” to anoint his eyes, that he may see; Rev. iii. 17, 18.

When a century and a-half of the _Sixth age_ had passed away, arose
Socrates, the wisest of all the Greeks, who, as Cicero remarks, brought
philosophy down from heaven to earth, and taught all that man could know
about Divine things, which, according to his own confession, was
positively nothing, with the exception of some obscure ideas which he
had learned from primitive tradition. He indeed appears to have had just
views of man’s ignorance, and according to Plato, his illustrious
disciple, who survived his master half a century, he considered that
there was no real way of finding out the truth concerning God, but by a
revelation from Heaven, by the hand of a Divine Messenger. This appears
evident, both from some passages in Plato’s Dialogue, entitled the
“Phædo,” and from the following remarkable passage in that entitled the
“_Second Alcibiades; or, of Prayer_,” which we copy from the 2nd vol. of
Dr. Hales’s “Analysis,” p. 1231.

“SOCRATES.—We must needs wait then, _Alcibiades_, until we can learn how
we ought to behave toward God and men. ALCIBIADES.—When shall this time
come, _Socrates_? and who shall be the _instructor_? for I long to see
_this man_ (τουτον τον ἀνθρωπον) whosoever he is. SOCRATES.—He it is who
_careth for thee_ (ᾡ μελει περι σου); and I think, that as _Minerva_ in
Homer (Iliad 5, 127) removed the _mist_ from the _eyes_ of _Diomedes_,
that he might _well know_ both _gods_ and _men_; so it is necessary in
the first place, that He should remove _the mist_ from _your soul_ that
is now attached thereto; and next that He should apply _the means_ by
which you shall know both _good_ and _evil_ in future; for now indeed
you seem not to be able. ALCIBIADES.—Let him remove the mist, or
whatever else it is, since I am prepared to decline none of his
directions, _whosoever this man is_, (ὁστις ποτ’ έστιν ὁ ἀνθρωπος),
provided I may be able to _become better_. SOCRATES.—Truly _that same
person_ (κακεινος) _hath a wonderful regard for thee_. ALCIBIADES.—I
think then, the best way will be to _postpone sacrificing_ until that
time. SOCRATES.—You think right, for it is safer than to run so great a
risk [of sacrificing improperly.] ALCIBIADES.—Then indeed, shall we give
to THE GODS _crowns_ and other _legitimate offerings_, when I see that
day coming, and _it will come in no long time_, THE GODS _willing_.”
From the same work, to which we have been so much indebted, we cannot
avoid extracting the following lines to the same purport, taken from the
Hymn of Eupolis, another disciple of Socrates, as translated by
_Wesley_, not the founder of Methodism, but his father, Dr. Hales
remarks:—

              “And yet, a greater _Hero_ far
              (Unless great _Socrates_ could err)
              Shall _rise_ to _bless_, some _future day_,
              And _teach_ to _live_, and teach to _pray_.”

Dr. Hales has also given, at p. 1378, the following striking description
from Plato, of the sufferings of the JUST ONE, and of the reception he
should meet with from a heedless and ungrateful world. “He shall be
stripped of every possession, except his _virtue_; stigmatized as
_wicked_, at a time when he exhibits the strongest proofs of _goodness_;
endowed with _patience_ to resist every _temptation_, and _reverse of
fortune_, but inflexibly maintaining _his integrity_; not _ostentatious_
of his good qualities, but desiring to be _good_ rather than to _seem
so_. In fine the recompense which the JUST ONE so disposed (οὑτω
διακειμενος ὁ δικαιος), as I said, shall receive from the world is this;
he shall be _scourged, tortured, bound, deprived of his eyes_,
(μαστιγωσεται, στρεβλωσεται, δεδησεται, εκκαυθησεται τω οφθαλμω), and at
length, having suffered all sorts of evils, _he shall be crucified_
(ανασχιν δυλευθησεται); [Works] vol. ii. p. 361, 362, Edit. _Serrani_.”
He adds, “Plato who travelled into _Egypt_, unquestionably collected
this singular _character_ and _sufferings_, of the JUST ONE, from the
Hebrew Scriptures, of the _Psalms_, _Isaiah_, _Daniel_, and _Zechariah_,
with the last of whom, he was nearly contemporary.”

As the time, the long-expected, and eagerly-wished for time, drew nigh,
when the Messiah was to appear, and as (the συντελεία τῶν αἰώνων) the
_consummation of the ages_ hastened on, we find that the expectations of
the Heathen for this Divine Instructor, this mighty King and Saviour,
increased in magnitude and intensity,—a certain proof that the arrival
of the _Seventh_, or the return of the _Golden age_, was the subject of
their calculation, as well as the theme of their song. On this subject
we need only refer to the works of Virgil, who flourished B.C. 40, in
the reign of Augustus Cæsar, and particularly to the celebrated
_Eclogue_ entitled “_Pollio_,” in which he gives a condensed summary of
the prophetic anticipations of all preceding poets and philosophers from
the days of Hesiod to his own. To those who may not have viewed the
_fourth_ Eclogue in this light, the following extract of a poem so well
known, may not be unacceptable:—

          “Now the last age of Cumic song has come:
          A cycle vast of ages new appears;
          Virtue returns, and Saturn’s former reign:
          Now a new race descends from lofty heaven.
          O chaste Lucina, hail the coming prince,
          Who shall the death of _Iron rule_[67] behold,
          And resurrection of the _Golden age_:
          For in this age, the Great Apollo reigns.
          This glorious year, O Pollio, is thine;
          And now the vast lunations are begun.
          This year, if any trace of crime remain,
          With its destruction, fear for ever flies.
          That prince, on earth, the life of gods shall lead,
          Heroes with gods in council he shall see,
          And they with wonder shall behold his deeds:
          While with paternal sway, the world he rules.
          O, prince! to thee spontaneous earth shall bring
          Her early fruits, and sweetest smelling shrubs,
          On velvet flowers thy infant feet shall tread;
          Before thy face, the serpent shall succumb,
          And poisoned herbs their baneful power shall lose:
          The Rose of Sharon everywhere shall spring.
          In early youth thou shalt delight to read
          The praise of heroes, and thy father’s deeds,
          And all that tends to form the virtuous mind;
          Soon shall the fields be to the harvest white,
          And prickly thorns be changed to blushing vines,
          While honey sweet the knotty oak shall yield.
          Yet traces of man’s early sin shall rise,
          And lead him to renew his toils at sea,
          To wall his towns, and cultivate the ground.
          Again, the Argonauts shall skim the main;
          Again, the Theban war shall be begun;
          Again, to Troy, shall Peleus’ son descend.”

This description has a manifest reference to Hesiod’s account of the
different ages of the world, and forms a complete supplement to that
interesting relic of antiquity. Here we trace the _last_, or _Sybilline
age_, in which Hesiod wished he had lived, the commencement of a great
succession of ages, the return of the virgin _Nemesis_ or _Astræa_, the
Goddess of Justice, whom we have denominated _Virtue_, and who fled at
the close of the _Iron age_; the return of _Saturn’s_ reign, which was
to begin with the _Seventh_, or _Golden age revived_; and the reign of
_Apollo_, who was the representative of the _Solar deity_, and the
reviver of all things. The humanity and the divinity of the expected
prince, is strangely shadowed forth by the poet, in his allusion to his
intercourse with _gods_, _demigods_ and _heroes_, according to the Greek
mythology. The misapplication, however, of the Cumæan or Sybilline
prophecies, which were evidently borrowed or stolen from the Hebrew
Scriptures, to the expected son, of _Pollio_ according to some, or of
_Augustus_ according to others, is a proof that the time of our
Saviour’s advent at the close of the _Sixth age_ was known to be near;
and that while there were some who, like aged Simeon, waited for the
consolation of Israel; or, like Anna, the prophetess, departed not from
the temple at Jerusalem, in earnest expectation of Him who suddenly came
to it, and gladdened their eyes; so there were some even among the
Heathen who, like Virgil, had heard of the expected Saviour, and who
gladly hailed his approach, although they were mistaken as to the signs
of his coming, and were ignorant of the distinguishing characteristics
by which he was to be known. It can scarcely be doubted indeed, that in
this Eclogue, Virgil had the prophecy of Isaiah in his mind, in which
the Messiah is described as a “rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a
Branch out of his roots,” and which he might have even read in the Greek
version of the _Seventy_. The following are some of its more striking
points of similarity: “With righteousness he shall judge the poor, and
convince the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the
word of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the
wicked. The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall
lie down with the kid; and the young calf, and the bull, and the lion
shall feed together; and a little child shall lead them. And the ox and
the bear shall feed together; and their young ones shall be together:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And an infant shall put his
hand on the holes of asps, and on the nest of young asps. They shall not
hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of
the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;” Isaiah xi. 1–9;
taken partly from the Septuagint. In a similar passage of the same
prophet, which is perhaps still more to be admired on account of the
richness of its promises to the people of God, and its striking
resemblance to some passages in the book of Revelation, we find a very
singular remark which seems, to our dark and finite understandings, to
mar the beauty of the description; we refer to Isaiah lxv. 17–25. At v.
20, the prophet says, “but the sinner, being a hundred years old shall
be accursed;” but for this sentence, we should have taken the whole
passage for a figurative description of the happiness of the heavenly
state allotted for the righteous after death. In imitation, perhaps of
this singular passage, our poet introduces into his description of the
renewal of the _Golden age_, the acute remarks with which the preceding
extract terminates, and in which it seems as if he had anticipated the
wars which have since desolated Christendom.[68]




                              CHAPTER IV.
                 ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.

  1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the ancient
       chronographers—The testimony of the latter chiefly in
       favour of the Septuagint—The testimonies of Josephus,
       Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal
       Chronicle selected for examination—Table I. Containing their
       statements relating to the _First age_ of the world—Errors of
       Josephus—Corruption of his text—Mr. Cunninghame’s detection of
       his blunders in regard to the first age—His discovery of the
       truth from the titulary statements of the first and second books
       of Josephus—His explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this
       author appears to have been accessory—Error of Theophilus, and
       accuracy of Africanus in this age—Similar error of Eusebius and
       Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the
       Paschal Chronicle.


Although the chronology of the Septuagint receives the strongest
confirmation from the writings of the ancient chronographers, it must
not be concealed that some of them have committed very strange and
unaccountable errors in the computation of the different ages of the
world; while, the works of others have come down to us in such an
imperfect and corrupted state, that implicit dependance cannot be placed
in the chronographical statements which they now contain. The latter
remark is peculiarly applicable to the writings of Josephus, whose
authority, notwithstanding all his errors, has been followed by many
modern chronologers in preference even to that of the sacred Scriptures.
Surely the question of chronology lies between the Hebrew text and the
Septuagint version, and not between either of these and the works of the
chronographers whether ancient or modern. By a fair examination,
however, of their Sacred Chronology, we shall find that the testimony of
the oldest and best chronographers is almost entirely in favour of the
chronology of the Septuagint, and that wherever they differ from it in
their works, they commit errors which in general, can easily be detected
and accounted for, unless the passages in question have been so entirely
vitiated by the wilful mistakes of transcribers as to render it
impossible to determine what were the real and actual statements of the
author. We shall select for this purpose, the names of five authors who
possess the greatest influence among the learned on the subject of
chronography, and whose statements are more or less followed by all
later writers on the same subject: namely, Josephus A.D. 90, Theophilus
A.D. 180, Africanus A.D. 220, Eusebius A.D. 315, and the author of the
Paschal Chronicle.[70]

The names of these chronographers have been particularly selected
indeed, and their statements tabulated by Mr. Clinton himself, as the
best authorities, at least so far as regards the first two ages of the
world. We do not follow him, however, in placing their statements on a
level with those of the ancient texts and versions of Scripture; but we
class them together as possessing the next claim to our attention. The
following table, which for the sake of comparison, is marked by the same
_number_ as the corresponding table in our _first Part_, contains the
_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Antediluvian Patriarchs_, and the
_Extent_ of the _First age_ of the world according to each
chronographer:

                               TABLE I.
    ANTEDILUVIAN   JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.
     PATRIARCHS.                                              CHRON.
                     A.P.    A.P. ages.  A.P. ages.   A.P.     A.P.
                     ages.                            ages.   ages.
   From Creation
   Adam                  230         230        230       230    230
   Seth                  205         205        205       205    205
   Enos                  190         190        190       190    190
   Cainan                170         170        170       170    170
   Mahalaleel            165         165        165       165    165
   Jared                 162         162        162       162    162
   Enoch                 165         165        165       165    165
   Methuselah            187        *167        187      *167    187
   Lamech               *182         188        188       188    188
   Noah                  500         500        500       500    500
   To the Flood          100         100        100       100    100
                        ————        ————       ————      ————   ————
      FIRST AGE         2256        2242       2262      2242   2262

Besides their respective statements above tabulated, these
chronographers generally give in their works some additional statements
which, with some exceptions, serve to rectify their errors, and to
corroborate and confirm the true chronology. Josephus, however, in the
present text, is made to say that the period from Adam to the flood is
2656 years; whereas the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives
only 2256 years! On this point, some advocates of the Hebrew chronology
argue that the original number was 1656 years, and that δισχιλιών has
been put for χιλιών, or _two thousand_ for a _thousand_; but this is
mere assertion; for it is just as easy to say that the original number
was 2256 years, and that ἑξακοσιών has been put for διακοσιών, or _six
hundred_ for _two hundred_. Now the proof that the latter assertion is
the true one, is that the number 2256 agrees entirely with the summation
of the numbers given in detail; whereas the number 1656 does not agree,
and must consequently be erroneous. Moreover, there are some MS. copies
of Josephus in which we find the true reading ἐτων δισχιλιών διακοσιών
πευτήκοσταἑξ, or _two thousand two hundred and fifty six years_; and
this reading is also to be found in some ancient authors who have
followed Josephus in chronology, such as, Eutychius Alexandrinus,
Josephus Christianus, Anianus Asceta, &c.[71] A few various readings
relating to the _Antepaidogonian ages_ are also to be found in the
different MSS. to which we have referred, but they are of minor
importance and not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the
tabular numbers. The same may be said of his statements regarding the
_Postpaidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_; but as the chronology does not
depend on these statements, it is unnecessary to make them the subject
of discussion.

It is a very remarkable thing that Josephus differs here from the
Septuagint only in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, and that in this
point he agrees with the Hebrew text. Nor are we aware of the existence
of any various reading which would lead us to suppose that it had been
otherwise in the text of Josephus. This circumstance alone, though there
be many others, would almost lead us to conclude, with Mr. Cuninghame,
Preface to his “Synopsis,” p. vii., “that the corruption of the
Chronology must have taken place at an earlier period” than is commonly
supposed by the learned. He believes “it to have been in the interval
between our Lord’s death and the beginning of the Jewish war. This
allows more than 30 years for the purpose, which is quite sufficient.”
He also conceives “that it must have been well known to Josephus, and
the _end for which it was done_;” and he adds, “It was, however, yet of
too recent an origin for him to venture upon the bold experiment of
openly substituting it [the corrupted chronology] for the universal
chronology of his own, as well as other nations, and the Christian
church, and therefore he has introduced both schemes, namely, the _short
and the long_ [_computation_], in such a manner as to perplex and
utterly confuse the whole subject, and to draw from some of our most
learned men, the acknowledgment that his chronology is involved in
hopeless obscurity.” The following explanation of the discrepancy
between Josephus and the Septuagint in regard to the _Antepaidogonian
age_ of Lamech will be to the general reader more satisfactory than that
to which we referred in our _first Part_, p. 23. “Josephus, who in all
the other Antediluvian generations follows the Greek, does in this of
Lamech follow the Hebrew, and the effect of it is, that his Diluvian
period from Creation is 2256, while that of the best copies of the
Seventy, and of Demetrius, is 2262 years. This difference of 6 years,
therefore, goes through his whole Chronology. At the beginning of the
1st book of his Antiquities [_that is in the Title to the Book_] he
tells us, that it contains a period of 3833 years, to which, adding the
6 years above mentioned to make it accord with the Greek chronology of
Demetrius, the sum is 3839 years. If the reader will next turn to the
Table in the Fulness of the Times, p. 34, he will see that this period
of 3839 years, measures exactly the interval, from Creation, to the end
of the year B.C. 1640, when the children of Israel left Egypt. Now as it
is in the nature of things impossible that this most remarkable
coincidence should have been unknown to Josephus, the necessary and the
legitimate conclusion is, that the above period of 3833 years is his
authentic chronology from Creation to the Exodus. It divides itself as
follows:

                                                    Years.
             1st. To the Deluge                       2256
             2nd. To the Birth of Abraham             1072
             3rd. To the Exodus                        505
                                                      ————
                  Total from Creation to the Exodus   3833

It, moreover, necessarily includes the disputed generation of Cainan,
proving that it was in his text originally; and it excludes Usher’s
addition of 60 years to that of Terah. But the narrative of the 1st book
of the Antiquities comes no lower than the _death of Isaac_, which was
226 years before the Exodus, and the 2nd book contains the history from
the death of Isaac to the Exodus. Yet Josephus, after having at the
beginning of his 1st book already given the period which measures the
narrative of _both books_, does nevertheless at the commencement [that
is, in the Title] of his 2nd Book, tell us that it contains a period of
220 years in _addition_ to the former, and to this extent his chronology
of the whole period from the Creation to the Exodus is _forged_.” For
the rest of his remarks on the delinquencies of Josephus, and the
detection of his errors, we must refer our readers to the Preface to
Part II. of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” pp. x, et seq.
whence the above extract is taken.

It is proper, however, to add the promised explanation, as abridged as
possible. Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Fulness of the Times,” pp. 138, 139,
shows that in curtailing the true chronology, the Jews preserved the
_Jubilean Series_ from the birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob to
Padan-aram; for, according to the Septuagint, this interval is 3136
years, or 64 Jubilees; but, according to the Hebrew text, and Usher,
2009 years, or 41 Jubilees; the difference, therefore, is 1127 years or
23 Jubilees. Now this difference consists of the following periods
struck off in the Hebrew chronology:

                                                   Years.
              From the birth of Enos to the Flood     406
              From the Flood to the birth of Terah    720
              Antedate of Jacob’s departure             1
                                                     ————
                     Total 23 Jubilees, or           1127

Mr. Cuninghame argues from the cyclical nature of this period, that the
Rabbis who curtailed the true chronology, “were well aware that from the
birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob for Padan-aram, there was an
exact series of Jubilees, and that in corrupting the Sacred text, they
have, with profound artifice, contrived to preserve a series of complete
Jubilees, by subtracting exactly 23 Jubilees, or 1127 years.” He adds
the following proof regarding the _single_ year; in the true chronology,
the birth of Abraham is B.C. 2145, and the departure of Jacob, B.C.
1908,—interval, 237 years; in the curtailed chronology these events are
respectively dated B.C. 1996, and B.C. 1760,—interval, 236 years; hence,
the antedate is one year. Now in the preceding interval from the birth
of Enos to the flood, the period of 6 years which was subtracted from
the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, is an essential element in the
argument; otherwise that interval would be only 400 years instead of
406, and the whole of the argument would then fall to the ground.
Another argument, in favour of the 6 years is, that if the longer
chronology of Josephus be so far correct, which is proved from the
Septuagint, it is surely proper to follow the authority of that version
in regard to the 6 years, _as well as_ in regard to the 600 years; if we
trust to its accuracy for the _greater_ number, we may also trust it for
the _less_! It seems ridiculous and absurd to take the evidence of the
highest authority at _second_ hand, and to reject a small part of that
evidence, because it is not fairly brought forward by the _same_ hand;
although it be pressed on our notice by many other witnesses! Surely in
regard to these 6 years, the testimony of the Septuagint and the whole
Christian Church, is before that of Josephus.

