the approach of the day of judgment; and partly from a Jewish tradition that the world was to last 6000 years. The Septuagint chronology brought this period nearer than the Jewish, no doubt; but if we look to the Jewish tradition itself, it seems to us that it afforded a temptation, on their part, rather to have lengthened the computation of years from the creation, than to have shortened it. We are told in the Thalmud, that according to a tradition preserved in the family of Elias, the world was to last 6000 years: of this period, 2000 years were to be before the Law, 2000 years after the Law, and 2000 years of the kingdom of the Messiah. The first-mentioned period terminated, according to them, with the calling of Abraham. Now this tradition agrees better with the Christian hypothesis, according to the Hebrew chronology, than it does according to the Septuagint; for our Saviour came into the world very exactly at the beginning of the third period, if we receive the rabbinical text of the Hebrew; but 1400 too late, if we adopt the Septuagint. So that in the argument between the Jew and the Christian, the Hebrew chronology would afford a proof that Christ was the Messias; whereas, according to the chronology of the Seventy, no argument, that we see, could have been built by either party, on the evidence which this tradition afforded. Vossius was aware of this, and therefore pretends that the period from which the 6000 years was to be calculated began with the deluge, and not with the creation of the world, forgetting that the sole foundation of the tradition rests altogether on an allusion to the six days of the creation, as has been noticed by Dr. Russell himself. That the Masoretic Jews, or whoever they may have been who substituted the present Hebrew chronology for that which was formerly received, were wrong, we make no doubt. But nothing will be gained to the cause of Christianity by charging them with wilful corruption. It is one of the strong points in Christianity that the guardianship of the sacred volumes of the Old Testament has been committed to the hands of those who are its enemies; but if we suppose these guardians to be unfaithful to their trust, we shall lose more in the argument against infidelity than we can possibly gain, on the other hand, in any controversy with the Jews. It is quite certain that they have not tampered with the sacred text in those places where the temptation to it was greatest; and they ought not, therefore, to be accused of this sacrilege in instances of smaller importance, except upon the evidence of a much more direct proof than Vossius, first, and now our author, can pretend to bring against them. One of the most decisive reasons for rejecting the Hebrew chronology, is the difficulty of supposing the world to have been in the advanced state of political civilization which it appears to have attained in the days of Abraham, supposing no longer period to have elapsed from the deluge than 292 years. This argument is not overlooked by our author; but there is a passage at page 88, vol. i. which we quote, on account of several doubtful propositions which it appears to us to contain. "It has been repeatedly remarked, that it is age. contrary to the ordinary course of nature that men should enter into the relations of matrimony before they have passed a ninth or tenth part of their lives; and that it is, in fact, not more likely than that children, in our days, should become parents at six or seven years of As a proof, too, that the generations of the more ancient patriarchs have been unduly curtailed, we are reminded of the remarkable fact, that the sons of Noah, who were all nearly a hundred years old at the deluge, had not then begun to have children; and it is probable, as Jackson remarks, that they had not been long married; or would not even have been married so soon, had it not been necessary for the propagation of mankind after the flood, that they should take wives with them into the ark; and yet the full extent of their lives, compared with that of their forefathers, was considerably diminished. We find that Shem, one of their number, had a son two years after the flood, when he was at least a hundred years old; but we do not read that the other two brothers, one of whom, Japhet, seems to have been older than Shem, had children at so early a period; and surely it is absurd to suppose that these patriarchs should have been older before they became fathers than several of their ancestors, whose lives were from three to five hundred years longer." We are far from pretending to any knowledge respecting the families of the patriarchs, beyond what is conveyed to us in the Book of Genesis; but we own it appears to us very improbable to suppose that they had no children except those who are mentioned by name in Scripture. The only account that we can give of the reason why the first race of mankind enjoyed so much longer lives than their posterity, is, that it was a means of accelerating the population of the earth; and accordingly many writers (quoted by Usher, Chron. Sax. c. 5) have made calculations of the probable numbers of mankind at certain given periods after the flood. One of these calculations is cited by our author from Bishop Cumberland, and treated with no small ridicule. The learned bishop takes for his hypothesis, that every couple should be married at twenty, and produce, one with another, twenty children; and he shows that, supposing neither male nor female died in the mean while, there would be in the world at the end of 340 years, upwards of three