INTRODUCTION.

CHRONOLOGY, or the science of the computation of time, is a subject to which few persons have turned their attention. The generality even of those whose reading is tolerably extensive, take everything of this nature on trust. And, from the disregard which they manifest to this department of human inquiry, it would almost seem as if they had adopted the maxim of Voltaire, that " chronology is a collection of bladders of wind." It is true, that, in this age of light and sentimental literature, notwithstanding its boasted march of intellect, we can hardly expect that a subject which requires anything more than a passing thought, will command much attention. It is, however, nevertheless, desirable that the members of Christian churches especially, should know something concerning those periods of time of which they read in those Sacred Oracles to which they rightly attach so much importance. And, although the pressure of secular concerns, or want of taste, may indispose them to drag through a bulky volume, they may at least manage to devote a few hours to a dissertation which, while it will not overtax their mental faculties, will put them in possession of a tolerable amount of information on the subject.

It need not be concealed, that the ensuing pages may probably disturb the hereditary and prescriptive notions of some of my readers; but, if such should be the case, it is time that their notions were disturbed; and the man who cannot bear to have his notions disturbed, is never likely to arrive at truth.

The common system of chronology taught in the pulpits and schools of this country, and which has unfortunately been inserted in the margin of our Bibles, is that of Archbishop Usher. This system owes its extensive prevalence partly to the influence of a great name, and partly to an anti-papistical prejudice. As a system founded upon evidence and argument, it is miserably defective and erroneous; and its inconsistency with the sacred oracles, and even with common sense, is obvious to every one who has impartially

This

examined it. It is based almost entirely on ascertained Rabbinical corruptions; and, consequently, as a theory of biblical chronology, it is in many respects worse than useless. The blind esteem, however, with which this system has been regarded in this country for two centuries, is now considerably diminished. Chronologers generally, indeed, have already rejected it; and in many cases where its list of dates is still given, another list, which carries the Creation 1,500 years farther back, is placed by its side. This approximation to a more correct view of the subject, is the result of the labours of Dr. Jackson, Dr. Hales, and Bishop Russell, whose researches have exposed the errors of the Archbishop, and shed a flood of light upon the entire history of the question. Recently, a distinguished laygentleman in the Wesleyan body has taken up the subject; and in a work entitled "Sacred Annals," in five volumes, he has not only adopted an improved chronological system, but in a preliminary dissertation has assigned substantial reasons for so doing. is a work which ought to have a place in every library, both public and private. Its publication constitutes an era in the literary history of Methodism; and, although I differ from its author on some questions in chronology, I nevertheless regard both this, and his other works, as the most valuable contribution to Wesleyan literature that has yet appeared. The Wesleyan or London Review, also, in two articles, has adverted to the subject of Biblical Chronology, and expressed itself decidedly in favour of the extended system of the Septuagint numbers. And then, in a new edition of the English Bible, by Blackader, now issuing from the press, the system of Usher is entirely abandoned, and that of Bishop Russell, who places the Creation B.c. 5,441, is adopted. All these are facts which cannot fail to have considerable influence on the reading and reflecting portion of Protestant Christians; and the publication of Blackader's Bible, especially, is a circumstance which, it is to be hoped, will contribute much to the removal of the Usherian dates from all other copies of the sacred scriptures.

With regard to this Bible, however, it must be remarked that it is exposed to the charge of being self-contradictory. The dates given by the editor are those of the Septuagint, whereas the dates given in the text are those of the Hebrew. The text states that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, whereas the editor states that Adam was 230 years old at that time; and thus the editor occupies the awkward position of apparent antagonism to the scriptures. It is true, he informs us that from an examination of

the subject he has arrived at the conviction that the Septuagint contains the correct scripture dates, and, consequently, that the Hebrew dates are incorrect; but such being the case, why has he not given the correct dates in the text? On what rational principle is an ascertained chronological corruption to be perpetuated in the sacred oracles, when the means of correcting it are clearly discovered? I know of no reason for this, which is not equally cogent for perpetuating the corruptions of christianity by the papacy. If the Hebrew numbers from the creation to the birth of Terah are incorrect, and that they are is now the united judgment of the most eminent chronologers,-then by all means those numbers ought to be corrected, and the sooner they are corrected the better. This is clearly a duty; and to neglect this duty seems to me like a practical disregard of divine truth, and a depreciation of those means of purifying the scriptures from Rabbinical corruptions, which an ever-watchful providence has placed in our hands. It is to be regretted, therefore, that the learned editor of the publication in question has not given the correct numbers in the text as well as in his chronological table. The publication, however, notwithstanding, is an important step in advance of any previous Protestant edition of the Bible; and the editor merits both the thanks and the patronage of the religious public.