In reference to the tabulated statements of Theophilus, we find only the
very singular and unaccountable error of 20 years in the
_Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah, which the Vatican codex, if we may
trust the editions of the Septuagint said to have been taken from it,
appears to have retained. That this chronographer has evidently read 167
years instead of 187 years, can scarcely be doubted from his subsequent
statements, and particularly from his statement respecting the extent of
this age, that “all the years till the flood were 2242.”[72]

The statements of Africanus as to the Antediluvian period, entirely
agree with those of the Septuagint, which shows that he had taken his
numbers from a more correct copy of that version, and one that agreed in
this respect with the celebrated Alexandrine codex now deposited in the
British Museum. He confirms the truth of his particular statements by
the following summary ones: _first_—“Therefore, from Adam till the birth
of Enos all the years are 435;” _second_,—“Therefore, from Adam till
Noah and the flood are 2262 years.”[73] As to the statements of
Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle, they are of a later
age, and must therefore have been copied from one or other of the former
authors, or from the copies of the Septuagint extant in their time. From
the notes upon the Chronicon of Africanus, added by Routh,[74] it is
evident that both Eusebius and Syncellus adopted the numbers in the
preceding table which we have arranged under the name of the former; and
that Epiphanius and the author of the _Paschal_ or _Alexandrine_
Chronicle adopted the correct numbers of the Septuagint, which we have
placed under the title of that work. After stating that according to
Africanus, “there were 3000 years from Adam to the death of Peleg;”
Syncellus adds, “but according to Eusebius, 2980 years;” the difference
between these numbers is 20 years, which is precisely the same as the
difference between their dates of the year of the flood, viz: A.M. 2262,
and A.M. 2242. Moreover, although Syncellus states that Africanus gives
the former of these dates, as the true epoch of the deluge; he adds his
own opinion, that “from Adam to the flood there were 2242 years,” and
“contra Africanum pugnat,” _fights against Africanus_, in favour of the
erroneous number. The author of the Paschal Chronicle says explicitly,
that “in the 100th year of Shem, the 600th of Noah, and the 2262d year
of the world, the flood was upon the earth; and this is the exact number
which Africanus exhibits at this epoch since the correct copies of
Genesis shew 187 years as the age of Methuselah when he begat Lamech.”
Epiphanius, in his first book “against Heretics,” after narrating that
Noah was saved in the ark, says “and thus the 10th generation extended
to the 2262d year [of the world,] and the flood brought it to an end.”
Thus it appears to have been the general opinion of the oldest and best
writers that the _First age_ of the world was of the _precise length_
which we have assigned to it; and that the only difference among them
was, whether it were not shorter by 20 years, in consequence of some
foolish mistake committed by an early transcriber in the
_Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah; for in this age, the correct copies
of the Septuagint perfectly agree with the Hebrew text.

  2. Table II., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers
       relating to the _Second age_ of the world—Absurd errors of the
       text of Josephus—The discrepancy between his detailed numbers and
       his sum total, the work of an enemy to the truth—Proof that the
       true sum was in his text originally—Errors of Theophilus and
       Africanus in this age due to Jewish influence—Notion entertained
       by the ancient chronographers regarding the bisection of the
       Mundane period at the death of Peleg—The genealogy of Shem, like
       that of Melchisedec, in the chronology—Reference to Mr.
       Clinton—Error of Eusebius, rectified in the Hieronymian version
       of his Chronicon—Accuracy of the Paschal Chronicle, with the
       exception of the biennial period—Valuable Testimony of Eusebius
       and Africanus, preserved by Syncellus in his Chronographia, on
       the extent of the _first two ages_.

We now proceed to notice the errors of these chronographers, in their
statements regarding the _Second age_ of the world. The following table,
which should be compared with Table II. in our first Part, contains the
_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Postdiluvian Patriarchs_, and the
_Extent_ of the _Second age_, according to each chronographer.

                                TABLE II.
  POSTDILUVIAN   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.
   PATRIARCHS.                                                  CHRON.
                 A.P. ages. A.P. ages.  A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages.
 From the Flood         *12          *0         *0          2         *0
 Arphaxad               135         135        135        135        135
 Cainan                  *0          *0         *0         *0        130
 Salah                  130         130        130        130        130
 Heber                  134         134        134        134        134
 Peleg                  130         130        130        130        130
 Reu                    130         132        132        132        132
 Serug                  132         130        130        130        130
 Nahor                 *120         *75         79         79         79
 Terah                   70          70         70         70         70
 To the Call of          75          75         75         75         75
   Abraham
                       ————        ————       ————       ————       ————
   SECOND AGE          1068        1011       1015       1017       1145

In regard to the _Extent_ of this age, Josephus is made to say, in the
present text, that Abraham “was born in the 292d year after the
flood;”[75] while the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives 993
years, to which adding the age of Abraham at the Call, we have 1068
years! As we can scarcely suppose Josephus to have been guilty of so
extraordinary an absurdity as to commit an arithmetical error of this
magnitude, we cannot only attribute the discrepancy to the evil design
of his transcribers, and say “an enemy hath done this!” Moreover, the
same wicked hand that dared to alter this and other numbers of our
author, has no doubt, also dared to omit here the genealogy of the
_Second Cainan_. Nor can we see what good purpose it could serve to make
him say that “Arphaxad the son of Shem, was born 12 years after the
flood,” instead of 2, as in the Sacred text; and that “Nahor when he was
120 years old begat Terah,”[76] instead of 79, as in the Septuagint. But
since in these details, Josephus has in general adopted the numbers of
the Septuagint, it is plain that he must have followed the same
authority in their sum total, and that the sum of 292 years must have
been inserted instead of the true sum of 1072 years, by some early
advocate or supporter of the Hebrew chronology. Besides, we have shown
in our preceding remarks on the _Extent_ of the _First age_, that
Josephus has prefixed a number to his _first Book_, which in reality
belongs to his _first and second Books_, and which includes the extent
of the _first three ages_, all but 6 years. That number is 3833 years, a
period wholly inexplicable on any other principle than that which Mr.
Cuninghame has laid down. To him, we are therefore justly indebted for
its true and satisfactory explication; and he has clearly shown that
Josephus must have originally inserted in his Antiquities, the true
number of 1072 years, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham; although
the text is now so vitiated that it cannot be made out from the place in
question.

The errors of Theophilus in this age are both strange and unaccountable,
except on the principle of Jewish influence, when we consider that his
error in the first age, was only 20 years, while here it amounts to 132
years. He states that from the Creation “till Abraham, there are 3278
years,”[77] that is, to the birth of Isaac as appears by the context. If
from this number we subtract his extent of the first age, viz. 2242
years, the remainder is 1036 years, or his period from the flood to the
birth of Abraham; and from this period, deducting 25 years, the time
which elapsed from the Call to the birth of Isaac, we obtain a remainder
of 1011 years, which is the extent of the _Second age_, according to
Theophilus. Hence, it is plain that he omits the _Second Cainan_, the 2
years after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad, and 4 years in
the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor. The second omission is manifest also
from the context, where he says, “but _immediately_ (ἐυθέως) after the
flood, Shem being 100 years old, begat Arphaxad.” We shall see that he
endeavours to make up for these omissions, by a curious balance of some
of these errors in the succeeding age. In addition to the tabular
statements, Africanus says that, “Arphaxad begat Salah in A. M. 2397;
Salah begat Heber in A. M. 2527; and Heber begat Peleg in A. M. 2661.”
He says also that “Peleg at the age of 130 begat Reu, and having lived
other 209 years, died;” so that “from Adam to the death of Peleg there
were 3000 years.”[78] According to the true chronology, Peleg died in A.
M. 3132; hence, from the dates of Africanus, if correctly reported, it
appears that he omits the genealogy of the _Second Cainan_, and the two
years after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad. The difference
between the dates of Africanus and those derived from the Septuagint, is
therefore 132 years; and this number must be added to the subsequent
dates of Africanus, until other errors appear, in order to obtain the
true dates. If this be done, we shall find that throughout the whole of
this age, the dates of Africanus will perfectly agree with those of the
true chronology. Connected with the tradition of the renovation of the
world at the end of 6000 years, there appears to have been an idea
current among the early chronographers, that the period from the
Creation to the Advent of Christ was exactly _bisected_ at the death of
Peleg; because the Scripture says that “in his days the earth was
divided,” by which they seem to have understood the whole period of its
existence! Hence, the apparent reason of the omission of the _Second
Cainan’s_ generation, and the _Postdiluvian biennial_ period.[79]
Africanus further states that “in A. M. 3277, Abraham entered the
promised land;” consequently, an interval of 277 years had elapsed since
the death of Peleg; but this corresponds exactly with the interval of
the Septuagint, for 3409 − 3132 = 277; see Tables V. and VIII. of our
_first Part_. Moreover, he states that “from the flood and Noah to the
descent of Abraham into the promised land, were ten generations or 1015
years, and from Adam, twenty generations or 3277 years.”[80] We have
sufficiently discussed the question of the _number_ of generations here
mentioned, in our _first Part_, pp. 34–40; it is quite unnecessary
therefore, to resume the subject; suffice it to say that _Shem_ was an
_Antediluvian_, and therefore his generation could not be reckoned in
the number of generations after the flood; neither was it reckoned in
the number before the flood: for Noah was reckoned the _tenth_ from
Adam, and Abraham the _tenth_ from the flood. In this respect,
therefore, _Shem_ was like _Melchizedec_, as far as the generations or
genealogies on which the Chronology depended, was concerned, viz.,
“Fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither beginning of
days nor end of life, being assimilated to the Son of God,” who “remains
a priest for ever;” and who “hath made us [true believers in Christ]
kings and priests unto God even his Father; to” whom “be glory and
dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Heb. vii. 3; and Rev. i. 6.

The statements of Eusebius and the author of the Paschal Chronicle
respecting this age are taken from Mr. Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol.
i. p. 287; he appears to have very carefully sifted these numbers, in
order to arrive at the exact truth concerning the opinions of their
authors. He gives the following extract from the Chronicon of Eusebius;
“From the flood to the first year of Abraham are collected 942 years;”
if to this number we add 75 years, the age of Abraham at the Call, we
have 1017 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second age_ according to
Eusebius. The author of the Paschal Chronicle appears to have omitted
the two years after the flood; hence, the preceding 75 years being added
to 1070 years, the period which he assigns between the flood and the
birth of Abraham, we have 1145 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second
age_ according to that work. Routh, however, justly remarks that “in the
_Hieronymian version_ of the _Eusebian Chronicle_, the years of this
[the _Second_] Cainan are still extant;” hence, even according to
Eusebius, the true extent of the Second age appears originally to have
been 1147 years. The following testimony collected by Syncellus in his
Chronographia, from the works of Eusebius and Africanus, in support of
the computation of the Septuagint before the flood, and of the
Septuagint and Samaritan after the flood, we extract from Dr. Russell’s
“Connection,” vol. i. pp. 96, 97, on account of its important bearing on
the _Extent_ of the _first two ages_:—“Since, according to the most
ancient Hebrew copy preserved among the Samaritans, and which agrees
with the Septuagint translation, they who lived after the flood down to
Abraham did not beget children till after the age of 100 years and more,
what reason can be assigned that their predecessors before the flood,
whose lives were longer by many years, should begin to beget children
sooner, and not rather at the ages set down in the Septuagint? On mature
consideration, we must incline to the latter computation, and
necessarily conclude, that the Jewish-Hebrew reckoning of the times from
Adam to Abraham is wrong in all the ages excepting three, Jared,
Methuselah, and Lamech; and that the Samaritan-Hebrew computation is
also wrong in the period from Adam to the flood; for in the years from
the flood to Abraham it agrees entirely with the Septuagint. But the
error of the Jewish-Hebrew text is evident from hence, that it makes
Abraham and Noah contemporaries, which is inconsistent with all history:
for since according to the Hebrew text, there are no more than 292 years
from the flood to Abraham, and since, according to the same text, Noah
lived 350 years after the flood, it is evident that he lived to the 58th
year of Abraham!”

  3. Table III., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers
       relating to the _Third age_ of the world—The testimony of
       Josephus to the true chronology very explicit—Misinterpretation
       of prophecy the cause of wavering in Josephus and blunder in
       Theophilus—The testimony of Africanus correct—Eusebius,
       Demetrius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle
       correct—Explanation of the period of 400 years.

The following table which contains the statements of the chronographers,
regarding the _Third age_ of the World, ought to be compared with Table
VIII. in our _first Part_; as it contains the Chief _Patriarchal Eras_
and _Intervals_ according to each chronographer:

                               TABLE III.
   PATRIARCHAL   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.
      ERAS.                                                     CHRON.
                 Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.
                              From the Call
 The Eisodus            215         215        215        215        215
 To the Exodus          215         430        215        215        215
                       ————        ————       ————       ————       ————
    THIRD AGE           430         645        430        430        430

The testimony of Josephus to the Extent of this age is very explicit. He
states that the Israelites “left Egypt in the 430th year after that our
father Abraham came into Canaan, and in the 215th year after the Eisodus
of Jacob into Egypt;”[81] and he mentions some of the minor intervals,
in a very clear and distinct manner, in his 2nd Book. It is evident
indeed that he rightly understood the testimony of Scripture as to the
true intervals of this prophetic period; although he seems to waver from
the truth in the 9th chapter of that Book, where he speaks of the
afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt for a period of 400 years,
according to Gen. xv. 13. The latter text, however, appears to have been
the stumbling block of Theophilus in his chronology; for he agrees with
the Scriptures, as regards the intervals from the call to the Eisodus;
and then he says that “the sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt was 430
years!”[82] He seems therefore to have confounded the period of 400
years with the period of 430 years, and to have applied the whole period
to the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt alone, exclusive of Canaan,
contrary to the testimony of the Septuagint, Exodus xii. 40, Alexandrine
edition, and that of St. Paul, Galatians iii. 17. By this means, he
increases the Extent of the _Third age_ to 645 years, making it greater
than the true Extent, by 215 years! It would almost seem, therefore, as
if he had intended this error to compensate in some measure for those
which he committed in the preceding ages; inasmuch as it is of an
entirely opposite character. This excess of 215 years makes up not only
for the omission of the 20 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of
Methuselah before the flood, of the 130 years of the generation of the
_Second Cainan_, of the 2 years after the flood, and of the 4 years in
the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor; but gives a surplus of 59 years at
the end of the _Third age_ in his chronology. For, adding the 40 years
wandering in the Wilderness to his amount of the _first three ages_, he
says that “all the years are 3938,”[83] from the Creation of the world
to the entrance of the Israelites into the promised Land. By a reference
to Table X. of our _first Part_, it will be seen that the true date of
this entrance is A.M. 3880, and making allowance for the single year we
have added to this date, on the ground specified at p. 65, it follows
that the date of Theophilus is erroneous in excess by 58 years.

The statements of Africanus respecting this age have not been preserved
in a perfect state; but from the following fragments, it will appear
that he took the correct and Scriptural view of its _Extent_ and
_Intervals_. Syncellus says that according to Africanus, “Joseph was 40
years old in the 130th year of Jacob; consequently, Joseph lived 70
years after the arrival of Jacob in Egypt;” and that “from Adam to the
death of Joseph, were 23 generations, and 3563 years.[84]” Now, if to
the latter number, we add 132 years, for reasons already mentioned p.
244, we shall have 3695 years for the correct number according to the
true Chronology; see Table VIII. of our _first Part_. Again, he says,
“it has been shown that there were 1020 years from Moses and Ogyges to
the first Olympiad, that is, from the Passover or first year of the
Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, when the flood of Ogyges happened in
Attica.”[85] Here, if we take the last year of the first Olympiad as
that to which Africanus refers, namely B.C. 773, and add to it the
preceding number, we shall have B.C. 1793, for his date of the Exodus;
but as this chronographer constantly reckons the period from Creation to
the Birth of Christ as 5500 years,[86] it is evident by subtraction,
that his Mundane date of the Exodus is A.M. 3708; to which, adding the
constant number 132 as before, we shall obtain A.M. 3840, or B.C. 1639,
for the date of the Exodus according to the true system of chronology.
Again, if we take the difference between either the dates of Africanus,
or the true dates of the death of Joseph and the Exodus, which we have
deduced from his by the addition of a constant quantity, we shall obtain
the interval of 145 years, which, added to the period of 70 years above
mentioned, makes 215 years as his interval between the Eisodus and the
Exodus; consequently, his interval between the Call and the Eisodus must
have been the same amount, and his whole extent of this age 430 years.

Mr. Clinton has given a very full extract from the Chronicon of
Eusebius, in which he states that from the first year of Abraham to the
Exodus were 505 years; that Abraham left Charran in the 75th year of his
age; and consequently, from that year to the Exodus were 430 years. He
then states the Scriptural intervals from the Call to the birth of
Jacob, and traces through his genealogy, the intervals from thence to
the birth of Moses and the Exodus; but since, as Mr. Clinton remarks,
his “distribution of the last 215 years is more correct than in the
account of Demetrius, but still erroneous,” we need not repeat his
enumeration in this place; suffice it to say, that his estimate of the
whole period is correct. Mr. Clinton also cites the following passage
from the Paschal Chronicle, which shows that its author’s estimate of
the Extent of this age was likewise correct: “Joshua, the son of Nun, 27
years;—Chushanrishathaim, 8 years; in all, 3912 years.” For, adding to
the latter number, the two years which he omits after the flood, we
shall have 3914 years; and from this, subtracting the 35 years just
cited, we shall have 3839 years, and consequently, A.M. 3839 for his
date of the Exodus, which is within a year of the true date for reasons
already alluded to; he, therefore, must have reckoned the period of 430
years from the ingress of Abraham into Canaan, to the egress of Israel
out of Egypt.