thousand millions of souls. The comment of our author upon this is as follows: "When argument terminates in positive absurdity, it is hardly worth while to examine the process of reasoning by which the conclusion was attained. But the most careless reader must be struck with the fact, that Dr. Cumberland has founded his third postulate in utter neglect of the sacred narrative; which, so far from representing the sons of Noah as becoming the fathers of sixty children, states in the most unambiguous language, that their male progeny in the first descent amounted only to sixteen; and gives so little authority for asserting that these young men in their turn married at twenty, that, in the only case where an age is mentioned, the inspired writer takes the pains to inform us that the individual in question, a grandson of the great patriarch, did not find himself a parent until he was thirtyfive. There is assuredly no room for doubt that Shem, Ham, and Japheth, had daughters as well as sons, and probably an equal number of each; but that they had thirty children of either sex, and that these became heads of fainilies at the early age of twenty, and thereby afforded an example which was regularly followed by their descendants during several hundred years, is a position which cannot be maintained without impeaching the fidelity of the sacred volume."-vol. ii. pp. 20, 21. Now we must confess that we see nothing in the least degree absurd in the hypothetical argument of Bishop Cumberland, viewing it, not as the statement of a fact, but merely as a hypothesis. Petavius, whom Dr. Russell will admit to be a high name in these matters, is less timid than our English divine; he supposes that the posterity of Noah might beget children at seventeen, and that each of Noah's sons might have eight children in the eighth year after the flood, and that every one of these eight might have eight more; and by this means he shows that in only one family, of Japheth, and within 235 years after the flood, there would be an innumerable posterity two million million, if we remember rightly, or some such number. Neither Petavius nor Bishop Cumberland meant to say that such numbers were actually in existence, but merely intended to show how possible it was to reconcile the Hebrew chronology with the accounts that we have in Scripture. In refutation of these conclusions our author opposes only contrary opinions. He has no authority from Scripture for saying or believing that the patriarchs had no children except those whose names are mentioned; for, as he has himself observed, the names only of male children are noticed neither has he any warrant for saying, as he does elsewhere, that the Jews calculated the generations of the patriarchs from the birth of their first-born sons. For example, take Genesis, v. 3. "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth." Here then the generation of Adam is calculated from the birth of Seth; but Cain and Abel (if we may believe the narrative in the margin of our Bibles) had been born one hundred and twenty-nine years before: and are we then to assert, that in all that time no other children were born to Adam? Adhering to this principle of reasoning, there were not in the family of Ham fifty persons alive, at the time when his grandson, Nimrod, founded an empire. And as to the principle which Dr. Russell lays down as a maxim, of its being contrary to the ordinary course of nature that men should enter into the relations of matrimony before they have passed a ninth or a tenth portion of their lives," and that consequently it is as likely that "children in our days should become parents at six or seven years of age," as that" Enos should become a father at ninety, Cainan at seventy, or Mahalecl at sixty-five-on this principle of reasoning we have to observe, that our author must in consistency suppose that the antediluvian patriarchs were not able to speak or walk alone until they were about twenty years of age, and were in a state of boyhood during the first hundred years of their lives. The imagination has some difficulty in accommodating itself to the Scripture account of this matter, according to the simplest view that we take of it; but we do not think that any assistance is af forded, by our author's plan, for completing all the supplemental circumstances. We observe that he speaks of his views as having been repeatedly stated by others, and apparently quotes the authority of the author of Chronological Antiquities—the learned and laborious Jackson. The only writer whom we can remember as joining in this scheme of Brobdignag dian proportions is Harduin, who was driven into it in order to avoid the horns of a dilem ina entertaining enough. In the corrected Vulgate translation of Genesis, which, as we before observed, follows the Hebrew, the name of Cainan is omitted between Arphaxad and Salah; but in Luke, who followed the Septuagint, it is inserted. But the Council of Trent having decreed, under the penalty of anathema, that all the books of Scripture are in all points to be received as they are set forth in that particular translation, a difficulty was created which the cautious Father ingeniously avoided, by supposing that Moses omitted the name of Cainan in order to avoid the scandal which the early marriage of him and his father might have given at that day it was, however, reinstated in the genealogy of Luke, who thought that at his distance of time there was not the same occasion for delicacy; Arphaxad, according to Harduin, having married at eighteen, and his son Salah so early