recorded by the Muscovite historians as having occurred in the year of the world 7,006; and as this election is known to have taken place A.D. 1,497, it is clear that the Muscovite historians reckoned 5,509 years from the creation to Christ.

"The first book printed at Moscow was the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles. At the end of the book are the following remarks: 'The impression of the present book, which contains the Acts and Epistles of Paul, was completed on the 1st of March, in the year of the world 7,072,' (A.D. 1,564.)" This, too, I have copied from my scrap-book, and it is taken from the same authority as the other. Its chronology also is exactly the same.

We have now a sufficiency of evidence before us to shew that, notwithstanding the attempt of venerable Bede, the Septuagint chronology prevailed down to the time of the Reformation; and during the whole of this period, there is no instance upon record of any church, either in the east or west, having adopted the Rabbinical corruptions of the Hebrew. The Protestant Reformers, however, did, in this respect, what no Christian church even in the darkest ages had ever done. They adopted the chronological corruptions of the unprincipled Jewish Rabbins. On this point Bishop Russell remarks, "It has not escaped observation, that the prejudices against the Romish Church, which animated the disciples of Luther, were allowed to mix deeply with their investigations into this intricate science: The Protestants, aware that the Papal communion followed the computation of the Septuagint, exerted all their learning in order to prove that the chronology of the Hebrew Bible possessed a higher authority than could be claimed for the most approved version of the scriptures; and, overlooking the convincing evidence that is supplied by the writings of the ancient Jews, as well as of the Christian Fathers during the first four centuries, they took part with the Talmudists and modern Rabbis, against both the eastern and western churches; and maintained that the Messias appeared upon the earth at the end of the fourth millennary age."

In this grand chronological blunder however, the Reformers stood alone, and have continued to stand alone to this day. It does not appear that any other church has followed them in this erroneous path. They have had the merit and glory of it entirely to themselves. The Greek church, as it is well known, still adopts, as she has ever done, the Septuagint chronology. The Romish church too, though contrary to the Latin vulgate, adopts substantially the same system, reckoning 2,242 years from the creation to the flood.* And the same computation obtains amongst the Egyptian Copts, the Abyssinians, the Armenians, the Ethiopians, and the Georgians. So that, although the followers of Luther under the influence of a mere prejudice, adopted the corrupt Hebrew numbers, all other churches have continued to reject them to the present day.

In closing this discussion, it will be proper to observe that, the error which the Protestant Reformers committed in the abandonment

* Wallace's Age of the World, p. 97,

of the Septuagint computation, and in the adoption of the Hebrew, has now become sufficiently manifest even to Protestants themselves, at least to those who have studied the subject. The labours of Vossius, Pezron, Hayes, Jackson, Hales, Russell, and others, have thrown a flood of light upon this once difficult question, and the Rabbinical Hebrew has been shewn to be encumbered by so many contradictions and difficulties, arising especially from its utter inconsistency with the best established facts in ancient history, that now, as Bishop Russell observes, it is everywhere rejected by sensible chronologists.*

* Connection, vol. 1, p. 93.

CHAPTER III.

EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS CHRONOLOGICAL PERIODS FROM THE CREATION OF ADAM TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.

THE determination of some of the periods which we have now to notice, is attended with great difficulty, in consequence of the indefiniteness of scripture dates in some instances, conflicting dates in other instances, and the entire absence of dates in others. On these accounts, there is room for considerable diversity of opinion. It has already been observed, that even those who have adopted the Septuagint computation, have differed from each other to the extent of several hundreds of years in their calculations of the period from Adam to Christ; and similar differences obtain amongst chronologers at the present day. The reception or rejection of the second Cainan amounts to 130 years. The date of Abraham's birth is placed 60 years higher by some than it is by others. And respecting the duration of the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, there is a difference of opinion to the amount of 215 years. So that in these three particulars alone, there is a difference of 405 years. As however, all the diversities of calculation of any importance, will come under review in their proper place, it is unnecessary now to make any further remarks on the subject.

FIRST PERIOD.-FROM THE CREATION OF ADAM TO THE FLOOD.

The duration of this period is exhibited in the first Table, page 8. With all the particular numbers of which this period is composed, Josephus, the Jewish historian, and Theophilus the first Christian chronologist, agree, except each in one instance. Josephus makes Lamech to have been only 182 years old when Noah was born, instead of 188; thus making the entire period to have been 2,256 years, instead of 2,262. And Theophilus makes Methuselah to have been only 167 years old when Lamech was born, instead of 187; thus making the entire period to have been 2,242 years, instead of 2,262. To account for these two variations from the Septuagint, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. That of Theophilus however, although adopted by several subsequent writers,