The adjustment of the period mentioned in Gen. xv. 13, can occasion no
difficulty to the careful reader of Scripture, for it is evident that
the commencement of this period must be reckoned from the day that Isaac
was weaned, or perhaps a year or two after; inasmuch it related
specifically to _the seed_ of Abraham which were to be strangers in “a
land not theirs,” and to be “evil entreated 400 years;” Acts vii. 6.
This evil treatment began when Isaac was a child, and was able to play,
say at 5 years old, with the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, the son of the
bondwoman, who was not to be heir with the son of promise and of
_laughter_. _Isaac_ was his name; but Sarah saw Ishmael _Isaaking_ or
_laughing_ at her son, and mocking him, and accordingly, she demanded
that the “bondwoman and her son” should be cast out,—a striking emblem
of the punishment that shall befal all the mockers of and laughers at
the people of God; for the Apostle truly says “but as then he that was
born after the flesh _persecuted_ him that was born after the Spirit,
even so it is now:” Galatians iv. 22; yea, and the term “_Saints_,” or
“_Holy ones_” of God, is become a term of mockery, of scorn, and of
reproach, in this very age in which we now live; although it be written
that “without _Holiness_ no man shall see the Lord!” Precisely then, for
the space of 400 years did this affliction and persecution continue
against the seed of Abraham, till God brought them out of the land of
Egypt “with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm;” and precisely
in the same manner shall all the true Israel of God be rescued from
their enemies, and be in due time delivered from the land of darkness
and of death.

  4. Table IV., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers
       relating to the _Fourth age_ of the world—The testimony of
       Josephus to the extent of this age highly satisfactory—Proof that
       it was 612 years—Strange errors of Theophilus—Method of
       rectifying them—Compensating errors of Africanus—His date of the
       foundation of Solomon’s Temple correct—Errors of Eusebius—His
       _Præparatio_ correct in amount, his _Chronicon_ wrong—He confutes
       himself and adopts the Hebrew chronology—Comparison between him
       and Usher—Errors of the Paschal Chronicle—The author coincides
       with Josephus—Hesitancy of Mr. Clinton—Table V., _The first four
       ages_ of the world, and date of Solomon’s Temple according to the
       different chronographers.

The following table, which exhibits the statements of the chronographers
regarding the _Fourth age_ of the world, should be compared with Table
X. in our _first Part_; as it contains the _Critarchal Eras_, and
_Intervals_ according to each chronographer. With regard to this period,
we omitted to observe that the reading in most of the MSS. and editions
of the Septuagint, in 1 Kings vi. 1, is 440 years instead of 480 years.

                                TABLE IV.
   CRITARCHAL   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS.│ EUSEBIUS. │  PASCH.
     ERAS.                                       │           │  CHRON.
                Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals.│Intervals. │Intervals.
 From the               40          40         40│   40    40│        40
   Exodus                                        │           │
 Joshua and             27          27        *55│  *30    27│        27
   Elders                                        │           │
 1st SERVITUDE           8           8           │    8    *0│         8
 Critarchate of         40          40           │  *50    40│       *32
   Othniel                                       │           │
 2nd SERVITUDE          18          18           │   18    *0│        18
 Cr. of Ehud            80          *8           │   80    80│        80
   and Shamgar                                   │           │
 3rd SERVITUDE          20          20           │   20    *0│        20
 Cr. of Deborah         40          40           │   40    40│        40
   and Barak                                     │           │
 4th SERVITUDE           7           7           │    7    *0│         7
 Cr. of Gideon          40          40           │   40    40│        40
 Of Abimelech,                                   │           │
   Tolah, and           48          48           │   48    47│        48
   Jair                                          │           │
 5th SERVITUDE          18          18           │   18    *0│        18
 Cr. of                  6           6           │    6     6│         6
   Jephthah                                      │           │
 Of Ibzan, Elon         25          25           │   25   *15│        25
   and Abdon                                     │           │
 6th SERVITUDE,         40          40        490│  *60   *20│       *60
   (Samson)                                      │           │
 Critarchate of         40         *81           │   40    40│       *80
   Eli                                           │           │
 7th SERVITUDE          20          *0           │   *0    *0│        *0
 Cr. of Samuel          12          12         90│   *0    *0│       *20
 Reign of Saul          40         *20           │   40    40│       *20
 Reign of David         40          40           │   40    40│        40
 To the                                          │           │
   Foundation            3           3         70│    3     4│         3
   of Solomon’s                                  │           │
   Temple                                        │           │
                      ————        ————       ————│ ————  ————│      ————
                       612         541        745│  613   479│       632

With regard to this much disputed period, the testimony of Josephus is,
in several places of his works, highly satisfactory. _First_—In the
title of the fifth book of his Antiquities, which records the history of
the interval from the death of Moses to that of Eli, he states that it
contains a period of 476 years; and in the title of the 6th book, which
records the history of the interval from the death of Eli to that of
Saul, he states that it contains a period of 32 years. These intervals
taken together make a period of 508 years; to which, if we add the 40
years in the wilderness, the 40 years of David, and the three years of
Solomon, we have 591 years; this period wants only about 20 years to
make it correspond with the true chronology, and these 20 years appear
to have been omitted in the Seventh Servitude; for the short period of
32 years is manifestly erroneous. The truth is, that the longer interval
should be only 456 or 457 years, in order to correspond exactly with
Acts xiii. 19, 20; and the shorter interval 72 years, in order to
correspond with Acts xiii. 21, and 1 Samuel vii. 2.[87] These intervals
would then make together 529 years; to which, if the numbers above
mentioned be added, the true amount is 612 years, as in the Table.
_Second_,—That 612 years is the true _Flavian Extent_ of the _Fourth
age_ of the world is evident from the 20th book of the Antiquities x. 1,
where the author says “but the number of the years which the thirteen
[high priests] ruled, from the day our fathers left Egypt, Moses being
leader, until the foundation of the temple which Solomon the king built
in Jerusalem, was 612 years.”[88] From this distinct statement of the
true extent of the _Critarchal age_, it is evident that the text of
Josephus, in books 5th and 6th of the Antiquities, must have originally
contained the true Scriptural numbers, although now we find the
following errors have supervened. The first error is in Book vii. 5, 4,
where, speaking of the form of the Hebrew Government under Moses and
Joshua, he says, “but after his [or their] death, for _the whole_ 18
years, anarchy ruled their people.”[89] The words τοῖς πᾶσι, _the
whole_, seem plainly to indicate that a connecting sentence has been
omitted here; and that _these 18 years_ must have been part of the
government of Joshua and the Elders, which appears to have been so mild
and _Patriarchal_, after the division of the land, when “the Lord had
given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about,” that humanly
speaking, they were _without government_, although they were living
under the best of all governments—_a Theocracy_. After the death of
Joshua and the Elders, indeed, there must have been a short period of
anarchy, perhaps about two years,[90] when the children of Israel
“forsook the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth,” and when “an angel of
the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim” to reprove them for their
Idolatry, (Judges ii. 1–5,) previous to their being “sold into the hand
of the King of Mesopotamia;” (iii. 8.) This _anarchal period of two
years_, with the _18 years of rest under Joshua_, and the _7 years of
his active government_ during the war and the allotment of the land,
will clearly make up the number of 27 years, a period to which all the
ancient chronographers bear the most distinct and unequivocal
testimony;—“Frequens tamen opinio est 27 annis eum [Jesum] Hebræis
præfuisse.”[91] A further proof of the opinion we have here advanced
respecting the 18 years, is that Josephus does not make the slightest
mention of them at the proper place in the history, where he speaks of
the death of Joshua, and the accession of Judah to power according to
the Divine word, Judges i. 2; but incidentally introduces them into a
reflection which he makes on the different forms of the Hebrew
government, on the occasion of the renewal of the Kingdom to Saul at
Gilgal; 1 Samuel xi. 14.

The second error relates to the critarchate of Shamgar, which is usually
reckoned at _one_ year by those who undertake to expound the chronology
of Josephus; but there is no warrant for this either in the Scriptures,
or in Josephus; for he merely says, in v. 4, 3, that “Shamgar died _in
the first year_ of his government,” which might have been at the very
commencement of it, and perhaps in the 80th year of Ehud. The next error
of Josephus is the _total omission_, in the present text of the
Critarchate of Tolah, who succeeded Abimelech, and preceded Jair; this
omission amounts to 23 years; but it must have been reckoned by
Josephus, otherwise he could not have recorded such numbers as he has
done in every place for the whole length of the period. Again, the name
and progeny of Abdon are mentioned in v. 7, 15; but the years of his
critarchate are omitted, in the present text, evidently by mistake or
oversight. Lastly, an error has been attributed to Josephus by some
chronologers,[92] in making Saul reign only 20 years; but this is a
mistake on their part; for he distinctly states in vi. 14, 9, that “he
reigned 18 years while Samuel was alive, and 22 years after his death,”
which clearly makes 40 years in all. Further, he states in vi. 13, 5,
that “after the death of Eli, the high priest Samuel alone ruled the
people 12 years; and after Saul was king, 18 years;” thus plainly, as in
the present text, omitting the _Seventh Servitude_, when the ark was at
Kirjathjearim for the space of 20 years; 1 Samuel vii. 2. _Third_,—in
his 2d Book _against Apion_, Sect. 2, Josephus says, “But Solomon
himself built the Temple, 612 years after the Exodus of the Jews from
Egypt.”[93] This is a very important testimony, occurring as it does in
an argumentative treatise concerning the “Antiquity of the Jewish
Nation,” in opposition to the pretensions of the Greeks, Egyptians, and
Chaldeans, to a vastly more remote origin than the Hebrews. Here,
Josephus, or his transcribers, having no particular end to serve in
reference to dates, has allowed the simple fact concerning the true
length of the period to remain on record. Most likely it has escaped
their notice, otherwise it might have shared the fate of the dates and
periods of his Antiquities, which have been by wilful alteration, thrown
into such inextricable confusion.

Having thus shown that Josephus originally held the true chronology of
this period, we may select some other instances of the manner in which
it has been misstated either by himself or others in the present text of
his works, the error being in general a period of about 20 years, either
above or below the truth. In the Antiquities vii. 3, 2, he says “But all
the time from Joshua being commander of the expedition against the
Canaanites, until David expelled them from Jerusalem, was 515
years.”[94] Now adding to this number the 40 years in the Wilderness,
the 33 years which David reigned in Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 5, 6, 7), and
the 3 years of Solomon, we have 591 years as before, a period which is
deficient by about 20 years. Again, in viii. 3, 1, he says, “But Solomon
began the building of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign, 592 years
after the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt;” but according to
_Tostatus_, cited by Hudson, the number found in some copies was 612
years.[95] Next, in ix. 14, 1, he says, “Therefore the Ten Tribes of
Israel migrated from Judea 947 years after the time when their
forefathers, having left Egypt, possessed the land; but after the time
when, having rebelled against Rehoboam, the grandson of David, they
transferred the kingdom to Jeroboam, 240 years, 7 months, 7 days;”[96]
now, if we reckon the captivity of the Ten Tribes from the Foundation of
the Temple, by allowing, according to Josephus, viii. 7, 8, for the
reign of Solomon 80 years, taking off 3 years, and adding the remaining
77 years to the latter interval above mentioned, neglecting the months
and days, we have 317 years for the amount; and if we subtract this
amount from the former interval, we have 630 years for the remainder,
which is evidently the period here reckoned between the Exodus and the
Foundation of the Temple, and it errs in excess by 18 years. Lastly, in
x. 8, 5, he says, “But the temple was burned 470 years, 6 months, and 10
days after it was founded; and 1062 years, 6 months, and 10 days after
the Exodus of the people from Egypt;[97] hence it follows, that the
period from the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple is here reckoned
592 years, which is deficient as above by 20 years. The object of the
author, or of his corrupters, appears to have been to make the
chronology square as much as possible with the extended reign of
Solomon, and to throw back upon this period a moiety of the surplus
years which he has thought fit to add to the length of this reign; but
we shall see more evidence on this point in the next section.

The intervals of Theophilus, according to the text extant, must have
been strangely corrupted, when we find that they make the extent of this
age only 541 years. If we restore to the Critarchate of Ehud the period
of 80 years instead of 8, a mistake which might easily occur in the
Greek, by the writing of Η for Π, and omit the _single year_ allotted to
_Samira_,[98] out of place, and void of authority, we shall at once have
the true number 612 years. We can scarcely, however, attribute the
corruption of the text of Theophilus to simple mistake in this manner;
for we find that he reckons from the entrance of Israel into the
promised land “till the [end of the] reign of David, all the years were
498:” now if to this interval, we add the 40 years in the Wilderness,
and the 3 years of Solomon, we shall have the precise period inserted in
the preceding Table, as his extent of the _Fourth age_. Theophilus has
committed other errors, which however balance each other, and produce no
effect on the whole period. After stating that “the Philistines ruled”
the Israelites “40 years,” he says that “Samson judged them 20 years;”
thus forgetting the Scriptures which says, that “he judged Israel _in
the days of the Philistines_ 20 years;” Judges xv. 20. He then says that
“there was peace among them for 40 years,” an assertion wholly
unauthorized by Scripture, and by the whole crowd of chronographers.[99]
These errors are compensated for by allotting to Eli only “20 years”
instead of 40 years, by omitting the _seventh servitude_ of 20 years,
and by putting only “20 years” instead of 40 years, for the reign of
Saul.[100] Dr. Russell, in his “Connection,” vol. i. pp. 128, 129, gives
a view of the chronology of this period according to Theophilus, where
he strangely misdates the age in which he lived, and contrary to the
copy of his work to which Mr. Clinton or ourselves have referred, makes
out that his Extent of the Critarchal age is 612 years! He makes no
remark whatever about the error of Theophilus in regard to the years of
Ehud, but assumes them at once at 80; he retains the one year of
Shamgar, and puts him in his proper place; and he makes the years of
Tolah 22 instead of 23; thus he easily obtains the correct number, but
by no means in a satisfactory manner, when compared with the text of the
author. Indeed, trusting to the view which Dr. Russell has given in the
passage referred to, we have at p. 71 stated, and at p. 92 considered,
that the extent of this period is, according to Theophilus, 612 years;
but we now have some doubts whether this was his genuine number, seeing
that he has included the erroneous number of 541 years in his subsequent
dates and intervals, as will be shown in another section.

In this age also, we have to regret the deficiency of the intervals of
Africanus, owing to the fragmentary state in which his works have
reached us. The testimony of Eusebius, both in his Chronicon and his
Præparatio Evangelica, as well as that of Syncellus, enables us to
exhibit the chief _Intervals_ and the whole _Extent_ of the _Critarchal
age_ according to this Chronographer. In the extracts of his third book,
which have been preserved, he says “From the Exodus of Moses to Cyrus,
who reigned after the Captivity, were 1237 years; for the remaining
years of Moses were 40; the years of Joshua, who succeeded him as
leader, 25; the years of the Elders, the Judges after Joshua, 30; the
years of those contained in the book of Judges, 490; the years of the
High Priests Eli and Samuel, 90; then, the years of the Kings of the
Hebrews, 490; [and the years of the captivity, 70;] the last year of
which was the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as we have before
said.”[101] The sum of these numbers is only 1235 years, instead of 1237
years, which shows that he must have originally written 27 years for
Joshua instead of 25 years.[102] From this passage we learn that the
interval from the Exodus to the accession of Saul is, according to
Africanus, 675 years. From Syncellus, we learn that “according to
Africanus, the years from Adam till the last of the Judges and the first
of Eli the High Priest, were 4292;” and that “from Adam till his
[Solomon’s] 8th year, there were, according to Africanus, 4457
years.”[103] Taking 5 years from the latter number, we have A.M. 4452
for the date of the Foundation of the Temple, being the 4th year of
Solomon. The difference, therefore, between this date and the first year
of Eli, is according to Africanus, 160 years; and the difference between
the latter number, and the 90 years allotted by him to Eli and Samuel,
is 70 years; hence, if we add this difference to the interval of 675
years above mentioned, we have 745 years for the _Extent_ of the
_Critarchal age_, according to Africanus. Eusebius in his Chronicon,
cited by Mr. Clinton, p. 308, makes this period 744 years, the
difference being “only a single year,” which may have arisen from a
slight difference in the mode of computation, and accounts for its
elongation by the addition of 100 years, which are wholly unauthorised
by Scripture: viz.—the 30 years ascribed to the Elders who outlived
Joshua, the 40 years of supposed anarchy after the death of Samson, and
the 30 years of imaginary peace which succeeded the anarchy. The grand
object of Africanus in the chronology of this age, appears to have been
to make up at once for the deficiency of the generation of the _Junior
Cainan_, and the two years after the flood, by the enlargement of the
period from its true length 612 years, to his surreptitious length of
744 years; for the difference between these numbers is just 132 years,
the precise difference between the dates of Africanus and the true dates
of the epochs in the two former ages. By the manufacture of the
intervals of the _Fourth age_, therefore, he has contrived to bring
about the true date of the Foundation of Solomon’s Temple in his
Chronology, and to compensate for his former errors in such a manner as
to restore the ancient computation of Scripture at this important and
well-known epoch.

Of the Extent of the _Critarchal age_, and the length of its
_Intervals_, as Mr. Clinton remarks, Eusebius has three accounts. For
the account taken from his _Præparatio Evangelica_, Lib. x. c. 14, and
the account taken from his “Chronicon,” which we have placed side by
side in the preceding table, we are partly indebted to Russell and
partly to Clinton.[104] As Dr. Russell has endeavoured to make the
former account, by the correction of some of its intervals, speak the
language of the “Chronicon” in a passage, for the citation of which we
are indebted to Mr. Clinton;[105] we have thought it right to restore
the original numbers, in order to show what was the real opinion of
Eusebius, respecting this age, on the occasion of writing his “Gospel
Preparation.” According to his opinion, therefore, the Extent of the
_Fourth age_ was 613 years, the difference between this number and the
Scriptural one, being only a single year! The author, however, commits a
number of errors in detail, which balance each other, and in their
summation, bring out almost exactly the true period. The chief errors
are, the omission of the _Seventh Servitude_, 20 years; and of the
Critarchate of Samuel, 12 years. In order to compensate for these
omissions, he reckons the Critarchate of Samson, apart from the _6th
Servitude_, 20 years; he adds 10 years to the Critarchate of Othniel;
and gladly seizes upon the 30 years for Joshua and the Elders instead of
27 years; in order to bring out the correct number for the whole period,
as nearly as possible, as he well knew that it was 612 years. That this
was his real opinion, is also evident from the following passage in his
“Chronicon” already referred to: “The amount of the time during which
the judges bore rule until Samuel, was altogether 450 years, our apostle
himself testifying it by his declaration, [Acts xiii. 20]. There are,
however, besides this reckoning, the periods of Moses and Joshua his
successor, as well as of Samuel and Saul. But let us pass, in the
meantime, the periods of Samuel, and Saul, and Joshua. Now from the
testimony of the Apostle, the 40 years of Saul must be added to the 450
years of the judges, to which number the 40 years of David and the 4
years of Solomon being added, the sum of the years amounts to 534; which
is, in fact, the apostolical tradition. Then, the 40 years which Moses
led in the desert, and again the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, to
which the Jews themselves agree, being added, the years amount to 600.”
This is a very important and clear statement of the truth, _with the
exception of the 12 years of Samuel_, “which,” Mr. Clinton says, “he
supposed to be included in the years of _Saul_.” We do not agree with
Mr. Clinton in this point; we think the passage bears evident marks that
he had the separate period of Samuel in his mind; particularly, from his
cunning “interim seponamus,”—“_let us pass in the mean time_.” In fact,
he only pretends to forget it; for he knew that if he had added it,
along with the periods of Joshua and Saul, he would have had the correct
number at once, namely, 612 years! His accommodation to the spirit of
the age in which he lived, by the insertion of the Hebrew chronology of
this period in his Tables, instead of the Septuagint or ancient
chronology which he has so clearly established by Apostolical tradition,
exhibits a degree of vacillation and imbecility wholly unworthy the
character of an able historian and chronographer, and quite unbecoming
an ardent advocate of the Truth. We have sufficiently refuted this
chronology in our _first Part_; and it is unnecessary to go over the
same arguments, or attempt to strengthen them by the admissions of our
opponents. Suffice it to remark that the Hebrew intervals of Eusebius
amount only to 479 years, instead of 480 years, which it ought to reach
according to 1 Kings vi. 1, and that even the Hebrew intervals of Usher
amount only to 478½ years, p. 68; and although these amounts differ only
by half a year, the details of their intervals exhibit a very surprising
difference. Thus, Eusebius allows 27 years to Joshua and the Elders,
Usher _none_, with the exception of 6⅓ years for the war and the
division of the land; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Gideon at 40
years, Usher at 49⅙ years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Tolah at
22 years, Usher at 23 years;[106] Eusebius omits the Critarchate of
Ibzan 10 years, and of Samuel 12 years; Usher admits the former, and
reckons the latter 21 years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Samson
20 years, and Usher omits it altogether. Eusebius and Usher are indeed
very fit authors to be classed together: both no doubt pious men and
exemplary Christians; but both too much given to yield to the pressure
of the times as historiographers and chronographers; and too much
influenced by the bold assertions of the Jews respecting the immaculate
purity of the Hebrew Text.

