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

5.

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

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

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

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

1.

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

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

2.

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

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

3.

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

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

4.

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

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

5.

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

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

6.

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

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

7.

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

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

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 Abraham’s descent into that land, after his arrival in Canaan, or one year later than the date of the Call. Hence, the Exodus took place in A.M. 3840, according to the computation of the Septuagint.^[22]

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

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

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

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