yet being at variance not only with the Septuagint and the Hebrew, which agree in this number, but also with the Samaritan, may be at once disposed of as an error. But with regard to that of Josephus, some remarks are necessary. In this instance it will be observed, that Josephus agrees with the Hebrew; so that we have Josephus and the Hebrew united against the Septuagint. This, in the estimation of many chronologers, is deemed decisive; and hence Jackson, Hales, and Russell, coincide with Josephus in making the entire period to have been 2,256 years. And yet I demur to the correctness of this conclusion. My reasons are the following:-First, the number of years which the Septuagint assigns to Lamech prior to the birth of Noah, is confirmed by two authors, both of whom wrote before Josephus: namely, Demetrius who wrote about 220 years before Christ, and Eupolemus who wrote about 174 years before Christ. Both these authors, as stated by Russell himself, calculated 2,262 years from the creation to the flood;* and since they agreed with the Septuagint in the entire period, they must have agreed with it in the years assigned to Lamech. And then secondly, since a corruption or a mistake has occurred somewhere; on the principles already established, and maintained both by Hales and Russell, it is much more likely that the corruption has taken place in the Hebrew, than in the Septuagint; or, that the mistake has been committed by Josephus, than by the seventy translators. For these reasonstherefore, I feel compelled to adopt the Septuagint number, namely, 2,262 years from Adam to the flood; and in this conclusion I have the support of Julius Africanus, the Paschal Chronicle, Professor Wallace, Mr. Cuninghame, and the author of the Sacred Annals.

SECOND PERIOD.-FROM THE FLOOD TO THE BIRTH OF ABRAHAM.

The settlement of this period involves two disputed points, namely, the retention or rejection of Cainan the son of Arphaxad, commonly called the second Cainan; and the age of Terah on the birth of Abraham. The first is a question of no ordinary difficulty, as authorities of the highest importance, both ancient and modern are found on both sides. The evidence for the rejection of the second Cainan is presented in all its force by Dr. Hales, in the first volume of his "Analysis;" and the evidence for his reception is presented by Bishop Russell in the first volume of his "Connection," and by Professor Wallace in his "Age of the World." Into a full investigation of this question, the limits assigned to this dissertation will not permit us to enter the leading facts of the case, however, it will be necessary to state. On the part of those who reject the second Cainan from the list of postdeluvian patriarchs, it is pleaded that his name is omitted both in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, both by Philo and Josephus, and likewise by Theophilus the first Christian chronologist. And then on the part of those who receive Cainan into the list, it is pleaded that his name is given in the Septuagint genealogies, that he was included amongst the postdeluvian patriarchs both by Demetrius and

* Connection, vol. 1, p. 160, 161.

Eupolemus, and above all, that his name and parentage are inserted by St. Luke in his genealogical list of our Lord's ancestors. Such is the conflicting evidence relative to this question. The difficulty of coming to a decision in such circumstances, is sufficiently obvious. As however, negative evidence is generally deemed less weighty than positive evidence, the retention of the second Cainan in the genealogical list seems more rational and consistent than his rejection. The positive evidence of St. Luke especially is of the highest importance, and far overbalances the negative evidence of the corrupt Hebrew and Samaritan. Dr. Hales, while contending for the rejection of Cainan, clearly felt himself embarrassed by the weight of St. Luke's authority, and unable to dispose of it in any other way, he remarks:that, "since water cannot rise to a higher level than the spring from whence it issues, so neither can the authority of the New Testament for the retention of Cainan, rise above that of the Old Testament, from which it is professedly copied, for his exclusion."* This, certainly, is a cutting of the Gordian knot, and a cutting of it too, by assuming the very point required to be proved, namely, that the Old Testament originally did not include the second Cainan. Another method of disposing of the authority of St. Luke, is that adopted by Mr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, and which is even more objectionable than that employed by Dr. Hales. “St. Luke,” he states, “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." On this statement of Mr. Horne, Professor Wallace justly remarks :— -"The desire to humour the prejudices of any set of readers, by adding a spurious generation to the genealogy of Shem, is too serious a charge to bring against the Evangelist; but when we consider that this would be, in fact, adding a spurious generation to the genealogy of Christ, the charge becomes infinitely more serious." From the impossibility then of disposing of the authority of St. Luke, who confirms the Septuagint text, as well as from other considerations, we conclude that, the second Cainan must be retained in the list of postdeluvian patriarchs.

66

With regard to the second disputed point, namely, the age of Terah 'when Abraham was born, there is a difference amongst chronologers to the amount of 60 years. In Genesis xi. c. 26 v., we read, And Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." In the last verse of the chapter we read, "And the days of Terah were 205 years." And then in the 4th verse of the following chapter we are told that Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran. Now that Abram did not depart from Haran till after the death of his father, is evident not only from the order of the narrative, but also from the express statement of St. Stephen, Acts, vii. c. 4 v. Subtracting then 75 years, the age of Abram at the death

* Analysis, vol. 1, p. 291.

+ Horne's Introduction, vol. 3. Biographical Index, p. 561, 7th Edit. Age of the World, p. 36.