The Extent of the _Fourth age_ and the lengths of the _Intervals_,
according to the Paschal Chronicle, are given by Mr. Clinton, but in
such a rambling manner that we have had some difficulty to expiscate
them from his extracts. As to the extent, the author of the Chronicle
says “the whole time, from the 81st year of Moses, in which the Exodus
from Egypt took place, to Solomon and the Foundation of the Temple
amounts to 630 years.”[107] We have seen that this is the number
collected from Josephus Book viii. 7, 8; but the intervals given by the
author of the Chronicle, amount to 632 years. The first error he commits
is making the Critarchate of Othniel only 32 years; or, which is the
same thing, including the _1st Servitude_ in the 40 years of that
judge;[108] the next is reckoning the years of Samson distinct from
those of the _6th Servitude_, and interposing an unauthorised period of
40 years peace between Samson and Eli;[109] and the last is omitting the
_7th Servitude_, reckoning the critarchate of Samuel 20 years, and
reducing the reign of Saul to 20 years.[110] The author probably
reckoned only 39 years of Moses and 2 of Solomon, when he calculated the
whole period at 630 years. But from the Chronicon itself, the number of
632 years is clearly made out; for the 81st year of Moses is reckoned
A.M. 3837, and the 3rd of Solomon A.M. 4469. The coincidence between its
author and Josephus, which we have remarked above, is very singular, and
seems to indicate that this error of putting 630 years for 612, on the
part of both, had a common origin. Mr. Clinton also particularly
investigates the statements of Clemens Alexandrinus, and Syncellus,
regarding this period; but as we do not attach so much importance to
their statements as to those we have already discussed, we have thought
proper to omit them; suffice it to remark in general, that they
strengthen and confirm the lengthened chronology of the older
chronographers. The concluding observations of Mr. Clinton, p. 312,
appear to us surprising, considering the mass of evidence he has brought
forward in favour of the true period of 612 years. He says that “it
fluctuates between the 600 years of Eusebius, and the 628 years arising
out of the corrected numbers of Josephus. The truth lies somewhere
between these points. We may assume 612 years as the most probable.”
There appears to us to be no probability in the case; we have seen that
the statements of Josephus, Theophilus, Eusebius, and the author of the
Paschal Chronicle, _when corrected for obvious errors_, according to the
authority of Scripture, all speak the same language and announce the
invariable period of 612 years. The details of the period assigned by
Africanus are lost; but his case is peculiar; he was evidently desirous
to make this period compensate for former errors; and he has effected
his purpose to a single year. His date, therefore, of the Foundation of
the Temple is correct; and this appears to have been his chief aim.
According to their estimate of the extent of the different ages of the
world up to this epoch, their respective dates, according to the
preceding Tables will stand thus:—

                                TABLE V.
   AGES OF THE   JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.
     WORLD.                                                     CHRON.
                   Years.     Years.      Years.     Years.     Years.
 1st Age               2256        2242       2262       2242       2262
 2nd Age               1068        1011       1015       1017       1145
 3rd Age                430         645        430        430        430
 4th Age                612         541        745        480        632
                       ————        ————       ————       ————       ————
  TO SOLOMON’S         4366        4439       4452       4169       4469
     TEMPLE

Had we corrected these dates on grounds already stated, and which by
many would have been deemed sufficient, we could have shown a much
nearer coincidence between them and the true date; but our object was to
show what the details of the different authors really are as exhibited
in their works now extant. It is satisfactory, however, to observe that
the difference between the latter and either of the former, is very
small, and in the case of the greatest magnitude, is very easily
accounted for on the principle of Rabbinical authority and influence.

The following remark of Mr. Clinton, p. 313, is much more in point than
the former above cited; our only wonder is that he seems to think the
extent of the period itself not sufficiently established: “This extended
term of 612 years is inconsistent with the date in the Book of Kings (1
Kings vi. 1), which reckons the foundation of the Temple in the 4th year
of _Solomon_ to be _in the 480th year after the children of Israel were
come out of the land of Egypt_. But the computation of Paul, delivered
in a solemn argument before a Jewish audience, and confirmed by the
whole tenor of the history in the Book of Judges, outweighs the
authority of that date; and we may agree with Jackson and Hales in
rejecting it.” To this he might have added, and we ought rather to agree
with the whole Christian Church in adopting the extended period, than
with the Jews, the persecutors and vilifiers of that Church, in adopting
the curtailed period, and thus giving countenance to their
interpolations of Scripture.

  5. Table VI. Containing the statements of the chronographers
       relating to the _Fifth age_ of the world—The errors of Josephus
       peculiar—His elongation of the reign of Solomon—Disagreement of
       his titulary periods with the summation of the reigns in Books
       Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth—Proof that the former is nearly
       correct—Table VII. _Monarchal Periods_ of Josephus—Comparison
       with the True Chronology—Evidence that these periods have been
       manufactured—The true Chronology of this age detected in his
       works—Table VIII. _True Flavian Periods_, showing the
       Scriptural extent as originally held by Josephus—Proof that he
       knew the true epoch of the Captivity—The errors of Theophilus
       in this age few—He is also mistaken as to the epoch of the
       Captivity—Africanus diminishes the true extent of this age—He
       is misrepresented by Syncellus—The statements of Eusebius taken
       from the Hieronymian and Armenian versions of his Canon—Those
       of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from that work
       itself—Their errors pointed out—The difference between their
       Extent of this age and the true Extent only 3 years.

The following Table which exhibits the statements of the Chronographers
regarding the _Fifth age_ of the World, should be compared with Table
XII. in our _First Part_; as it contains the _Monarchal Eras_ and
_Intervals_ according to each chronographer.

                                TABLE VI.
 MONARCHAL ERAS. JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.
                                                                CHRON.
                 Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.
 Foundation of
   Solomon’s            *77          37                    37        *33
   Temple
 Rehoboam                17          17                    17         17
 Abijah                   3          *7                     3          3
 Asa                     41          41                    41        *44
 Jehoshaphat             25          25                    25         25
 Jehoram                 *8          *8                    *8        *10
 Ahaziah                  1           1                     1          1
 Athaliah                 6           6                    *7          6
 Jehoash                 40          40                    40         40
 Amaziah                 29         *39                    29         29
 Interregnum             *0          *0                    *0         *0
 Uzziah                  52          52                    52         52
 Jotham                  16          16                    16         16
 Ahaz                    16         *17                    16         16
 Hezekiah                29          29                    29         29
 Manasseh                55          55                    55         55
 Amon                     2           2                   *12        *12
 Josiah                  31          31                    31         31
 Jehoahaz                0¼          0¼                    0¼         0¼
 Jehoiakim               11          11                   *12        *12
 Jehoiachin              0¼          0¼                    0¼         0¼
 Zedekiah               *11         *11        420        *11        *11
                       ————        ————       ————       ————       ————
    FIFTH AGE           470         445        420        442        442

The principal errors of Josephus in this age, are his addition of 40
years to the reign of Solomon, and his omission of the interregnum
between Amaziah and Uzziah. The former error appears to have been
peculiarly his own; the latter he seems to share in common with most, if
not all, the ancient chronographers. In his Antiquities, Book x. 8, 5,
he says, “the temple was burned 470 years 6 months and 10 days after its
foundation;”[111] and this period is clearly made out from the summation
of the years of the reigns of the kings of Judah as laid down by him, in
Books Eighth, Ninth and Tenth. Moreover, these books contain the history
of the Jews from the accession of Solomon to the end of the Babylonish
captivity; but we find, by the summation of the titulary periods
prefixed to them, that the whole amount of this period is only 502½
years; and, deducting from this amount, the first 3 years of Solomon’s
reign and the 70 years of the Captivity, we have 429½ years for a
remainder, which is a totally different result. In order to arrive at
the proper explanation of the difference between this number and the
former, we shall exhibit the comparison of the summation of his periods
and his reigns in these Books with the true chronology in the form of a
table; premising, that the history of the VIIIth Book extends from the
accession of Solomon to the death of Ahab, in the 19th year of
_Jehoshaphat’s_ reign; of the IXth Book, from the same year to the
Captivity of the Ten Tribes of Israel, in the 6th year of _Hezekiah’s_
reign; and of the Xth Book, from this same year to the end of the
Babylonish _Captivity_. In the following Table, the first column
exhibits the _periods_ announced in the titles of the different books,
the second the amount of the years of the different reigns they contain,
and the third the amount of the same years according to the _true_
chronology:

                               TABLE VII.
         MONARCHAL PERIODS.         │       JOSEPHUS.       │   TRUE
                                    │                       │CHRONOLOGY.
                                    │ Periods.     Reigns.  │
 The VIIIth Book comprehends        │        163         160│        119
 The IXth Book        „             │        157         180│        190
 The Xth Book         „             │       182½        203½│        185
                                    │       ————        ————│       ————
 Total, including Captivity         │       502½        543½│        494
 Deduct the three years of Solomon  │          3           3│          3
                                    │       ————        ————│       ————
                                    │       499½        540½│        491
 Deduct the years of the Captivity  │         70          70│         52
                                    │       ————        ————│       ————
       Extent of the Fifth age      │       429½        470½│        439

Here the discrepancy between the amount of the _Periods_ and the amount
of the _Reigns_ is manifest; and the cause of the discrepancy is plainly
the 40 years surreptitiously added to Solomon’s reign; for if this
number be subtracted from 470½ years, the result of the _reigns_, the
remainder is 430½ years, which agrees with the result of the _periods_
to a single year, and this year may have been added for the 1st of
Cyrus. The latter amount, however, still differs from the true period by
10 years; and this difference evidently arises from the omission of the
interregnum of 12 years, and the addition of 2 years to the reign of
Jehoram. The extraordinary want of agreement between the different
_periods_ and the corresponding amount of the _reigns_, shows that the
former must have been manufactured to serve some particular purpose, the
most probable being the concealment of the error of 40 additional years
in the reign of Solomon. This is so far ingeniously done, and might
deceive a cursory reader; for the first period of 163 years is his exact
interval from the _Foundation_ of the Temple to the end of
_Jehoshaphat’s_ reign; the second period of 157 years is exactly 40
years less than his interval from the end of _Jehoshaphat’s_ reign to
the end of _Hezekiah’s_ reign; and the third period of 182½ years is
only 2 years more than his interval from the end of _Hezekiah’s_ reign
to the end of the _captivity_.

That this tortuous chronologer and historian must have originally
reckoned his periods in this age according to the true system of
chronology, is manifest from the following passage in Book x. 4, 4;
where, speaking of the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the
idolatrous altar at Bethel (1 Kings xiii. 1), he says, “and he [Josiah]
burned the bones of the false prophets upon the altar which Jeroboam
first built,” and “these things were fulfilled after a period of 361
years.”[112] Now, according to the testimony of Scripture (2 Chronicles
xxxiv. 3), cited by Josephus (x. 4, 1),[113] we find that this
fulfilment took place in the 12th year of the reign of Josiah; and from
the 1st year of Jeroboam, when the altar was built, to the epoch in
question, the interval, according to the chronology of Josephus in the
preceding Table, is only 351 years; but, according to the true
Chronology, it is exactly 361 years. It is plain, therefore, that
Josephus in this passage, must have reckoned an interregnum of 10 years
between Amaziah and Uzziah: and, if we reckon the reign of Jehoram only
6 years as in the true chronology, instead of 8 years as in that of our
author, and add the surplus of 2 years to these 10 years, we shall have
the correct Interregnum of 12 years, as stated at p. 74, under the head
of the Septuagint; see 2 Kings xv. 1.[114] It is true that the 10 years
which we have thus detected in the Antiquities, might have been added by
Josephus, as by Theophilus and Clemens, to the reign of Amaziah, but
this would not alter the _total amount_. Some chronologers, as
Polyhistor cited by Eusebius,[115] have added 10 years to the reign of
Amon instead of to that of Amaziah; but in either case the effect is
still the same,—to make the _whole period_ more consistent with the true
chronology. Thus we have expiscated the truth concerning this period
even from the unwilling pages of Josephus; for the rest of the
computation concerning the _Fifth age_ will be clearly seen from the
following Table, which harmonizes with the previous result:

                              TABLE VIII.
                         TRUE FLAVIAN PERIODS.
                                                         Years.
        From the 1st of Jeroboam to the 12th of Josiah      361
        The rest of Josiah’s reign                           19
        The remaining Jewish reigns                          22
                                                           ————
        From the 1st of Jeroboam to the 10th of Zedekiah    402
        The previous years of the Reign of Solomon           37
                                                           ————
        Extent of the _Fifth Age_                           439

Although Josephus in his “Antiquities” has generally reckoned the 70
years of the Captivity from the Destruction of the Temple to the 1st
year of Cyrus, which is contrary to the true chronology and to the Canon
of Ptolemy, yet we have evidence in his “Jewish War” that he was
perfectly acquainted with the correct period of 52 years, which we have
shown in our _first Part_, at pp. 80, 81, to be the true interval. Thus,
in Book vi. 4, 8, of the latter work, when speaking of the Destruction
of the Temple, he says, “and from the _first_ foundation which King
Solomon laid, till the present destruction, which happened in the 2d
year of the Emperor Vespasian, are reckoned 1130 years 7 months and 15
days; but from the _second_, which Haggai effected in the 2d year of
Cyrus the king, till the destruction under Vespasian, 639 years and 45
days.”[116] Not to dwell on the glaring anachronism of referring the
_foundation_ of the temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus (Ezra iii. 8), to
the _renewal_ of the work of building it in the 2nd year of Darius (Ezra
iv. 24, and v. 1), it is plain that the difference between the two
periods mentioned in this passage, viz. 491½ years, is the true interval
from the destruction of Solomon’s temple to the foundation of the second
Temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus; for omitting the half-year, as the 2nd
year had just commenced at the latter epoch (Ezra iii. 8), and
subtracting the 52 years above mentioned, from 491 years, we have the
remainder 439 years, for the true Extent of the _Fifth age_ as before.
The proof, however, that he was acquainted with the true interval, at
least within a year or two, is manifest from a passage which occurs in
his 1st Book _against Apion_, sect. 21; where he says, “For it is
written in them [the Hebrew Scriptures] that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed
our temple in the 18th year [the 19th year, 2 Kings xxv. 8] of his
reign, and it was in ruins for 50 years; but in the 2nd year of the
reign of Cyrus, the foundations were laid, and in the 2nd again of the
reign of Darius they were finished.”[117] The difference of 2 years is
easily accounted for by supposing that he took the reign of Cyrus in
Babylon at 9 years, according to some copies of the Canon of Ptolemy,
instead of 7 years, according to Scripture, that is, by supposing his
reign to have begun 2 years earlier than the true period. He appears,
however, to have tacked these two years to the true interval in
question, in another chapter of the same book, viz. “Jewish War,” vi.
10; where, speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, he says “David,
King of the Jews, having expelled the people of the Canaanites, made his
own inhabit it; and 477 years 6 months afterwards, it was destroyed by
the Babylonians.”[118] Now as David reigned 33 years in Jerusalem, and
the temple was founded in the 4th year of Solomon, if we subtract 36
years from the preceding number, we obtain 441½ years for the period
from the foundation of the temple to its destruction, which is only 2½
years more than the true period, a surplus which appears to have arisen
from his unwarrantable addition to the true period of the 10th Book of
the Antiquities. The last passage which we shall adduce from this
extraordinary historical production, so full of chronological errors, is
from the 20th Book, where speaking of the High Priests, he says,
Nebuchadnezzar “took Josedek the High Priest captive; and the time of
their hierarchy was 466 years, 6 months, and 10 days, during the reigns
of the Jewish kings.” Now Josedek was taken captive, not when the temple
and city were burned, as Josephus erroneously says in the context, but
when the “king of Babylon took Jehoiachin in _the 8th year of his
reign_,” and “carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all
the mighty men of valour, 10,000 captives, and all the craftsmen, and
all the smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of
the land;” 2 Kings xxiv. 11–16, and 1 Chronicles vi. 15. But as
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem _in the 19th year of his reign_ (2
Kings xxv. 8), the difference of time between the _first_, or
Jehoiachin’s captivity, and the _second_, or Zedekiah’s captivity, is
evidently 11 years, which being added to the preceding period, makes a
total of 477½ years as before. In these two passages, therefore,
Josephus is consistent with himself, and he differs from the true
chronology in this period only by the small interval of about 2 years; a
difference which, as we before remarked, may be due to his mistake in
reference to the Scriptural commencement of the reign of Cyrus, King of
Babylon. For a more extensive inquiry into this period of the Chronology
of Josephus, we refer to Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” pp.
27–60, to which we have been indebted for some suggestions in the
preceding discussion.

