A Dissertation on the True Age of the World

TABLE OF CONTENTS. — Part I. — Introduction. — SECTION I. AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER I. EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER II. EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES. — CHAPTER IV. EXTENT OF THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER V. EXTENT OF THE FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER VI. EXTENT OF THE FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER VII. EXTENT OF THE SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD. — SECTION II. CONFIRMATION OF THE GREAT EPOCHS. — CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUE SYSTEM OF CHRONOLOGY. — CHAPTER II. REDUCTION OF THE MUNDANE ERA OF REDEMPTION. — CHAPTER III. CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY ERRONEOUS. — CHAPTER IV. CYCLICAL CHARACTER OF THE MUNDANE TIMES. — CHAPTER V. DISCOVERY OF NEW MUNDANE CYCLES. — CHAPTER VI. DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY. — Note B. — Part II. — CHAPTER I. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. — CHAPTER II. TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO THE SUBJECT OF PROPHECY. — CHAPTER III. TRADITIONARY AND POETICAL AGES OF THE WORLD. — CHAPTER IV. ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.

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; 2and 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 3epoch, 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.

2.4

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 5ancient 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 6Hebrew 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.

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.

8Besides 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.

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 10Septuagint 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 11chronology, 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.

2.12

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.

13Indeed, 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; 14and 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 15ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, and the Anni Mundi, or years of the world, in which they were born:—

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:—

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:—

17Let 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.

18The 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 19the 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.

4.20

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 21remaining 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, 22being 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 23our 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 24Scripture, 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 25the 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 26solicitude 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 27anciently 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.

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.”

29The 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 30he 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]

31The 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.

2.32

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:—

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:—

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:—

3.34

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 35added 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 36reckoned 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; 37but 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 38from 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,” 39cap. 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]

40The 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 41of 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 42considered 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 43is 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 44usual 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 45deference 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 46of 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 47such 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 48the 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]—

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.

1.50

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 51whole 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 52in 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 53of 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 54before 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]

3.55

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 56in 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 57was 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 58with 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 59to 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 60years,—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 61genealogies; 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!

7.62

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 63Syncellus, 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]

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:—

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.

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 66Abraham’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]

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:—

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 69omission 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 70the 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 71table exhibits, according to the two systems, the extent of the first four ages of the world:—

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, 72falls 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]

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:—

The discrepancies in the different columns of this table, have been very carefully and laboriously investigated by Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Chronology 75of 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:—

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 77the 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 78Jerusalem, 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]

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 80of the Hierarchal eras, and the corresponding years of the world, according to both systems:—

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, 81seventy 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, 82but 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, 83and “bring in everlasting righteousness.” The date of the passion of Christ is fixed and determined as in the following table:—

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.

2.84

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 85the 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:—

86Usher 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.

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 88ever 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 89the 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.

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.

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 91the 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 92epoch 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 93the 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 94A.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]

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 96of 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 97denounced 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 98birth 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.

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 100to 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 101Sinai 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]

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 103unfolded 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 104day 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. 105But 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 106Prophecy,” 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 107approximating ratios of these periods are represented by the following series of fractions:

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. 108Of 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 109the 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 110sixth 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]

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 112jubilees, 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 113person 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 114astronomical 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 115he 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 116multiples 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, n² + 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.

117As to the formula itself, its most general form is n³ + n² + 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 118cycle 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 n² − 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!

4.119

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 120dominion! 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]

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, 122knitting 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 123applies 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; 124making 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

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

3.125

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 126of 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!”

4.127

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 128Israel.^[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 129in 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 130the 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.)

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 132the 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.

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 135who 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 136Rabbinical 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.” 137Again, “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)

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 139words, 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 140humiliation 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 141Hebrew 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 142conviction, 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 143Lords, 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 144Zechariah, 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.

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 146the 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. 147In 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 148by 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; 149and 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 150God 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 151system 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, 152astrologically 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 153Companion, 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 154which 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 155Josiah. 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 156of 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 157the 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 158besotted 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, 159with 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, 160we 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, 161carry 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 162the 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?”—

This derivation is ingenious; but it is more specious than solid. The name Δὶς, which gives its 163oblique 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:—

The Sun seemed to be placed in the middle of the motions, in order to regulate their march; 164thus 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 165put 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 166which 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]

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:—

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 168a 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, 169became 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 170the 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 171is 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 172heavens 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 173his “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 174it 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 175with 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 176the 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 177notice 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 178ascribed 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 179wherein 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. 180Institut. 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 181the 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 182is 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 183devotable 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 184agrees 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 185the 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 186also 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 187Antediluvians 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 188the 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 189the 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!

190Dr. 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 191world 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 192Generalis,” 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 193clearly 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 194859 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 195refers 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 196communion 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. 197Hesiod 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 198referred 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 199overthrow 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 200Peleg;” 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 201brass; 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 202more 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 203and 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 204over 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, 205Νώνυμοι (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 206during 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 207the 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.

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 208power; 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 209Sisera;” 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 210the 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 211that 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 212have 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 213wish,” 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 214wicked 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 215of 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 216as 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). 217The 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 218the 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 219God 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 220not 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 221mist 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:—

222Dr. 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 223in 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:—

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; 225and 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 226its 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 227after 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]

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 229writings 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]

230The 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:

Besides their respective statements above tabulated, 231these 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 232MSS. 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 233universal 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 234children 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:

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 235readers 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:

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.” 236He 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 237Theophilus, 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 238Chronicon 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 239narrating 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 240Postdiluvian Patriarchs, and the Extent of the Second age, according to each chronographer.

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 241evil 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 242number 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 243says 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 244Postdiluvian 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 245who “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 246of 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 247flood, 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:

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 248intervals, 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 249Antepaidogonian 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, 250for 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 251years, 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. 2523839 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 253we 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.

255With 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 256Extent 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 257anarchy, 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 258of 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 259Seventh 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 260the 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 261is 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 262number 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 263age 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 264to 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 265difference 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 266errors 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 267Servitude, 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 268the 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 269their 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 270which 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 271attach 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:—

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 273of 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.

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 275seems 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 276following 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:

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 277years, 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 278(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 279Amaziah; 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:

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 280laid, 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 281were 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 282the 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 283indebted 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] 284Now, 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 285years 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.

6.286

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.

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 288of 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 289History from the 1st year of Cyrus to the death of Herod. Thus,

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 290reigned 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] 291Here, 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, 292the 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, 293as 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.

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.

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.