in life as seventeen; for Salah, Cainan's son, was born in the thirty-fifth year of his grandfather, according to the Hebrew copies of Scripture. We have dwelt upon this topic much longer than it deserved, or than the importance attached to it by our author would warrant. He fully establishes the point which he endeavours to demonstrate in this part of the Scripture Chronology, and can easily spare the particu lar argument we have here been examining. The preliminary dissertation, to which our remark's heretofore have been chiefly directed, is a very able and valuable performance; and places before the reader, at one view, all that is necessary to be known in the study of the early Jewish Chronology. With regard to the Chronological disquisitions respecting the nations of profane history, and which occupy the largest portion of the second volume, they do not afford such clear and certain results; and are therefore less valuable to the mere inquirer after truth. As we are entirely ignorant of all the events and transactions of every kind relating to this early period of history, and cannot even pretend to know any more than merely the names of the kings who succeeded each other in Assyria and Egypt, according to the true order of their respective dates, we have always looked upon the study of this part of ancient history, as being something like attempts at the discovery of a North-west Passage, or of a great Polar Continent in the Southern hemisphere. If the things exist, we should be glad to know them: No. 7.-B but as to any use to which our knowledge | could be turned, that point is not so clear. Enough has been written on the subject to make it evident that there is nothing in the catalogues of Ctesias, or Manetho, to make us doubt the truth of Scripture history; and beyond this point there is no important end to be answered by speculating on a subject where there are so few materials for reasoning, and those few clouded with so much darkness and uncertainty. historians and chronographers; and which, in the discussions which have been pursued by the learned in regard to this intricate subject, are usually associated with the names of Ctesias, Abydenus, Eusebius, Africanus, and Syncellus." vol. ii. pp. 3, 4. Our author then goes on to vindicate those writers, and more especially Ctesias, from the aspersions which have been thrown on their truth and fidelity; and nothing can be more just and sensible than the whole of his remarks. But they only show that Ctesias and Manetho, and other annalists of the same character, did not forge the names which they have left us, or falsify the records from which they were extracted. This may readily be granted; we have no doubt it is perfectly true; and no one has shown better than our author himself, how many apparent difficulties and contradictions there are, which a little explanation will often remove. But still, it is impossible to look into the lists of names which Ctesias has left us, or those still more authentic catalogues which we have of Manetho, without feeling that no de Respecting this last point, we mean the uncertainty of all the records we possess of heathen writers relating to the early history of mankind, it is probable our author will not agree with us. He seems to see his way much more clearly through this labyrinth of names and years than we are able to do, who followed him. This, we do not doubt, was partly the fault of our own impatience; but the truth is, when one knows that the premises are necessarily and demonstrably full of doubt and conjecture, it requires a strongly acquired taste for the subject not to jump a little faster than the pace of our author will allow, who thinks,pendence whatever can be placed, for any parthat by patient examination, truth may be separated from fable, and fixed conclusions be obtained more especially when these conclusions themselves are as dry, and almost as inapplicable to any practical use, as the fossil bones which were left by the flood. They show that there were kings, and men, and states, and cities, in the early periods of the world, just as we know from geology that there were animals before the flood; it gratifies the imagination to behold the ocular proofs of this, but the feeling is soon satisfied. But our author must speak for himself: "On the authority of history, both sacred and profane, we are warranted to assert that, even prior to the Exode, the Assyrian empire had risen to considerable power; that the successors of Ninus had already extended their arms towards the east and south as far as the Persian gulf, and the deserts which divide Media from the banks of the Indus; and moreover, that some of the more warlike of these princes had occasionally threatened the tranquillity of Egypt and the independence of Palestine. But the succinct and sometimes contradictory narratives of the ancient writers do not enable us to define with accuracy the limits of that government, or to ascertain the names and succession of the monarchs by whom it was exercised. No question in the history of Asia has been less satisfactorily determined than that which respects the time when the Assyrians first laid the foundations of a regular policy, and the length of the period during which their ascendancy as a state continued to subsist. Some authors have even expressed great doubts whether the ancient empire of Assyria ever had an existence; and have accordingly viewed the several dynasties. which are recorded by Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus, as the fictions of oriental vanity, alike