The errors of Theophilus in the intervals of the _Fourth age_ are few,
and chiefly of a compensating nature; and his error in its extent
amounts only to about 6 years. He states the reign of Abijah at 7 years
instead of 3; of Jehoram at 8 years instead of 6; and of Amaziah at 39
years instead of 29; but the two latter errors make up for his omission
of the interregnum of 12 years. He next reckons the reigns of Ahaz and
Zedekiah, each a year too much, which, with the error in the reign of
Abijah, makes the whole period erroneous in excess by about 6 years, its
_Extent_ being 445 years, according to the Table. This Extent is
confirmed by the following statement in his general summary: “from the
death of David, till the [end of the] sojourning of the people in the
land of Babylon, were 518 years, 6 months, 10 days.”[119] Now, if from
this period, we subtract the first 3 years of Solomon, and the 70 years
of the captivity, we shall have for the remainder 445 years, the period
from the foundation to the destruction of the Temple, according to
Theophilus. Again, he says, all the time, from the beginning of the
world till the end “of the sojourning in the land of Babylon, is 4954
years, 6 months, 10 days.”[120] Now, if we add together his different
ages up to this epoch, including the 70 years of the captivity, we shall
have this precise amount; thus, 2242 + 1011 + 645 + 541 + 445 + 70 =
4954 years. This confirmatory statement, therefore, shows the accuracy
of our estimate of the chronology of Theophilus; and thus we see that
like other chronographers, he has, contrary to Scripture, reckoned the
period of the 70 years’ captivity from the destruction of Jerusalem to
the 1st year of the reign of Cyrus. The errors of Africanus in the
_intervals_ of the _Fourth age_ cannot be detected, owing to the loss of
this part of his Chronicon; we can only decide upon the inaccuracy of
his statement regarding its _Extent_ from the extract already cited at
p. 265, where he assigns 490 years as the whole period of the Jewish
Kings. We have seen at p. 266, that 70 years of this period belong to
the former age, according to Africanus; it follows, therefore, that 420
years must be his _Extent_ of the _Monarchal age_, which we have
accordingly inserted in the Table. We have scarcely any means of
confirming the correctness of this result, until we show, from his
remaining fragments concerning the succeeding age, that it is quite
consistent with his great Mundane period from Adam to Christ. It is
necessary, however, to make one remark on this subject, namely, that
Syncellus has committed an error in stating that “Africanus reckoned the
70 years of the captivity from the 1st year of Zedekiah,”[121] as we
shall see in the sequel.

The statements of Eusebius, in the preceding Table, are taken from the
Hieronymian[122] and Armenian[123] versions of his Canon; those of the
author of the Paschal Chronicle from that work itself.[124] The former
places the foundation of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon; the
latter erroneously in his 8th year. Both authors in several places of
their works, state the extent of the _Fifth age_ at 442 years, and in
order to preserve this number entire they appear to have manufactured
two or three of the reigns. Thus, Eusebius reckons the reign of Jehoram
at 8 complete years instead of 6, that of Athaliah at 7 instead of 6,
and that of Amon at 12 instead of 2. In the Armenian version the reign
of Jehoiakim is reckoned at 12 years instead of 11, which seems
necessary to make up the total 442 years. In the Paschal Chronicle, the
reign of Asa is reckoned at 44 years instead of 41, that of Jehoram at
10 instead of 6, that of Jehoiakim at 12 instead of 11, and that of Amon
at 12 instead of 2. Abating the errors thus pointed out, and admitting
the interregnum, both authors testify to the true length of this period,
which, notwithstanding the former, they have only overrated by 3 years.

  6. Table IX. _Ethnocratic Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to
       Ptolemy’s Canon and the ancient Chronographers—Accuracy of
       the Canon—Josephus erroneous but consistent in the _Sixth
       age_—His remarkable coincidence with the true Chronology in
       the Mundane period—Theophilus follows the Roman Chronology in
       this age—Africanus the prophetic—Both erroneous—Errors of
       Eusebius, and accuracy of his Extent of this age—Errors of
       the Paschal Chronicle considerable and unaccountable—Table X.
       Summation of the _Six ages_ of the world according to the
       Septuagint and the ancient chronographers—Table XI. Summation
       of the Periods of the Christian Chronographers, adopted by
       themselves—_Chronological Table_ of the Principal Epochs and
       Events from the Creation to the Advent of Christ.

The following Table exhibits the errors of the chronographers in regard
to the _Sixth age_ of the world. In our _first Part_, we have
denominated the _Eras_ of this age _Hierarchal_, Table XIV. p. 80, to
indicate the internal form of Government which prevailed among the Jews
during the period from their return to their own land to the Advent of
the Messiah; here we style them _Ethnocratic_, to indicate the _Iron
rule_ which the _Heathen Kings_ exercised over the remnant of the
ancient people of God, till “_in the days of these kings_ the God of
Heaven set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed,” but “should
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and _stand for ever_.”
In this table, we have introduced an additional column, showing the
periods of the _Four Great Monarchies_ or _Empires_ foretold in the book
of Daniel, in as far as they relate to the _Sixth age_, according to the
Canon of Ptolemy, which is accounted by chronologers as one of the most
valuable and precious relics of Antiquity.

                                    TABLE IX.
 ETHNOCRATIC   PTOLEMY.  JOSEPHUS.  THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS.    PASCH.
    ERAS.
              Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.  Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.
 From
   Solomon’s
   Temple.
 THE ASSYRIAN         52
   EMPIRE.
 Jewish                          70          70         70         70         70
   Captivity.
 Roman                                       54
   Regifugium
 PERSIAN             205                               230        190        206
   EMPIRE
 Jewish                         414
   Hierarchy
 The
   Asamonean                    125
   Dynasty.
 GRECIAN             302                               298        301        296
   EMPIRE
 Roman                                      453
   Republic
 TO THE ROMAN
   EMPIRE.            28         33          46         30         27         29
   Birth of
   Christ
                    ————       ————        ————       ————       ————       ————
 THE SIXTH           587        642         623        628        588        601
   AGE

In this Table the extent of the _Ethnocratic age_ is 587 years according
to the Canon of Ptolemy;[125] this is 2 years more than we assigned at
p. 80, owing to the reign of Cyrus being estimated at 9 years instead of
7, which brings the _Sixth age_ up to the vulgar era of the Birth of our
Saviour. The Canon assigns 43 years respectively to the reigns of
Nebuchadnezzar and Augustus Cæsar; hence the former reigned 25 years
after the taking of Jerusalem,[126] and the latter 28 before the
Christian era;[127] thus the extreme intervals of the first column of
the table were obtained. The intervals of Josephus were determined from
the following passages:—Book XI. 1, 1, “In the first year of the reign
of Cyrus, and this was the 70th from the day that it befell our people
to remove from home to Babylon;”—Book XX. 10, 1, “After the period of
the 70 years’ captivity, &c. Joshua the Son of Josedek, took the office
of High Priest; and his posterity, in all 15, held the democratic form
of government for 414 years, till the reign of Antiochus Eupator;”—Book
XIV. 16, 4, “Thus ceased the government of the Asamonean [race] after
126 years;”—Book XVII. 6, 3, “for 125 years during which they [the
Asamoneans] reigned;”—and, Book XVII. 8, 1, “Having reigned, after he
[Herod] caused the death of Antigonus, 34 years, and after he was
appointed by the Romans, 37 years.”[128] Now, taking the period of the
Asamonean dynasty at 125 years, and the years of the reign of Herod
before Christ was born, at 33, we have, from the preceding extracts, the
intervals in the Table, and the extent of the whole period 642 years,
according to Josephus. This result receives a striking confirmation from
the summation of the periods contained in the Titles of the different
Books of the Antiquities which relate the History from the 1st year of
Cyrus to the death of Herod. Thus,

                                                                  Years.
 The Captivity continued                                              70
 The XIth Book comprehends                                           253
 The XIIth Book    „                                                 170
 The XIIIth Book   „                                                  82
 The XIVth Book    „                                                  32
 The XVth Book     „                                                  18
 The XVIth Book    „                                                  12
 The XVIIth Book to the year before the death of Herod,           5[129]
   comprehends
                                                                    ————
                              Total                                  642

Thus it appears that Josephus, or his corrupter, conscious that by the
omission of the Second Cainan, he had curtailed the length of the true
age of the world, has compensated for this generation, by enlarging the
Postdiluvian _biennial period_, the Antepaidogonian age of Nahor, the
reign of Solomon, and the extent of the Hierarchal age; for, we shall
see that by the summation of the different ages as we have now
determined them from the Antiquities, we obtain the true period from the
Creation to the Christian Era, viz. 5478 years!

The extent of the _Sixth age_ according to Theophilus, is obtained from
the following extracts: “The 70 years being finished, Cyrus king of the
Persians, in the 2d year of his reign,” proclaimed the return of the
Jews; “then, Cyrus having reigned 29 years died,” U. C. 220; “at which
time Tarquin surnamed Superbus began to reign” at Rome, “who reigned 25
years. After whom, the Consuls and Tribunes reigned 453 years.” To
these, succeeded the Emperors, “First Caius Julius, 3 years, 4 months, 6
days; then Augustus, 56 years, 4 months, 1 day.”[130] From these
extracts, it is evident that Theophilus reckoned 54 years from the end
of the Jewish captivity to the Regifugium at Rome; and 46 years from the
beginning of the Roman Empire to the Christian Era.[131] Thus, according
to Theophilus, the whole extent of this period is 623 years; and
consequently, the period from Creation to the Christian era, 5507 years.
We obtain the extent of the _Sixth age_ according to Africanus, from the
following fragments of his work:—“For after the 70th year of the
captivity, Cyrus having sent” the Jews to rebuild the temple, “we find
the kingdom of the Persians extending to 230 years, and that of the
Macedonians to 300 years; and thence to the 16th year of Tiberius Cæsar,
60 years.” Again, “the whole time of the Macedonian empire, was 300
years wanting 2,” from its commencement till its termination with
Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies, in the 14th year of the Roman
monarchy;—“all the years from Adam being 5472.”[132] Here, Africanus
appears to have forgotten himself, and after saying that the period of
the Grecian Empire was 298 years, he still reckons it 300, and thus
obtains the number of 5472 years from the Creation. Taking 298 years for
the correct period of that Empire, and 30 years as the true interval
from its termination to the Christian era, we have 628 years for the
extent of the _Sixth age_, according to this chronographer; and
consequently, the whole period from the Creation to the Christian era,
5500 years.

The extent and intervals of the _Sixth age_ according to Eusebius in his
Chronicon, were obtained from the same sources as before, see p. 286. He
dates the proclamation of Cyrus in the 30th year of the Captivity, and
his death in the 60th year. He next dates the 70th year of the Captivity
in the 2nd of Darius Hystaspes, and thus annihilates 40 years of the
Persian Empire before that epoch; consequently, only 190 years remained
after it, as he reckons the whole period 230 years. He next reckons 6
years of the reign of Alexander the Great, independently of the Grecian
Empire, which he estimates at 295 years under the Ptolemies; thus making
the whole period of the Macedo-Grecian empire 301 years. Lastly, he
dates the Birth of Christ in the 42d year of Augustus Cæsar, his 15th
year being reckoned coincident with the 22d of Cleopatra, the last of
the Ptolemies; hence, the period from the end of the Grecian Empire to
the Christian era, is 27 years, and the extent of the whole period under
discussion, 588 years. Thus Eusebius, by an admixture of the Hebrew and
Septuagint Chronologies in his Canon, makes the period from Creation to
the Christian era, 5199 years. The intervals and extent of the _Sixth
age_, according to the author of the Paschal Chronicle, were obtained
from his work, see p. 286. He follows Eusebius in his epochs of the 1st
of Cyrus and the end of the Captivity; but he reckons the whole period
of the Persian Empire at 246 years, and thus makes the remainder 206
years after the Captivity. He estimates the period of the Grecian Empire
at 296 years, including Alexander; and the reign of Augustus Cæsar as
sole Emperor, at 44 years; thus making the period from the end of the
Grecian empire to the birth of Christ 29 years, and the extent of the
whole period in question, 601 years. According to this author,
therefore, by the summation of his periods the number of years from the
Creation to the Christian era, is 5512; but he states it himself at 5507
years. He seems to have obtained this period, by annihilating 2 years in
the extent of the 4th age and 3 years in that of the 5th age, in order
to make it coincide with that of Theophilus.

The following table exhibits the summation of the _Six ages_ of the
world, according to their extent, as determined in the preceding pages,
from the works of the ancient chronographers; including those of the
Septuagint, with the _Sixth age_ as determined by the Canon of Ptolemy.

                                TABLE X.
 MUNDANE  SEPTUAGINT. JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.
  AGES.                                                          CHRON.
            Years.     Years.     Years.      Years.    Years.   Years.
 First           2262      2256        2242       2262      2242    2262
 Second          1147      1068        1011       1015      1017    1145
 Third            431       430         645        430       430     430
 Fourth           612       612         541        745       480     632
 Fifth            439       470         445        420       442     442
 Sixth            587       642         623        628       588     601
                 ————      ————        ————       ————      ————    ————
  Total          5478      5478        5507       5500      5199    5512

The following table exhibits the summation of the different periods into
which the four Christian chronographers subdivide the Great Mundane
period, from Creation to the Era of Redemption.

                                TABLE XI.

          1. _Eras and Intervals according to Theophilus._[133]

                                                                  Years.
 From Creation to the Flood                                         2242
 From the Flood to Abraham                                          1036
 From Abraham to Moses                                               660
 From Moses to David                                                 498
 From David to the Captivity                                         518
 From the Captivity to Aurelius                                      744
                                                                    ————
 From Creation to Aurelius                                          5698
 From the Christian Era to Aurelius                                  191
                                                                    ————
 From Creation to the Christian Era                                 5507

          2. _Eras and Intervals according to Africanus._[134]

                                                                  Years.
 From Adam to the Flood                                             2262
 From the Flood to Abraham                                          1015
 From Abraham to Joseph                                              286
 From Joseph to Eli                                                  729
 From Eli to the Captivity of the Ten Tribes                         458
 From the Captivity to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ      781
                                                                    ————
                                                                    5531
                 From the Birth to the Resurrection and
 Ascension of Christ                                                  31
                                                                    ————
 From Adam to the Christian Era                                     5500

           3. _Eras and Intervals according to Eusebius._[135]

                                                                  Years.
 From Adam to the Flood                                             2242
 From the Flood to Abraham and Ninus                                 942
 From Ninus to Moses and Cecrops                                     505
 From Cecrops to the Fall of Troy                                    329
 From the Fall of Troy to the 1st Olympiad                           406
 From the 1st Olympiad to Darius                                     256
 From Darius to the 15th of Tiberius                                 548
                                                                    ————
 From Adam to the 15th of Tiberius                                  5228
 From the Nativity to the 15th of Tiberius                            29
                                                                    ————
 From Adam to the Christian Era                                     5199

 4. _Eras and Intervals according to the Paschal Chronicle._[136]

                                                                  Years.
 From Adam to the Flood                                             2262
 From the Flood to the Exodus                                       1575
 From the Exodus to the Temple                                       614
 From the Temple to Cyrus                                            480
 From Cyrus to Alexander                                             249
 From Alexander to the 15th of Tiberius                              356
                                                                    ————
 From Adam to the 15th of Tiberius                                  5536
 From the Nativity to the 15th of Tiberius                            29
                                                                    ————
 From Adam to the Christian Era                                     5507

We shall now conclude this work, with a Chronological Table of the
principal epochs and events from the Creation of the World to the Advent
of our Saviour. The epochs of Sacred History determined according to the
true Chronology, are printed in Roman letters, and the epochs of Profane
History in _Italics_. In the former, Cuninghame is our best authority;
in the latter, Clinton, with occasional reference to Russell, or Hales.
Some dates that seem to be well founded, are taken from Julius
Africanus. The epochs marked with a Star are either traditional or
conjectural. The Critarchates, Reigns, Missions, Commissions, &c., are
all dated at their respective commencements; and the extent of each of
the two former may be determined from the table, by taking the
difference of the dates of any two consecutive Critarchates or Reigns.




                          CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.


                        FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.

         A.M.                                              B.C.
          −21 _Traditional Epoch of the Creation_          5500
          −21 *_Higher Astronomical Epoch of the Brahmins_ 5500
            1 True Epoch of the Creation                   5478
          100 *Death of Abel                               5379
          230 Birth of Seth                                5249
          435 Birth of Enos                                5044
          625 Birth of Cainan I.                           4854
          765 _Chronological Epoch of the Julian Period_   4714
          795 Birth of Mahalaleel                          4684
          931 Death of Adam                                4548
          960 Birth of Jared                               4519
         1070 *Apostacy of the Sons of God                 4409
         1086 _Samaritan Epoch of the Creation_            4393
         1122 Birth of Enoch                               4357
         1142 Death of Seth                                4337
         1179 _Lower Astronomical Epoch of the Brahmins_   4300
         1286 *Astronomical Revelations of Uriel           4193
         1287 Birth of Methuseleh                          4192
         1340 Death of Enos                                4139
         1406 _Astronomical Epoch of Laplace_              4073
         1474 Birth of Lamech                              4005
         1475 _Hebrew-Usher Epoch of Creation_             4004
         1487 Translation of Enoch                         3992
         1535 Death of Cainan I.                           3944
         1662 Birth of Noah                                3817
         1690 Death of Mahalaleel                          3789
         1719 _Modern Jewish Epoch of Creation_            3760
         1922 Death of Jared                               3557
         2142 Prediction of the Flood                      3337
         2162 Birth of Japhet or _Iapetus_                 3317
         2164 Birth of Shem                                3315
         2165 Birth of Ham                                 3314
         2227 Death of Lamech                              3252
         2256 Death of Methuselah                          3223
         2256 _Flavian Epoch of the Flood_                 3223
         2262 True Epoch of the Flood                      3217


                        SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.

         2263 Descent of Noah from the Ark                 3216
         2263 First appearance of the Rainbow              3216
         2264 Birth of Arphaxad                            3215
         2377 _Hindoo Epoch of the Calyougham_             3102
         2399 Birth of Cainan II.                          3080
         2401 First Jubilee of Jubilees from Creation      3078
         2526 _Chinese Epoch of Fohi_                      2953
         2529 Birth of Salah                               2950
         2579 _Foundation of Egypt by Mizraim_             2900
         2612 Death of Noah                                2867
         2659 Birth of Eber                                2820
         2764 Death of Shem                                2715
         2793 Birth of Peleg or Phalec                     2686
         2802 Death of Arphaxad                            2677
         2859 Death of Cainan II.                          2620
         2923 Birth of Reu or Ragau                        2556
         2962 Death of Salah                               2517
         3018 _Chinese Epoch of Tchouen-Hiu_               2461
         3055 Birth of Serug                               2424
         3063 Death of Eber                                2416
         3079 *Foundation of Babel                         2400
         3081 *Confusion of Tongues                        2398
         3081 *Division of the Earth                       2398
         3122 _Chinese Epoch of Yao_                       2357
         3132 Death of Peleg                               2347
         3152 _Foundation of Memphis by Menes_             2327
         3185 Birth of Nahor                               2294
         3249 *Birth of Job                                2236
         3246 _Babylon taken by the Medes_                 2233
         3246 _Chaldean Astronomical Epoch_                2233
         3262 Death of Reu                                 2217
         3264 Birth of Terah                               2215
         3297 _Foundation of the Assyrian Monarchy_        2182
         3334 Birth of Abraham                             2145
         3343 *Trial of Job                                2136
         3385 Death of Serug                               2094
         3406 *Abraham arrives in Haran                    2073
         3409 Death of Terah                               2070
         3409 True Epoch of the Call of Abraham            2070


                        THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.