But, while I rejoice in the great improvements which have been made towards a true theory of Bible chronology, by Jackson, Hales, Russell, and Smith, and others; I am fully convinced that their systems of dates are still too low. This conviction has not been hastily arrived at; it is the result of a patient and, I trust, an impartial investigation of the subject; and I shall be mistaken if the ensuing pages do not produce a similar conviction on the minds of some of my readers. As to the adoption of the Septuagint numbers prior to the time of Abraham, we are agreed; but, with regard to some of the subsequent periods, it seems to me that these esteemed authors have been misled by the errors of Josephus. For some time, indeed, I adopted their conclusions; supposing that Josephus must be regarded as a competent authority, although I could not close my eyes to the irreconcilableness of Josephus' dates with the statements of the sacred writers. Subsequent investigation, however, and especially the discovery of the errors and self-contradiction of Josephus, together with the management that was required in dealing with certain scripture statements, and the obvious violation of the principles of common consistency, convinced me that the

theories of these authors, with regard to the periods in question, must be erroneous. I have, therefore, taken the liberty to differ from them,-to prefer the sacred writers to Josephus,-and to adopt a chronology which I believe to be strictly consonant not only with the scriptures, but likewise with the chronology of Egypt, which the authors before mentioned have been obliged to dispose of in the most summary and unsatisfactory manner. As these questions, however, are discussed at considerable length in their proper place, it is unnecessary here to make any further remarks.

Having been accustomed from early life to regard the authorised version of the scriptures as the infallible and unadulterated Word of God, the discovery of discrepancies and corruptions produced at first a painful impression on my mind. Subsequent inquiry, however, soon convinced me that these discrepancies and corruptions were the work, not of the inspired writers, but of the fallible, and in some cases unprincipled, scribes and translators; and that God had in his providential wisdom and mercy provided ample means by which these mistakes and errors, whether designed or undesigned, might be rectified; and the scriptures rendered substantially as perfect as the sacred writers left them. It soon became evident, too, that the corruptions which existed were confined to what in some respects may be called the non-essential parts of the scriptures, and that the preceptive and doctrinal parts of revelation were preserved inviolate; so that the inquiry has given birth to a confidence in the divinity of scripture truth, based on a foundation infinitely superior to mere prescription. I am convinced, therefore, that the more the sacred oracles are fairly sifted and criticised, the more they will command the assent and confidence of a sincere and honest mind.

The great Dr. Parr has somewhere said, that, "They who speak truth, however discovered, have a right to be heard; they who assist others in discovering it, have the yet higher claim to be applauded." Setting aside some of the terms here emyloyed as too bombastical, and calculated perhaps to foster a spirit of arrogance, the sentiment is worthy of attention. The writer of the following pages believes that what he has written is the truth, and therefore he hopes that his arguments and conclusions will be seriously considered; and should any of his conclusions be deemed erroneous in the judgment of his readers, if they should nevertheless contribute to the attainment of truth by other chronological inquirers, the object of the writer will be sufficiently accomplished.

A DISSERTATION ON

SACRED CHRONOLOGY.

CHAPTER I.

DIVINE INSPIRATION IN REFERENCE TO BIBLE CHRONOLOGY.

THE discussion of several questions included in Sacred Chronology is so closely connected with the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, that some remarks on the subject seem indispensable. That the sacred writers were divinely inspired, and that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," are truths so clearly taught in the Scriptures, that they must be regarded as indisputable and fundamental. The questions to be settled therefore, are first, To what subjects did the inspiration of the sacred writers extend? and secondly, In what sense was all Scripture given by inspiration?

As to the first, To what subjects did the inspiration of the sacred writers extend? In answering this question, it will be allowed I presume, on all hands, that some limitation must be made. That the sacred writers were inspired to teach truth on all subjects connected with the spiritual and eternal interests of man, not discoverable by unassisted human inquiry, is a position capable of all the proof which the nature of the case requires. In their instructions therefore on the doctrines of theology, and on the moral and religious duties that devolve on man, the sacred writers were infallible; and this appears to be the proper and legitimate province of inspiration. But whether their inspiration, i.e., in the sense of infallibility, extended beyond the province of morals and theology, is, to say the least, very doubtful; while it is certain that there were some matters to which it did not extend. For example, although the sacred writers were infallible in teaching moral and religious duty, they were not infallible in the practice of what they taught; Moses, David, Solomon, and Jonah, may be cited as instances, and even Peter dissembled to such an

B