inconsistent with probability and with the more authentic annals of a later age. It may therefore be worth while to inquire, upon general grounds, into the authority of those lists of Babylonian and Assyrian kings which have been transmitted to our times in the works of ticular facts, on the records themselves, from which these writers drew their materials. One opinion may be more probable than another; but no conclusion can be drawn from them, on which it would be allowable or safe to build any consequential reasoning. But independently of the uncertainty arising from the difficulties inherent in our materials themselves, the uncertain form of the years, on which the heathen calculations were made, and the absence of any fixed epochs, throw additional light upon whatever results we may deduce. A year is nothing but a system of days; and when we know that the ancient year was sometimes lunar, and sometimes solar; sometimes of 360 days, and sometimes of 365; sometimes of four months, sometimes of longer periods even than that by which we calculate, how is it possible to place any dependence upon any chronological tables that may be formed? Macrobius tells us (Satur. lib. i.) that among the Egyptians alone there was always a certain fired form of the year; and yet Plutarch, in his life of Numa, says that the Egyptians had at first a year consisting only of one month, afterwards of four; and Varro, in Lactantius, giving an account of some men among the Egyptians who lived a thousand years, observes, that they calculated by the lunar, and not the solar year; and for this reason, says Plutarch, in Numa, the Egyptians reckon in their accounts an infinite number of years. If we turn from the Egyptian to the Chaldean Chronology, there we encounter the same kind of confusion. The times of their first kings are reckoned not by years, but by Zagon Nugo, and Zoo; the first consisting of 3600 years, the second of 600, and the last of 60 years. Now if we compute the year to consist of four months, or one month, or one day, just as the case may happen to demand, we are often able to reduce the Egyptian and Chaldean calculations to some agreement with the Bible but when we have shown that no tables consisting of such variable elements, are of a character to make us doubt the Chronology of Scripture, we seem to have settled the only problem which it is important to determine. We observed just now, that another difficulty in the way of fixing the early Heathen Chronology, proceeds from the want of any determinate epocha, or waрannyμara, from which to reckon. With respect to the Chaldeans and Egyptians, we know of no era in their chronology that is not comparatively modern; and the Grecians do not deny that their computation of time is not to be depended upon until the commencement of their Olympiads. Sir Isaac Newton attempted to supply this desideratum by astronomical calculations; but whatever praises we may bestow upon the genius which prompted the attempt, we believe it is pretty generally understood, that the premises of his reasoning are not such as to warrant any such certain conclusions as he considered himself to have established. His argument was briefly this: "Chiron," said he, "formed the calculations for the use of the Argonauts, and placed the solstitial and equinoctial points in the fifteenth degrees, or middle of the constellations of Cancer, Chile, Capricorn, and Aries. Meton, in the year of Nabonassar 316, observed the summer solstice in the eighth degree of Cancer, and therefore the solstice had then gone back seven degrees. It goes back one degree in about 72 years, and seven degrees in about 504 years; count these years back from the year of Nabonassar 316, and they will place the the Argonautic expedition 936 years before Christ: that is, about 300 years later than by the Greeks themselves. This is a brief account of the principle on which Newton founded his Chronology, as given by himself in his "Short Chronicle," p. 25. If the reader wishes to see 'p. a more full and detailed account of his system, he will find a long and able examination of it in the preface to the last volume of Shuckford. The difficulty which it presents is very shortly stated. Nothing was more easy than for so great an astronomer as Sir Isaac Newton, to calculate where the solstice ought to be placed in the year of our Lord 1689, and to know how many years have passed since they were in the fifteenth degrees of the constellations. But even supposing that we were certain of the fact that Chiron was not a fabulous person, and did really fix the solstice, yet what certainty have we that he rightly fixed them? Now there is much stronger evidence for doubting the fact of Chiron's having fixed the equinoctial points at all, as above stated, than there is in favour of it, which, in truth, is almost none whatever but it is quite certain that there was no nation in the world whose knowledge of astronomy was sufficient, at the period we are now speaking of, for determining, with any reasonable accuracy, so nice and difficult a problem as that which we are considering. Our object in these remarks has not been to criticise any of our author's conclusions, from which it is seldom that we should be tempted to differ, but merely to show that all that we know, with any certainty, of early Chronology, must be drawn from the Bible, and the Bible alone. With respect to Heathen Chronology, where it appears to contradict the Bible, it is not entitled to the smallest attention; and it is only in those parts where light is thrown upon it by the Bible, that