as well as from the time ascribed to the Judges by the book of Judges and Samuel, as has been calculatedthat the beginning of the 480 years in I. Kings, vi. 1, is to be calculated from the time of Moses' death, that is, about the time the Israelites entered Canaan.

In order to show the agreement between the time given by Paul and that given by the Judges, subtract 40 years from 454, being the time that elapsed between the Exodus and the death of Moses, and there will remain 414 years, being the time that elapsed between the death of Moses and the death of Samuel. To these 414 years, add the 22 years that Saul reigned after the death of Samuel; add again the 40 years that David reigned, and also the fourth year of Solomon, and thou wilt have 480 years, squaring with the time given I. Kings, vi. 1.

I agree with those chronologers who will not admit of any corruption in the number 480, nor that there has been any great mistake in the phrase that accompanies that number; they prove, and I think justly, that the phrase is consonant with the historical phrase used in Deuteronomy, iv. 44, 45, 46: "And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel; these are the statutes and testimonies, and the judgments which Moses spake unto the children of Israel, after they came forth out of Egypt, on this side Jordan."

Thy arguments in favour of the Greek chronology amount to much the same as those employed by Isaacus Vossius, who makes the time that elapsed between the creation and the birth of Christ to be 5598 years; thou makest it 5478 years. It is altogether contrary

to justice to give a preference in any instance to a translation over that of the original, and by adopting the chronology of the Septuagint, the most erroneous calculations arise from such a preference; for I need not tell thee that the translation took place in a kingdom, the inhabitants of which boasted of their antiquity, and were also enemies to Christianity. This very circumstance, then, might lead the Egyptian Jews to alter the chronology of the Greek text to a longer period than it really was when it was first translated.

The charge against the Alexandrian Jews for having corrupted the chronology in the Greek version, is not greater than that preferred by thee against the Scribes, for having corrupted the Hebrew text. The fact that the reading in the Hebrew text and its chronology, agree exactly with the prophetical time recorded there, I hope to prove, and consequently, to show that no such intended corruptions by the Jewish Scribes, as are stated by thee, do exist in the Hebrew text; whereas the proof against the Alexandrian Jews is that the corruptions are found in their Greek text, and the Chronology met with there is contrary to the prophetical time found in the same Greek translation of the first chapter of Genesis, although they corrupted the tense or time there it is also clear that their motives for corrupting the chronology of the Greek version to a longer period were strong. They durst not venture to alter the Hebrew text. This they could not do on account of the great care and veneration the Scribes had for their sacred books; but they would feel less hesitation in inserting the corrupted numbers into the margin of the Greek text, which would be copied by

after transcribers, and pass for correct; and this would be more easy for them to accomplish, because the original Greek translation by the 70, was probably burnt with the Library, about 44 years before Christ, at the time Julius Cæsar was fighting in Egypt, immediately after the death of Pompey."*

* Since writing the above, I have read the introduction by John Bellamy to his translation from the original Hebrew, from which I transcribe the following: "There cannot be a more convincing proof that the present Greek version, called the Septuagint, is not the ancient Septuagint, translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, than this-had the present Greek version been the original Septuagint, there then had been no necessity for Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus, in the second century, to have given their translations. It is also sufficiently evident that if the original Septuagint, translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, had been preserved to the time of Aquila, there then had been no necessity for the corrections made by Origen and Hierom. This, therefore, proves that there was no ancient Septuagint, or copy of it, in existence in the time of the first Fathers of the Christian church."

I may be told that Christ and the Apostles quoted the Scriptures from the Septuagint, for this has often been asserted, even by some of the learned; but it is a serious mistake—they always made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. Where the Septuagint agree with the original, it may be said that Christ and the Apostles agree with the Septuagint; but where the Septuagint are at variance with the Hebrew, and the quotation is consistent with the Hebrew, then it must be admitted that the Hebrew was always quoted by Christ and his Apostles. A few examples will prove this, for which see Bellamy's Introduction, page 12.

The time that elapsed from the fourth year of Solomon to the beginning of the 70 years captivity, I have calculated to be about 418 years, the calculation, and the proof of its correctness, is as follows, viz.

I. Kings, xi. 42. Solomon reigned from his fourth year, being the time the building of the 36 years.

Temple began

.......

xiv. 21. Rehoboam reigned......... 17

To the beginning of the 70 years captivity; and that the captivity commenced in the eleventh year of Jehoiaken, and ended in the second year of Cyrus, is manifest on reading Jeremiah, xxix. 2, 10; II. Kings, xxiv. 12; II. Chronicles, xxxvi. 5, 9, 10, 21, 22; Ezekiel, xl. 1; Daniel, ix. 2; Ezra, i. 1.

The following proof I give of the correctness of the above period of 418 years, as from Ezekiel,

E

fourth chapter, where it is mentioned, that the iniquity of the house of Israel continued 390 years, the commencement of which period of time, there is reason to believe, ought to be calculated from the death of Solomon to the time Ezekiel saw the vision, which would be about seven years after the captivity, as we learn by reading the first eight chapters of Ezekiel. Then deduct seven years from 390, and there are 383 years from the death of Solomon to the eleventh of Jehoiakem; now to this time add the 36 years from the fourth of Solomon to the first year of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin, and they will produce 419 years from the fourth year of Solomon to the eleventh year of Jehoiakim.

Although there does appear, on reading the histories of the reigns of the Kings of Judah and Israel, to have been vacancies of time, yet I think I may be allowed to assert, without the fear of contradiction, that the successive reigns of the Kings of Judah have been correctly given in the Hebrew text, and agree with the Greek translation. If there be errors, these errors must nearly balance each other, as the 418 years given as the chronology of the Kings, square within one year of the 390 years, during which time the sins of the house of Israel continued as mentioned by Ezekiel.

The number seven thou callest a perfect number. It may with the utmost propriety be said that any number is a perfect number that produceth truth, or showeth what is wrong. From the account handed down to us by Moses, an account which he probably

received from the Fathers relative to the six days'