         3410 Descent of Abraham to Egypt                  2069
         3418 Canaan promised to Abraham                   2061
         3420 Birth of Ishmael                             2059
         3433 Covenant of Circumcision                     2046
         3433 Destruction of Sodom                         2046
         3434 Birth of Isaac                               2045
         3471 Death of Sarah                               2008
         3474 Marriage of Isaac                            2005
         3483 *Death of Job                                1996
         3494 Birth of Jacob and Esau                      1985
         3509 Death of Abraham                             1970
         3522 _Foundation of Sicyon_                       1957
         3534 Marriage of Esau                             1935
         3557 Death of Ishmael                             1922
         3571 Jacob goes to Padan-aram                     1908
         3571 Marriage of Jacob                            1908
         3572 Birth of Reuben                              1907
         3574 Birth of Simeon                              1905
         3575 Birth of Levi                                1904
         3576 Birth of Judah                               1903
         3587 _Foundation of the Assyrian Empire_          1892
         3591 Jacob returns to Canaan                      1888
         3598 Birth of Benjamin                            1881
         3602 Joseph carried into Egypt                    1877
         3614 Death of Isaac                               1865
         3615 Joseph made Regent of Egypt                  1864
         3616 First Year of Plenty                         1863
         3622 Birth of Kohath                              1857
         3624 Eisodus of Jacob into Egypt                  1855
         3641 Death of Jacob                               1838
         3684 Birth of Amram                               1795
         3695 Death of Joseph                              1784
         3712 Death of Levi                                1767
         3726 _Descent of Phoroneus_                       1753
         3755 Death of Kohath                              1724
         3756 Birth of Aaron                               1723
         3759 Birth of Moses                               1720
         3787 _Foundation of Argos_                        1692
         3799 Moses flies to Midian                        1680
         3837 _Flood of Ogyges_                            1642
         3840 True Epoch of the Exodus                     1639


                        FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

         3840 The Law proclaimed at Sinai                  1639
         3879 Death of Aaron and Moses                     1600
         3880 Passage of the Jordan                        1599
         3886 Division of Canaan by Lot                    1593
         3896 Death of Joshua                              1583
         3894 _Foundation of Athens_                       1585
         3907 First Servitude of Israel                    1572
         3915 Critarchate of Othniel                       1564
         3955 Second Servitude                             1524
         3973 Critarchate of Ehud                          1506
         3988 _Indian Astronomical Epoch_                  1491
         4013 _Descent of Danaus and Pelasgus_             1466
         4043 _Flood of Deucalion_                         1436
         4043 Third Servitude                              1426
         4073 Critarchate of Deborah and Barak             1406
         4096 _Reign of Dardanus and Erectheus_            1383
         4113 Fourth Servitude                             1366
         4119 _The Sphere of Chiron or Musæus_             1360
         4120 Critarchate of Gideon                        1359
         4146 _Azan, Aphidas and Elatus, in Arcadia_       1333
         4160 Critarchate of Abimelech                     1319
         4163 Critarchate of Tolah                         1316
         4166 _Descent of Cadmus_                          1313
         4186 Critarchate of Jair                          1293
         4196 _Descent of Pelops_                          1283
         4208 Fifth Servitude                              1271
         4218 _Birth of Hercules_                          1261
         4226 Critarchate of Jephthah                      1253
         4232 Critarchate of Ibzan                         1247
         4239 Critarchate of Elon                          1240
         4249 Critarchate of Abdon                         1230
         4254 _Argonautic Expedition_                      1225
         4257 Sixth Servitude                              1222
         4266 _First Theban War_                           1213
         4292 _Destruction of Troy_                        1184
         4297 Critarchate of Eli                           1182
         4303 _Reign of Orestes at Argos_                  1176
         4337 Seventh Servitude                            1142
         4355 _Æolic Migration_                            1124
         4357 Critarchate of Samuel                        1122
         4369 Reign of Saul                                1110
         4375 _Return of the Heraclidæ_                    1104
         2227 Death of Lamech                              3252
         4379 Birth of David                               1100
         4405 _Reign of Aletes at Corinth_                 1074
         4409 Reign of David                               1070
         4417 Capture of Jerusalem                         1062
         4435 _Ionic Migration_                            1044
         4449 Reign of Solomon                             1030
         4452 Foundation of Solomon’s Temple               1027


                        FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

         4459 Completion of Solomon’s Temple               1020
         4464 _Foundation of Smyrna_                       1015
         4489 Revolt of the Ten Tribes of Israel            990
         4489 Reign of Jeroboam and Rehoboam                990
         4492 Lapse of the Twelve Tribes into Idolatry      987
         4494 Invasion of Shishak                           985
         4506 Reign of Abijah                               973
         4509 Reign of Asa                                  970
         4511 Reign of Nadab                                968
         4512 Reign of Baasha                               967
         4517 _Acme of Homer_                               962
         4520 Asa defeats the Ethiopians                    959
         4535 Reign of Ela                                  944
         4536 Reigns of Zimri and Omri                      943
         4537 _Acme of Hesiod_                              942
         4540 Foundation of Samaria                         939
         4546 Reign of Ahab                                 933
         4550 Reign of Jehoshaphat                          929
         4553 Jehoshaphat appoints Judges                   926
         4555 Mission of Elijah                             924
         4558 Destruction of the Prophets of Baal           921
         4568 Reign of Ahaziah                              911
         4569 Translation of Elijah                         910
         4569 Mission of Elisha                             910
         4570 Reign of Joram                                909
         4575 Reign of Jehoram                              904
         4581 Reign of Ahaziah                              898
         4582 Reigns of Athaliah and Jehu                   897
         4588 Reign of Jehoash                              891
         4595 _Olympiad of Iphitus_                         884
         4604 Mission of Jonah                              875
         4610 Reign of Jehoahaz                             869
         4627 Death of Elisha                               852
         4627 Reign of Joash                                852
         4628 Reign of Amaziah                              851
         4633 Reign of Jeroboam II.                         836
         4657 Interregnum in Judah                          822
         4669 Reign of Uzziah                               810
         4684 Interregnum in Israel                         795
         4684 Missions of Hosea and Amos                    795
         4703 _Era of the Olympiads_                        776
         4706 Reigns of Zechariah and Shallum               773
         4708 Invasion of Pul                               771
         4718 Reign of Pekahiah                             761
         4719 Mission of Isaiah                             760
         4720 Reign of Pekah                                759
         4721 Reign of Jotham                               758
         4726 _Foundation of Rome_                          753
         4729 Mission of Micah                              750
         4732 _Era of Nabonassar_                           747
         4737 Reign of Ahaz                                 742
         4739 Captivity of the Transjordanic Tribes         740
         4740 Interregnum in Israel                         739
         4745 _Foundation of Syracuse_                      734
         4750 Reign of Hoshea                               729
         4752 Mission of Nahum                              727
         4753 Reign of Hezekiah                             726
         4758 Captivity of the Ten Tribes                   721
         4766 Invasion of Sennacherib                       713
         4767 Destruction of the Assyrian Army              712
         4768 _Revolt of the Medes_                         711
         4782 Reign of Manasseh                             697
         4792 _Foundation of the Median Empire_             687
         4796 _Creon First Annual Archon at Athens_         683
         4802 Captivity of Manasseh                         677
         4802 Second Jubilee of Jubilees from Creation      677
         4802 Captivity of the Remnant of Israel            677
         4822 _Foundation of Byzantium_                     657
         4837 Reign of Amon                                 642
         4839 Reign of Josiah                               640
         4840 _Birth of Thales_                             639
         4850 Josiah reforms the Land                       629
         4851 Mission of Jeremiah                           628
         4856 The Book of the Law found                     623
         4856 Mission of Zephaniah                          623
         4858 _Legislation of Draco_                        621
         4859 Missions of Joel and Habakkuk                 620
         4863 Reign of Pharaoh Necho                        616
         4867 Destruction of Nineveh                        612
         4868 _The acme of Sappho_                          611
         4869 Reign of Jehoahaz                             610
         4869 _Birth of Anaximander_                        610
         4870 Reign of Jehoiakim                            609
         4873 Reign of Nebuchadnezzar                       606
         4873 Era of the Babylonish Captivity               606
         4874 First Vision of Nebuchadnezzar                605
         4876 Rebellion of Jehoiakim                        603
         4876 _Epoch of the Eclipse of Thales_              603
         4880 Reign of Jehoiachin                           599
         4881 1st year of Jehoiachin’s Captivity            598
         4881 Reign of Zedekiah                             598
         4884 _Birth of Crœsus_                             595
         4885 Mission of Ezekiel                            594
         4885 _Legislation of Solon_                        594
         4889 Siege of Jerusalem                            590
         4891 Destruction of Solomon’s Temple               588


                        SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

         4891 The BABYLONIAN or ASSYRIAN EMPIRE             588
         4893 _Celebration of the Pythian games_            586
         4893 _Era of the Seven Sages of Greece_            586
         4907 _Acme of Esop_                                572
         4918 Reign of Evil Merodach                        561
         4937 Release of Jehoiachin                         562
         4920 _Reign of Neriglissar_                        559
         4920 _Reign of Cyrus in Persia_                    559
         4924 Reign of Nabonadius or Belshazzar             555
         4924 The First Vision of Daniel                    555
         4924 The Second Vision of Daniel                   557
         4931 _Anaximenes flourished_                       548
         4931 Cyrus takes Sardis                            548
         4939 _Pythagoras flourished_                       540
         4941 Cyrus takes Babylon                           538
         4941 _Xenophanes flourished_                       538
         4941 Reign of Darius the Mede                      538
         4941 The Third Vision of Daniel                    538
         4943 MEDO-PERSIAN EMPIRE                           536
         4943 1st year of Cyrus the Persian                 536
         4943 Commission of Zerubbabel and Joshua           536
         4944 Foundation of the Second Temple               535
         4945 The Fourth Vision of Daniel                   534
         4948 _Anacreon flourished_                         531
         4950 Reign of Cambyses or Ahasuerus                529
         4954 _Cambyses conquers Egypt_                     525
         4954 _Birth of Æschylus_                           525
         4957 _Usurpation of the Persian Throne_            522
         4958 Reign of Darius Hystaspes                     521
         4959 Missions of Haggai and Zechariah              520
         4959 The Second Temple re-founded                  520
         4961 _Birth of Pindar_                             518
         4963 The Destruction of Babylon                    516
         4963 The Second Temple completed                   516
         4970 _The Roman Regifugium_                        509
         4971 _Expulsion of the Pisistratidæ_               510
         4979 _Birth of Anaxagoras_                         508
         4984 _Birth of Sophocles_                          495
         4989 _The Battle of Marathon_                      490
         4994 Reign of Xerxes the Great                     485
         4995 _Birth of Herodotus_                          484
         4996 _Ostracism of Aristides_                      483
         4999 _Battle of Salamis_                           480
         4999 _Birth of Euripides_                          480
         5008 _Birth of Thucydides_                         471
         5011 _Birth of Socrates_                           468
         5015 Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus                464
         5015 _Zeno flourished_                             464
         5019 _Births of Democritus and Hippocrates_        460
         5021 The Commission of Ezra                        458
         5021 The 1st Week of Daniel begins                 458
         5024 _Empedocles flourished_                       455
         5028 _The Roman Decemviri_                         451
         5030 _Restoration of the Consuls_                  449
         5034 The Commission of Nehemiah                    445
         5035 _Military Tribunes at Rome_                   444
         5046 Nehemiah returns to Artaxerxes                433
         5047 _Meton flourished_                            432
         5048 _The Peloponnessian War_                      431
         5049 Mission of Malachi                            430
         5050 _Birth of Plato_                              429
         5051 _Aristophanes flourished_                     428
         5055 Close of the Old Testament Canon              424
         5056 Reign of Darius Nothus                        423
         5070 The 7th Week of Daniel ends                   409
         5075 Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon                    404
         5075 _Lysander takes Athens_                       404
         5078 _The Anabasis of Xenophon_                    401
         5081 _Ctesias flourished_                          398
         5089 _Rome burnt by the Gauls_                     390
         5095 _Birth of Aristotle_                          384
         5108 _Battle of Leuctra_                           371
         5111 _Eudoxus flourished_                          368
         5113 _Consuls restored at Rome_                    366
         5119 The 14th Week of Daniel ends                  360
         5120 _The accession of Philip_                     359
         5121 Reign of Ochus                                358
         5123 _Birth of Alexander the Great_                356
         5138 _Birth of Epicurus_                           341
         5139 _Demosthenes flourished_                      340
         5141 _Battle of Chæronea_                          338
         5142 Reign of Arses                                337
         5143 _Reign of Alexander in Macedon_               336
         5144 Reign of Darius Codomannus                    335
         5145 _Alexander crosses the Hellespont_            334
         5147 Tyre taken by Alexander                       332
         5147 _Alexandria founded_                          332
         5148 _Battle of Arbela_                            331
         5150 MACEDO-GRECIAN EMPIRE                         329
         5156 Death of Alexander                            323
         5159 Ptolemy takes Jerusalem                       320
         5168 The 21st Week of Daniel ends                  311
         5167 Era of the Seleucidæ or Contracts             312
         5174 _Reign of Ptolemy Lagus_                      305
         5180 _Arcesilaus flourished_                       299
         5194 _Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus_               285
         5199 Reign of Antiochus Soter                      280
         5200 _Irruption of the Gauls into Greece_          279
         5202 Epoch of the Septuagint Version               277
         5215 _First Punic War_                             264
         5217 The 28th Week of Daniel ends                  262
         5218 Reign of Antiochus Theus                      261
         5232 _Reign of Ptolemy Evergetes_                  247
         5233 Reign of Seleucus Callinicius                 246
         5238 _Sicily ceded to Rome_                        241
         5254 Reign of Seleucus Ceraunus                    225
         5256 Reign of Antiochus the Great                  223
         5257 _Reign of Ptolemy Philopator_                 222
         5261 _Second Punic War_                            218
         5263 _Battle of Cannæ_                             216
         5266 The 35th Week of Daniel ends                  213
         5274 _Reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes_                  205
         5289 _The Romans cross the Hellespont_             190
         5292 Reign of Seleucus Philopator                  187
         5298 _Reign of Ptolemy Philometor_                 181
         5304 Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes                  175
         5304 Antiochus persecutes the Jews 10 years        175
         5304 End of the Jewish Hierarchy                   175
         5309 Antiochus sacks Jerusalem                     170
         5311 _Macedon subdued by the Romans_               168
         5312 Martyrdom of the Maccabees                    167
         5313 The Asamonean Dynasty                         166
         5313 Reign of Judas Maccabeus                      166
         5315 Reign of Antiochus Eupator                    164
         5315 The 42d Week of Daniel ends                   164
         5317 Reign of Demetrius Soter                      162
         5318 The Jews allied with the Romans               161
         5329 Reign of Alexander Balas                      150
         5330 _Third Punic War_                             149
         5333 Reign of Demetrius Nicator                    146
         5333 _Reign of Ptolemy Physcon_                    146
         5333 _Destruction of Carthage_                     146
         5336 Reign of Antiochus VI. Epiphanes              143
         5337 Reign of Trypho                               142
         5341 Reign of Antiochus Sidetes                    138
         5351 2d Reign of Demetrius Nicator                 128
         5354 Reign of Alexander Zebina                     125
         5356 Reign of Antiochus Grypus                     123
         5362 _Reign of Ptolemy Soter_                      117
         5364 The 49th Week of Daniel ends                  115
         5374 _Africa made a Roman Province_                105
         5384 Reign of Seleucus Nicator                      95
         5387 Reign of Philip                                92
         5389 _Cicero flourished_                            90
         5396 Reign of Tigranes                              83
         5397 _Sylla made Perpetual Dictator_                82
         5398 _Reign of Ptolemy Auletes_                     81
         5410 _Birth of Virgil_                              69
         5410 Reign of Antiochus Asiaticus                   69
         5413 The 56th Week of Daniel ends                   66
         5414 _Birth of Horace_                              65
         5414 Syria made a Roman Province                    65
         5416 Jerusalem taken by Pompey                      63
         5419 _First Roman Triumvirate_                      60
         5421 _Birth of Livy_                                58
         5421 _Julius Cæsar invades Gaul_                    58
         5425 _Julius Cæsar reduces Britain_                 54
         5428 _Reign of Cleopatra_                           51
         5431 _Battle of Pharsalia_                          48
         5434 The 59th Week of Daniel ends                   45
         5434 _The Julian Era_                               45
         5435 _Death of Julius Cæsar_                        44
         5436 _Second Roman Triumvirate_                     43
         5437 _The Battle of Philippi_                       42
         5441 The 60th Week of Daniel ends                   38
         5441 _The Spanish Era_                              38
         5442 Reign of Herod                                 37
         5442 End of the Asamoneans                          37
         5448 The 61st Week of Daniel ends                   31
         5448 _The Battle of Actium_                         31
         5449 _Egypt made a Roman Province_                  33
         5449 THE ROMAN EMPIRE                               30
         5449 Reign of Augustus Cæsar                        30
         5452 _The Augustan Era_                             27
         5455 The 62d Week of Daniel ends                    24
         5455 THE TEMPLE OF JANUS SHUT                       24
         5462 The 63d Week of Daniel ends                    17
         5462 The Temple at Jerusalem rebuilt by Herod       17
         5476 The 65th Week of Daniel ends                    3

         5476 BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST                           3

         5478 Reign of Archelaus                              1

                                                           A.D.
         5478 VULGAR ERA OF CHRISTIANITY                      1
         5486 Judea made a Roman Province                     8
         5492 Reign of Tiberius Cesar                        14
         5504 The 69th Week of Daniel ends                   26
         5505 Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea             27
         5506 BAPTISM OF CHRIST                              28
         5511 The 70th Week of Daniel ends                   33

         5511 THE CRUCIFIXION AND ASCENSION                  33

         5511 THE FIFTH EMPIRE                               33

-----

Footnote 1:

  ‘Ο πᾶs χρόνος καὶ τὰ ἔτη δείκνυται, τοντοῖς βονλομένοῖς πείθεσθαι τῇ
  ἄληθείᾳ.—Theoph. ad Autol. Lib. III. p. 273, Oxon. 1684.

Footnote 2:

  See his “Syntagma de Septuaginta,” p. 13, Lond. 1655, and his
  “Chronologia Sacra,” p. 46, Oxon. 1660. In our subsequent citations,
  these editions are followed; the latter is denominated “Opus Posthumum
  hucusque ἀνέκδοτον.”

Footnote 3:

  This translation, which is from the Septuagint, may be considered as
  too free by some; but we conceive that it expresses the true meaning
  of the passage, which is not conveyed in our common version; for the
  earth abideth _not_ for ever!

Footnote 4:

  The reader will find an explanation of Mr. Cuninghame’s argument in
  the second part of this Dissertation.

Footnote 5:

  Revelation xiii. 17.

Footnote 6:

  Ibid. xxii. 19.

Footnote 7:

  Dr. Hales says, “The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, of the highest
  authority among the Jews, thus paraphrases Gen. iv. 25: ‘And Adam knew
  his wife when 130 years were completed after Abel was killed.’ And the
  same account is furnished by the Bereshith Rabba, More Nevochim,
  Midrash Tanchuma, Solomon Jarchi, Elias, and others of their principal
  writers.”—See his “Analysis of Chronology,” vol. i. p. 80. Indeed, the
  whole of the second article of the second section of his Introduction,
  is well worth perusal, being full of very curious and interesting
  matter, all tending powerfully to prove that the longer computation of
  the Septuagint was the true and original computation of the Hebrew
  text. His comparison of the Masorete and Samaritan texts in regard to
  Genesis xi. 10–32, is very valuable; see p. 82.

Footnote 8:

  “Syntagma,” cap. iv. p. 34.

Footnote 9:

  We refer here to the date of the division of the earth as determined
  by Mr. Cuninghame; see the Preface to his “Synopsis of Chronology,”
  pp. 18–22, and his “Fulness of the Times,” p. 44. In these works, he
  makes out that the division commenced in A. M. 3081 or B. C. 2398;
  that it continued during a jubilean period, or forty-nine years; and,
  of course, that it terminated in A. M. 3130, or B. C. 2349. We confess
  that we do not see the necessity of allowing so long a period for the
  division of the earth; and we think it more likely to have been
  finished than to have been begun at the former date.

Footnote 10:

  This name is marked in this and the two following Tables, on account
  of its omission in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts.

Footnote 11:

  Usher’s “Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vi. p. 87.

Footnote 12:

  The citations from Dr. Hales’ work are referred to the 4to. edition,
  Lond. 1800–1812.

Footnote 13:

  Collatio Codicis Cottoniani Gen seos, &c. Lond. 1778, p. xiii.

Footnote 14:

  “Analysis of Chronology,” vol. i. p. 84.

Footnote 15:

  “Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vii. p. 120.

Footnote 16:

  It is remarkable that both Hales and Russell, notwithstanding their
  acknowledged veneration for the Holy Scriptures, have chosen to follow
  the testimony of Josephus, in regard to the extent of the first two
  ages of the world; but “their witness agrees not together;” for the
  former makes it 3333 years, and the latter 3403 years!

Footnote 17:

  See the Prefaces to the “Synopsis of Chronology;” the “Chronology of
  Israel;” the “Hebrew and Septuagint Chronologies Tried;” the
  “Scientific Chronology of the year 1839,” and its Supplement; and the
  “Season of the End.”

Footnote 18:

  “History of the World,” pp. 228, 277.

Footnote 19:

  The Eulerian ratio here referred to, is that the numbers of mankind
  are doubled every 12⅘ years. Now, in 90 years, the doubling would
  occur about 7 times, which would occasion the original number to be
  increased 128 times; because the 7th power of 2 is 128. Hence, 50,000
  multiplied by 128, gives 6,400,000, which is nearly 6½ millions. If
  the calculation be performed with the greatest mathematical nicety,
  the result will only be 6,540,256, which is rather more than 6½
  millions.

Footnote 20:

  The pretensions of any nation to a remote antiquity could only arise
  from ignorance of the sacred records, and of the true traditions of
  its ancestors, or from a bold disbelief of both. The Jews cannot be
  charged with either of these, their character being remarkably the
  reverse until Christ came. Hence we cannot suppose that the Seventy
  Interpreters would wilfully shut their eyes to the glaring facts, that
  the true age of the world was well known to their countrymen, that
  many of them were then living in the hope of the fulfilment of the
  prophecies concerning the Messiah, and that they were then accustomed
  “to calculate the times.” Any attempt on their part, therefore, to
  increase that age by 1500 years, would have been looked upon with
  abhorrence; nor could they hope to escape detection and severe
  reprobation; unless, indeed, we can suppose that they had assembled
  all the Jews “from every nation under heaven,” and made them privy to
  the transaction! Before the advent, therefore, such an alteration in
  the sacred text was impossible; but after that event it was not only
  possible, but actually took place, not in the _Greek_ but in the
  _Hebrew_, the former being read all over the world, but the latter
  being confined to the Jewish synagogue.

Footnote 21:

  Chronologia Sacra, pp. 162 and 171.

Footnote 22:

  Although the extent of the _third_ age is clearly established by the
  reference of Paul to the period of 430 years, from the confirmation of
  the covenant to Abraham to the promulgation of the law from Mount
  Sinai, yet it will be satisfactory to observe, that the passage cited
  from the book of Exodus originally stood as follows:—“And the
  sojourning of the children of Israel, _which they and their fathers_
  sojourned in the land of Egypt _and in the land of Canaan_, was 430
  years. And it came to pass, after the 430 years, that all the host of
  the Lord went out of the land of Egypt _by night_;” see the
  Septuagint, Alexandrine edition, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, Exod.
  xii. 40, 41. The words in Italics in this passage are omitted in the
  Hebrew text, and the words “_even the self-same day_,” are
  interpolated. That this is an interpolation is quite evident, for even
  in the Hebrew, in the very next verse, we are _twice_ told that “It is
  a _night_ much to be observed unto the Lord,” for this great
  deliverance. Thus, by the testimony of _three_ witnesses against
  _one_, the true reading is established. Nevertheless, Archbishop Usher
  calls the passage just cited from the Septuagint a _paraphrastic
  explanation_ of the words of Moses; and he says that the corresponding
  passage in the Samaritan text is _interpolated_ from the Greek
  version!—“Chronologia Sacra,” cap. viii. p. 127. Biblical critics and
  commentators, in general, _now_ admit that these texts have preserved
  the _true reading_; see the note on this passage, by the editor of the
  Religious Tract Society’s Commentary on the Bible, from Henry and
  Scott. Mr. Clinton also very properly defends the right
  _interpretation_ of the passage; for he says, “some modern writers
  have very unreasonably doubted this portion of the Hebrew chronology;”
  see “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. page 299.

Footnote 23:

  The following is the passage as written by Origen, in his commentary
  on the Gospel of St. John:—γέγραπται γὰρ έν τῃ τρίτῃ τῶν βασιλειων, ὡς
  ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ ξύλα τρισὶν ἔτεσιν· ἐν δὲ τῳ τεταρτῳ
  ετει, μηνι δευτέρῳ, βασιλεύοντος τοῦ βασιλέως Σολομὼντος ἐπὶ Ισραήλ,
  ἐνετείλατο ὁ βασιλέυς, κ.τ.λ.; which reads thus:—_It is written in the
  third [book] of Kings, so they prepared stones and timber for three
  years; and in the fourth year, in the second month, of the reign of
  King Solomon over Israel, the king commanded, &c._ 1 Kings v. 18; and
  vi. 1.

Footnote 24:

  Mr. Cuninghame’s remarks on Usher’s system, in his “Synopsis of
  Chronology,” pp. 18–20, are very appropriate. We are forced to abridge
  them as follows:—“I have in my former works, shown that the learned
  prelate’s Chronology of this period is _manufactured_; and in this
  conclusion I have the support of the most eminent writers, including
  the names of Hales, Kennicott, Dr. Russell, Mr. Clinton, added to the
  whole of the ancient chronographers. The latest attempt made to prop
  up or patch his system as a whole, is that of the author of the
  Chapter on Chronology, in the last edition of Mr. Bickersteth’s _Guide
  to the Prophecies_. But while this learned chronographer thus sets his
  seal to the almost _exact truth_ of Usher’s _sum total_ of years, he
  no less sets his seal to the fact that Usher has _filled up_ the
  period by a _false chronology_. According to this learned writer, it
  is therefore undeniable that Usher’s chronology of the period from the
  Exodus to the first of Solomon is, as to its _particulars_,
  manufactured and erroneous. Now it is quite a fair question to Mr.
  Bickersteth and his friend, to ask them by what arithmetical process
  they have found out that the scheme which they thus bear testimony to
  be _false_ as to its _particulars_, is yet _true_ as to its _sum
  total_. Is it a newly discovered principle that many falsehoods make
  one truth? As to the scheme of particulars substituted for that of
  Usher in these tables, it is like that of the learned prelate himself,
  utterly opposed to the narrative and testimony of the book of Judges.
  There is one part of the scheme, however, which merits even more
  severe animadversion. The author of the Table makes the period in Acts
  xiii. 20, expire at the return of the ark from Kirjathjearim. Are we
  then to conclude that he has clipped down St. Paul’s 450 to 350? I can
  see no other mode of explaining his calculation.”

Footnote 25:

  This is the Hebrew title of the most famous Jewish work on chronology,
  and signifies “The Great Chronicle of the World.” Dr. Hales says,
  “This was the first curtailed system of Jewish chronology, fabricated
  by Rabbi _Josi_, under the auspices of Rabbi _Akiba_, the abettor of
  the rebel-impostor _Barchochab_, A.D. 130, in the reign of
  Adrian.”—See his “Analysis,” p. 13.

Footnote 26:

  “I have endeavoured to shew,” says Mr. Cuninghame, in the former of
  the places cited, “that the periods of 390 and 40 mystic _days_,
  during which Ezekiel was commanded to lie on his sides, bearing the
  iniquity of Judah and Israel, are a period of 430 _years_, computed
  from the finishing of the Temple, B.C. 1020, to the beginning of the
  siege of Jerusalem, B.C. 590. But it now appears to me that the 430
  years may with equal probability be computed from the first Passover
  in the Temple. The dedication was in the month Tisri of B.C. 1019,
  which is exactly 91 jubilees from the creation; the first Passover was
  therefore in Nisan B.C. 1018, whence to the taking of the city in Ab
  B.C. 588, are 430 years and three months; and computing back from B.C.
  588, the second period of 40 years, it brings us to B.C. 628, the 13th
  of Josiah, and the very year, according to Prideaux, of the commission
  of Jeremiah. * * * Whether, therefore, we compute the period of 430
  years from the finishing of the Temple B.C. 1020, to the _beginning of
  the siege_ B.C. 590, or as above, from the first Passover to the
  _taking of the city_, it comes out with equal exactness.”

Footnote 27:

  See a full account of this Canon, in Dr. Hales’ “Analysis,” vol. i.
  pp. 275–288; and a short account of it, in the “Breviarium
  Chronologicum” of Strauchius, translated by Sault, pp. 262–264, 3rd
  edition, Lond. 1745.

Footnote 28:

  See his “Chart of Sacred Chronology.”

Footnote 29:

  See his “Apology, &c.,” translated by the Rev. T. Chevallier, B.D., p.
  221, Cambridge, 1833.

Footnote 30:

  Mr. Cuninghame says that “Mr. Gresswell produces a mass of quotations
  from the Fathers, scarcely two of whom entirely agree, to prove that
  they nearly all held that our Lord’s death was in one of the years 29
  or 30, [A. M. 5507 or 5508], or some of them in 31, [A. M. 5509]; yet
  with respect to some of his witnesses, he is obliged to exclaim, ‘_So
  little solicitous do these writers seem to be about verifying their
  dates, before they allowed them to remain on record_.’ If he were to
  give us 100 volumes of such passages to wade through, which is merely
  wading through a mass of contradictions, they can avail nothing
  against the unequivocal testimony of St. Luke, that in the 15th of
  Tiberius our Lord was 30 years of age, and was therefore born in B. C.
  3, [A. M. 5476]; and the other fact, founded on the unerring
  principles of Astronomy, that from the year 28 to 33, [A. M. 5506 to
  5511], no Passover could possibly have fallen on a Friday; and,
  therefore, the death of our Lord is pinned down to A. D. 33, [A. M.
  5511].” “Season of the End,” p. 85.

Footnote 31:

  Jerome even went further than this, and adopted the curtailed system
  of the Jews in some of his writings, if not in all.

Footnote 32:

  The Birth of Christ took place according to

  _The Septuagint._

  In the 5476th year from Creation; the 3215th from the Deluge; the
  2143d from the birth of Abraham; the 1637th from the Exodus; and the
  1068th from the accession of David; the 65th prophetic week of Daniel;
  the 193d Olympiad; the 751st year of Rome; and the 42d of Augustus.

  _The Hebrew Text._

  In the 4000th year from the Creation; the 2344th from the Deluge; the
  1992d from the birth of Abraham; the 1487th from the Exodus; and the
  1051st from the accession of David; the 65th prophetic week of Daniel;
  the 193d Olympiad; the 749th year of Rome; and the 40th of Augustus.

Footnote 33:

  Rabbi _Salomon Jarchi_, qui nous a donné l’explication de cette
  tradition, dit que les deux mille ans de _Tohu_, ou d’_Inanité_, ont
  duré depuis la création du monde jusque vers la cinquante ou
  soixantième année d’Abraham, et que les deux milles ans de Loi ont
  commencé vers ce tems-la, lorsque Dieu le fit sortir de Chaldeé, et
  lui donna des lois pour lui et pour toute sa posterité, principalement
  celle de la circoncision; et qu’ils ont fini vers la destruction de
  Jérusalem par Titus. Il ajoute enfin ces paroles: _Mais nos péchés
  sont la cause que le Messie n’est point venu au bout des quatre mille
  ans_. p. 1527.

Footnote 34:

  The rules for the determination of the approximating ratios of any two
  numbers by the method of _Continued Fractions_, are very clearly
  explained, on _Algebraical_ principles in _Hind’s Algebra_, 5th
  edition, pp. 273–292; and, on _Arithmetical_ principles in _Thomson’s
  Arithmetic_, 16th edition, pp. 241–246. We subjoin the operation, as
  much abridged as possible, by which the preceding series of fractions
  was obtained. Reducing the above lengths of the year and the month
  into seconds, we have the numbers 31556929·7 and 2551442·87; hence,

                       2 255144287 3155692970 12
                         187923052 3061731444
                         —————————  —————————
                       2  67221235   93961526  1
                          53480582   67221235
                         —————————  —————————
                       1  13740653   26740291  1
                          12999638   13740653
                         —————————  —————————
                       1    741015   12999638 17
                            402383   12597255
                         —————————  —————————
                            338632     402383  1
                               &c.

 Quotients,  12,   2,    1,    2,     1,      1,       17,       1,        1,     &c.
  Ratios,   ¹⁄₁₂, ²⁄₂₅, ³⁄₃₇, ⁸⁄₉₉, ¹¹⁄₁₃₆, ¹⁹⁄₂₃₅, ³³⁴⁄₄₁₃₁, ³⁵³⁄₄₃₆₆, ⁶⁸⁷⁄₈₄₉₇, &c.

  Unmathematical readers will find a much more simple, but of course, a
  more lengthened explanation, of these ratios in Mr. Cuninghame’s
  “Synopsis of Chronology,” pp. 6–10, and 54–60.

Footnote 35:

  We have much satisfaction in giving the following abridgement of the
  remarks of Mr. Birks, on this interesting subject; pp. 371, 372. Thus,
  he says, “A fresh light is thrown upon the words of the Psalmist, _He
  appointed the moon for seasons_. A divine ladder of time is set before
  us, and, as we rise successively from step to step, days are replaced
  by years, and years by millenia; and these, perhaps, hereafter, in
  their turn, by some higher unit, from which the soul of man may
  measure out cycles still more vast, and obtain a wider view of the
  immeasurable grandeur of eternity. Human science has strained its
  utmost efforts in calculating the actual motions of the Moon and the
  Earth; but the determining causes which fixed at first the proportion
  of their monthly and yearly revolutions have altogether eluded its
  research. Yet these elements of the natural universe are linked in, by
  these sacred times and celestial cycles, with the deepest wonders of
  Providence, and the whole range of Divine prophecy. How glorious,
  then, must be the inner shrine, lit up with the Shechinah of the
  Divine Presence, when the approaches themselves reveal such a secret
  and hidden wisdom!”

Footnote 36:

  See his work “On the Jubilean Chronology of the Seventh Trumpet of the
  Apocalypse,” pp. 1–3, and 19–26.

Footnote 37:

  Dr. Hales, in his “Analysis,” vol. ii. p. 1354, gives the following
  explanation of the “_enigmatical_ number of the name of the second
  _Beast_, in its second stage, after the _image_ was made,” from
  _Fuardentius_, an early Romish writer, followed by _Walmsley_. The
  number 666 is the numeral amount of [Mahomet] the _False Prophet’s_
  name, written Μοαμετις or Μαομετις, by the Greek Historians _Zonaras_
  and _Cedrenus_:—

             Μ,   Α,   Ο,   Μ,  Ε,    Τ,   Ι,    Σ.
             40 +  1 + 70 + 40 + 5 + 300 + 10 + 200 = 666.

  This is very curious, and indicates the strong likeness between
  _Popery_ and _Islamism_, in some grand point, namely, _the Spirit of
  Persecution_!! John xiii. 35. The following explanation of the number
  of the Beast, is taken from Mr. Cuninghame’s “Supplement to the
  Scientific Chronology of the year 1839,” pp. 28, 29. “In my
  Dissertation on the Seals, I have adopted the usual Protestant
  Solution and application of this number, as being found [first by
  Irenæus] in the name of LATINUS, the founder of the LATIN KINGDOM,
  written with the epsilon, Λατείνος, according to the ancient Greek
  orthography; or, if it be written without the ε, according to the
  later usage, then we owe to Mr. Clarke the important discovery, that
  is found in the name of the LATIN KINGDOM,—Ἡ Λατίνη Βασίλεία.

                       Λ =   30 Ἡ =    8 Β =    2
                       α =    1          α =    1
                       τ =  300 Λ =   30 σ =  200
                       ε =    5 α =    1 ι =   10
                       ι =   10 τ =  300 λ =   30
                       ν =   50 ι =   10 ε =    5
                       ο =   70 ν =   50 ι =   10
                       ς =  200 η =    8 α =    1
                           ————     ————     ————
                            666  =   407  +   259

  Now, without in the least departing from this interpretation, I
  remark, that while it correctly ascertains the PERSON or POWER to whom
  this number belongs, namely, THE LATIN EMPIRE, BOTH SECULAR AND
  SPIRITUAL; yet it does not COUNT or COMPUTE the number itself, or
  discover to us its ROOT in arithmetic. The expression, _Let him that
  hath understanding_ COUNT, “Ψηφισατω”, _the number of the Beast_,
  cannot mean to find the number itself, for this is given; nor does it
  merely signify to find out the name which expresses that number; but
  it also means that the root of the number must be found, and the
  number computed from it; and further, it signifies, I apprehend, that
  we must apply the number to the chronology of the Beast himself, in
  connection with that of the World, in which he exercises his
  dominion.”

Footnote 38:

  See _Note A_. p. 130.

Footnote 39:

  This abstract of his arguments was communicated to the author by Mr.
  Cuninghame.

Footnote 40:

  See _Note B_. p. 132.

Footnote 41:

  In L’Estrange’s Translation of Josephus, p. 10, he says “God commanded
  Eve to tread upon his [the Serpent’s] head, both as the fountain of
  all our woes, and as the part where he most easily receives a mortal
  wound.” Reland says “Quia interpres vetus hæc reddit, _ut mulier ejus
  capiti plagas inferret_, &c. Nulla apud Josephum est mentio mulieris,
  nec ullum hactenus codicem Josephi conspectum memini, in quo hoc loco
  mulier commemoratur.”—Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. page 8, note c.

Footnote 42:

  For the accuracy of _this number_ we have the testimony of Josephus in
  two different places of his works, which have escaped the alterations
  made in the text of his Jewish Antiquities, by wicked and designing
  persons. See the Proœmium to that work, paragraph γ; and the Prologue
  to his first Book against Apion.

Footnote 43:

  This eminent Prophet was favoured with a vision of God’s glory, which,
  though preceded by storm, and earthquake, and fire, was accompanied
  with a _still small voice_. This was the _voice_ of love and mercy,
  whose sweetest notes were heard at Calvary without the gate; for the
  Septuagint says, κακεῖ Κυριος, _and the Lord was there_; 1 Kings xix.
  12.—See the Alexandrine edition.

Footnote 44:

  A name of Apollo, or the Sun; hence, perhaps, Ορος, a _mountain_,
  because the _morning sun_ first appears on the mountain-tops.

Footnote 45:

  This inversion, or _Metathesis_, is not uncommon in Hebrew, see Joshua
  xix. 50, and xxiv. 30, compared with Judges ii. 8, 9, where it occurs
  in this very word in composition.

Footnote 46:

  “The construction of this sentence in the original, indicates that
  _Baal_ and the _Sun_ are to be considered as one and the same; for the
  copulative ‏‘ו‎ _Vau_, is not put between them as it is between the
  remaining words; thus, _and_ the Moon, _and_ the Planets (or, more
  literally, _and_ Mazzaroth), &c.” The latter term, which occurs also
  in Job xxxviii. 32, is understood by most critics, to signify the
  _Twelve Signs of the Zodiac_; if this be its real meaning, the
  doctrine of the _Celestial Sphere_ must have had a very early origin,
  and long anterior to the famous sphere of Chiron or Eudoxus.

Footnote 47:

  “Religious History of Man,” p. 248, second edition.

Footnote 48:

  Russell’s “Connection,” vol. i. p. 401.

Footnote 49:

  Dr. Russell gives the following curious extract from the _Canon
  Chronicus_ of Sir John Marsham: “Plures in Oriente _Joves_ est
  investigare, Græcis Romanisque longe recentioribus, nullus datur hîc
  locus. Varro _trecentos Joves_ introducit: Nos originem quærimus, non
  multitudinem. Sane omnis de Jove theologia ex Egypto derivata est; nec
  Jovis solum, sed omnium etiam deorum numina inde petenda sunt.”—See
  his “Connection,” pp. 389–406.

Footnote 50:

  The inversion and amalgamation of the letters ‏ד‎ and ‏ש‎ producing Z.

Footnote 51:

  ΘΕΟΣ δὲ λέγεται, δὶα τὸ ΤΕΘΕΙΚΕΝΑΙ τὰ πάντα ἑπὶ τᾔ[τᾕ?] ἑαυτοῦ
  ἀσφαλείᾳ, καὶ διὰ τὸ ΘΕΕΙΝ· τὸ δὲ θέειν ἐστι τὸ τρέχειν, καὶ κινεῖν,
  καὶ ἐνεργεῖν, καὶ τρέφειν, καὶ προνοεῖν, καὶ κυβερνᾷν, καὶ ζωοποιεῖν
  τὰ πάντα. ΚΥΡΙΟΣ δὲ ἐστι, διὰ τὸ ΚΥΡΙΕΥΕΙΝ ἀυτὸν τῶν ὅλων,
  κ.τ.λ.—Theoph. ad Autolycum, p. 10., Oxon. 1684.

Footnote 52:

  The celebrated historian of Astronomy, Delambre, following the
  opinions of Sir William Jones and Mr. Bentley in the “Asiatic
  Researches,” sneers at the supposed antiquity of the Hindoo
  Astronomical Tables contained in the _Surya Siddhanta_, and ridicules
  Bailly and Playfair for maintaining such an opinion. But ridicule is
  not a test of truth; and after all, his conclusion is only this, that
  the question _seems_ to be settled! Without insisting on the antiquity
  of the Tables, it may be urged on very satisfactory grounds, that some
  of the observations to which they refer, were _real_ and not
  _fictitious_. Delambre has brought no proof of his own to shew that
  they _must_ be fictitious, but has merely copied the statements and
  arguments of Mr. Bentley. For these, we refer to his work entitled, “A
  Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy,” London, 1825.

Footnote 53:

  Even the splendid creations of Milton’s genius, in his “Paradise Lost”
  have been often substituted for the truths of Sacred Inspiration.

Footnote 54:

  Πατὴρ τοῦ μελλόντος ἀιῶνος: Isaiah ix. 6; See the Alexandrine edition
  of the Septuagint.

Footnote 55:

  Ὁσαισ ... ἡμέραις έγένετο ὁ κόσμος, τοσαύταις χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται.
  καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἡ γραφή· “καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ ὀυρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ
  καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτών. καί συνετέλεσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ϛʹ τὰ
  ἔργα ἀυτοῦ, ἁ ἐποίησε; καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ζʹ ἀπὸ
  πάντων τῶν έργων ἀυτοῦ.” τοῦτο δ’ ἐστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις, καὶ
  τῶν ἐσομένων προφητεία. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυριόυ ὡς ᾳ ἐτη· ἐν ἑξ οὖν
  συντετελέσθαι τὰ γεγονότα· φανερόν οὖν, ὁτι ἡ συντελεια ἀυτῶν ϛʹ στ
  ἐτος ἐστίν.—Irenæus contra omnes Hæreses; pp. 444, 445, Grabe’s
  edition, Oxon. 1702.

Footnote 56:

  Hæc Irenæi sententia de mundi permansione, tot tantosque habet
  vindices et confirmatores, ac plausibiles persuasiones, modo divinæ
  potestati nihil temerè præscribatur, ut in eam lubens descenderem.
  Primò enim Ethnicorum omnium clarissimos et antiquissimos scriptores,
  Hydaspen Medorum Regem; Mercurium Trismegistum, ac Sybillas hoc
  præcinuisse et firmasse, testis Lactantius, lib. vii. cap. 14, 15 et
  18. Hebræos idem sequi, testimonio est oraculum, quod Heliæ nomine
  circumferunt Thalmudistæ, libro Sanhedrin, capite Helec: et lib.
  Havoda Zara, cap. liphne-edehen: cujus verba recitantur, nec
  refelluntur, a doctis et Catholicis Authoribus, Galatino libro iv.
  cap. 20., Pico Mirandulano lib. vii., Heptapli cap. 4. et Francisco
  Veneto lib. de Harmonia Mundi Cant. iii. Tono 7, cap. 7. Oraculum hoc
  declarant, ac conjecturis multis et non spernendis confirmant insignes
  Rabbini Selomo et Isaac. Ex Latinis Ecclesiasticis Patribus,
  sententiam hanc amplectuntur et tuentur Lactantius lib. vii. cap. 14.,
  Hilarius in cap. 17. Matth., Hieronymous Epist. ad Cyprianum, et
  Comment in cap. iv. Micheæ, Gaudentius Brixianus Tract. x. de Lectione
  Evangelica. Refert eandem et Augustinus lib. xx Civitat. Dei cap. 7,
  ut verisimilem, licet alibi illam impugnaverit. Glossa etiam, quæ
  Ordinaria vocatur constanter affirmat, in 5 cap. Genes. Inter Græcos
  vero placuit hæc opinio Justino Martyri, seu cuivis alteri Authori
  Quæstionum ad Orthod. Quæst. 71. Sex istis millibus quingentos annos
  addere visum est Hippolyto, Cyrillo, et Chrysostomo, ut author est
  Germanus Constantinopolitanus libro de theoria rerum Eccles.
  Perspectum mihi, est hanc sententiam oppugnari ab Augustino Comment,
  in Psal. 6 et 89. atque Epist. 89. insuper à Beda in Psal. 89. an vero
  illam expugnent, viderint docti et acuti eorum Lectores. Hæc autem ni
  fallor, aliquod emolumentum adferent ad eorum reprimendos clamores,
  qui temere nullaque ratione B. Martyri hac de re vehementius
  insultant, et lapsos, quos putant, Patrum aliquanto contumeliosiùs
  insectantur. _Feuardentius._—Grabe’s Irenæus, pp. 444, 445.

Footnote 57:

  Ἑπτα ἐν γενεῄ κατακαύσεται κόσμος ἀειδὴς.—Philebos, p. 157., cited by
  Dr. Russell, p. 77 of his “Connection.”

Footnote 58:

  Augustine de Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 11–13; cited by Russell, p. 81 of
  his “Connection.”

Footnote 59:

  Russell’s “Connection” pp. 80–84.

Footnote 60:

  Πανταχόθεν τοιγαροῦν τῆς τῶν ό ἑρμηνείας ἐκ παλαιας, ὡς ἐοικε, καὶ
  ἀδιάστροφοῦ Ἑβραιῶν γραφῆς μεταβέβλησθαι συνιστάμενης, εἰκότως ταὺτῇ
  καὶ ἡμεῖς κέκρημεθα κατὰ την παροῦσαν χρονογραθιαν, ὁτε μάλιστα καὶ ἡ
  καθ’ όλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἡπλωσμένη χριστοῦ ἐκκλησία ταυτῇ μονῇ
  προσέχει τῶν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπόστολων τὲ καὶ μαθήτων ἀρχῆθεν ταὺτῇ
  χρῆσθαι παραδεδώκοτων.—Eusebius, cited by Syncellus, p. 89, Bonn,
  1829.

Footnote 61:

  We refer to Robinson’s edition of Hesiod’s works, quæ supersunt, cum
  notis Variorum, Oxon. 1737.

Footnote 62:

  “Connection,” vol. ii. p. 465.

Footnote 63:

  Genesis xlix. 11, 12, 25, 26. The above passages are improved a little
  by reference to the Septuagint, of which see a Translation according
  to the Vatican edition, just published by Bagster and Sons, from the
  pen of Sir L. C. L. Brenton, Bart.

Footnote 64:

  The character of the present age, which is remarkable for vulgar
  _Infidelity_, and the entire worship of _Mammon_, especially in the
  metropolis, has made many of the people of God sigh and cry for the
  abominations of the land, and fear that the Apocalyptic vials of wrath
  are about to be poured out upon this devoted country; for to whom much
  is given, of them much will be required. The crying sin, in our
  estimation, is that which makes a _gain of godliness_, and which puts
  men into the _priest’s office_ for a piece of bread; for by this
  _craft they have their_ ἐυπορια, _wealth_, Acts xix. 25; or, as it
  might be rendered, _respectability_. This age indeed makes vast
  pretensions to _respectability_, but it is only that which arises from
  _wealth_. Now it is very remarkable that the letters of the Greek word
  ἐυπορια, which was used by the craftsmen who made silver shrines for
  Diana, when they complained of the spread of the Gospel, and set
  Ephesus in an uproar for _two hours_, added up according to their
  value in the Greek system of notation, make the sum of 666, the
  well-known number of the Beast! Thus:—

                Ε    Υ    Π    Ο     Ρ    Ι    Α
                5 + 400 + 80 + 70 + 100 + 10 + 1 = 666.

  What does this indicate, but that the beast reigns triumphant in the
  present age; for the whole world has gone a wondering after him, and
  the image which he has set up? And what is this image but _wealth_ or
  _respectability_, which all are so anxious to acquire and maintain?
  Let Christians beware of falling into this snare, and let them attend
  to the warning voice of the beloved Apostle; Rev. xviii. 4. For the
  discovery of the above singular numerical coincidence, we are
  indebted, through the publisher, Mr. Bagster, to the author of a work
  just published, entitled “WEALTH, The Name and Number of the Beast,
  &c.”

Footnote 65:

  The similarity of this description to that of Hesiod, is in some
  points, even more marked in the Septuagint.

Footnote 66:

  Ἀρχη σοφιας which is the same as ‏‘ראשית‎ signifies literally the
  _beginning_ or _summit of wisdom_, and consequently the _highest
  wisdom_.

Footnote 67:

  Here Virgil, by a Poetic licence, melts the _Iron age_ and the _Cumæan
  age_ into one. This was natural for him to do, as a Roman; for no
  doubt he was aware that the ascendancy of the _Roman Power_ had been
  predicted in ancient prophecy under the figure of _Iron Rule_: and he
  might hope that the _Fifth Monarchy_ would spring from the same
  source.

Footnote 68:

  This learned and illustrious poet, who had no doubt, borrowed his
  “_priscæ vestigia fraudis_”[69] from the 2d Chapter of Genesis, might
  have also anticipated the gross wickedness which should continue to
  prevail, notwithstanding the advent of the Divine Instructor, until
  death should put an end to mortal strife, and the spirits of the just
  be made perfect. It is lamentable in the present _Age of
  Respectability_, to behold so many of these _vestigia_ as the
  newspapers exhibit, those daily records of crime and debauchery,
  murder and suicide; to read the reports of the police, inquest, and
  law courts, one would scarcely believe that he lived in a Christian
  country, but rather that he dwelt in the midst of Pagan Rome. It is
  our deliberate opinion that the publication of such reports is
  injurious to the morals of the country, and that an immediate stop
  should be put to it by legislative enactment. The reading of
  newspapers is now so universal, and the taste for _The Horrible_ so
  rabid, especially among the lower orders, that we are fully persuaded
  that the perusal of the reports of trial for crime, under the
  temptation of the Devil, and the pressure of similar circumstances,
  too frequently leads to its commission. It would serve all the good
  purposes that can possibly be gained by publicity, merely to record
  the names and crimes of the offenders, without entering into all the
  shocking details, so disgusting to the truly humane and Christian
  portion of the community.

Footnote 69:

  “_Traces of Man’s early sin._”

Footnote 70:

  The works of these authors to which we shall chiefly refer, are, the
  “Jewish Antiquities” of Josephus, the treatise “To Autolycus” of
  Theophilus, the remains of the “Chronicon” of Africanus, the mutilated
  “Chronicon” of Eusebius, and the “Chronicon Paschale.”

Footnote 71:

  See Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. pp. 13, 14; note _a_.

Footnote 72:

  Lib. iii. ad Antolycum, p. 262, Oxon. 1684.

Footnote 73:

  See Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. pp. 126, 129.

Footnote 74:

  Ibid, pp. 242, 243, 248, 250.

Footnote 75:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 26.

Footnote 76:

  See Hudson’s Josephus, pp. 26, 27.

Footnote 77:

  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 262.

Footnote 78:

  Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. p. 130.

Footnote 79:

  On this point, see the “Cours Complet de Theologie,” tom. iii. p.
  1538; and “Chronicon Paschale,” p. 340, Venet. 1729.

Footnote 80:

  Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. p. 131.

Footnote 81:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 111.

Footnote 82:

  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 262.

Footnote 83:

  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 265.

Footnote 84:

  Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 155.

Footnote 85:

  Ibid, p. 136.

Footnote 86:

  Μετὰ τοῦ ἀληθοὺς δια τοῦ Μωσέως πνεύματος διδαχθέντες, ἐκ τε τῶν
  λοιπῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν ἱστοριῶν, ἀριθμὸν ἐτῶν πεντάκις χιλίων πεντακοσίων ἐις
  τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Σωτηρίου Λόγου τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς μοναρχίας των Καισάρων
  κηρυσσομένην παραδεδώκασιν. Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 132.

Footnote 87:

  The 20 years taken from the former period, and the 20 years of the
  servitude omitted, being both added to the short period, will make it
  exactly 72 years.

Footnote 88:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 979.

Footnote 89:

  Ibid, p. 322.

Footnote 90:

  Russell’s “Connection,” vol. i. p. 147.

Footnote 91:

  Sulpicius Severus in Hist. Sacr. i. 44, 3; cited by Clinton.

Footnote 92:

  See Russell’s “Connection,” p. 128; where he gives a very erroneous
  view of the critarchate of Samuel and the reign of Saul. He is also
  mistaken as to the critarchate of Samson.

Footnote 93:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 470.

Footnote 94:

  Hudson’s Josephus, p. 371.

Footnote 95:

  Ibid, p. 422.

Footnote 96:

  Ibid, p. 506.

Footnote 97:

  Hudson’s Josephus, p. 528.

Footnote 98:

  Probably intended for _Shamgar_; see Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 266.

Footnote 99:

  Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 306, note _d_.

Footnote 100:

  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 266.

Footnote 101:

  Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 160, 161.

Footnote 102:

  Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 308, note q.

Footnote 103:

  Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 167, 169.

Footnote 104:

  Russell’s “Connection,” pp. 130, 131; and Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,”
  vol. i. pp. 303—310.

Footnote 105:

  See the vol. last cited, p. 310, note _x_.

Footnote 106:

  We have observed the correct number in the series of the Judges
  prefixed to the Armenian copy of the Chronicon of Eusebius.

Footnote 107:

  Clinton’s Fast. Helle. p. 310, note _z_.

Footnote 108:

  Ibid, p. 304.

Footnote 109:

  Ibid, p. 305.

Footnote 110:

  Ibid, p. 305, note _z_.

Footnote 111:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 528.

Footnote 112:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 113:

  Ibid, p. 516.

Footnote 114:

  On this point, see Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 316; where
  the author makes a wrong citation from the Septuagint, viz., 4 Reg.
  xiii. 10.

Footnote 115:

  Euseb. Chron. Canon. Book I. 5, 2, ex Haicano Codice, Mediolan. 1818.

Footnote 116:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 387.

Footnote 117:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 452.

Footnote 118:

  Ibid, p. 400.

Footnote 119:

  Lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. 281.

Footnote 120:

  Lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. 269.

Footnote 121:

  Routh’s Rel. Sac. vol. ii. p. 174.

Footnote 122:

  Ven. 1483.

Footnote 123:

  Mediolan. et Ven., 1818.

Footnote 124:

  Ven. 1729.

Footnote 125:

  See Hales’s “Analysis,” vol. i. pp. 276–278.

Footnote 126:

  2 Kings xxv. 4.

Footnote 127:

  Luke iii. 1, 23.

Footnote 128:

  Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. pp. 547–979.

Footnote 129:

  See Dr. Hales’s “Analysis,” vol. ii. p. 652.

Footnote 130:

  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, pp. 268–277.

Footnote 131:

  Luke iii. 1, 23; and p. 89, _Part I_.

Footnote 132:

  Routh’s Rel. Sac. pp. 181, 186, 187.

Footnote 133:

  Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, pp. 276–281.

Footnote 134:

  Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. pp. 129–193.

Footnote 135:

  See the Hieronymian version of his “Chronicon,” Ven. 1483.

Footnote 136:

  See “Chronicon Paschale,” p. 179, Ven. 1729.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 Page           Changed from                      Changed to

   90 τρίτῃ τῶν βαςιλειων, ὡς          τρίτῃ τῶν βασιλειων, ὡς
      ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ    ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ
      ξύλα τρισὶν                      ξύλα τρισὶν

 ● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
 ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
     chapter.
 ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 ● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.
 ● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to
     individual characters (like 2^d) and even entire phrases (like
     1^{st}).



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76771 ***