we are able to reason about it at all. As to any independent evidence of its own, it has none; and, but for the knowledge of profane history, which we draw from the sacred histories, all that is related by heathen historians, respecting the early empires of the world, would probably have been rejected as mere fable. We have extended our remarks to so great a length upon this interminable subject of Heathen Chronology, that we fear our readers will suppose that the volumes before us relate to nothing else. Chronology, Scaliger tells us, is the life and soul of History; he might have added, and the body too, in that part of history which concerns the heathen nations of the world, at the period Dr. Russell treats of. But it would be doing a great injustice to the value and variety of his labours to infer that they are confined merely to an examination of dates. He has mixed up in his work a large proportion of other topics, many of them possessing much interest in themselves, and always that interest which may be imparted even to very dry subjects, when they are handled with as much good sense as he unformly displays. : The period of history, to which that part of Dr. Russell's work which is now before us refers, includes a period of something more than 500 years; a pretty long tract of time considered in itself. But not only are the records which we possess of this period very scanty and imperfect, being confined to the brief document of the Book of Judges, but it happens also, that there is no considerable period of the Jewish history so dry, and barren of subjects for theological inquiry and investigation. The promulgation of the law, and the consideration of the various topics connected with that important fact, belong to the labours of Dr. Russell's predecessor. The foundation of the temple, and the establishment of the Jews, as a single nation in a policied state, come under that division of his work which he has reserved for future consideration. The scheme of prophecy is, in this part of Jewish history, in a state of suspension and our knowledge of the domestic governments of the several tribes, or of the nature of that federal constitution under which they appear to have acted on occasions when it was necessary to appoint a head, is so extremely limited, that it is hardly safe to depend upon it as the ground of any general speculations. Dr. Russell has classed all the facts together which bear upon the same points, and has presented the reader with a sort of historical paraphrase, in which whatever is important is put forward into a strong light, and a certain order given to the transactions that occur, according as they relate to the civil, or religious, or political circumstances of the nation; this is done clearly, and with ability; but not in a way that offers much occasion for particular comments. We do not think that his materials afforded any legitimate opportunity for the display of learning, or of originality, and he has too much sense to hunt for such opportunities at the risk of running into pedantry or paradox. It was impossible, however, to examine attentively even the slight notices of the sur rounding nations and tribes which are presented to us in the Book of Judges, without being occasionally led into disquisitions upon more general topics. The subject of idolatry alone is fruitful in questions of this kind; and no disposition is shown to avoid them in the work before us, however little hope there may be of throwing any light upon this part of the early history of mankind, beyond what is to be collected from the writings of preceding authors. One of the topics which Dr. Russell examines at some length, regards the belief that was entertained by the Jews concerning an "evil principle." It appears to have been suggested to him by the opinions delivered by Warburton respecting the Book of Job. The Bishop, as the reader probably knows, has ascribed to this inspired composition, a much more recent date than had been cominonly supposed. As Warburton was ignorant of Hebrew, his opinion was founded not on direct argument drawn from the language and style, but from the manner in which Satan is mentioned, which he said gave proofs of a way of thinking among the Jews, which was borrowed by them from the Babylonians, and consequently was evidence of a date not more ancient than the Captivity. beneficent ministers of his will, were under the constant and immediate control of the omnipotent God; and that they exceeded not, in the commissions with which they were entrusted, the bounds of his authority, nor extended their destructive services beyond the precise object which they were meant to realize. These evil angels were even understood to occupy a place in the presence of the Eternal, as did the other intelligences who were employed only in messages of goodness; and both were indiscriminately called the sons of God, and enrolled in the host of heaven. "The doctrine now stated receives full and various illustration from several passages of Scripture. When Ahab, for example, was about to adopt the foolish measures which were made to result in the punishment of his sins, the sacred historian unfolds the counsels of the Almighty in the following terms:-' And Micaiah said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord I saw the Lord setting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the left. And the Lord said, Who will persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manAnd there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: Go forth, and do so." (1 Kings, xxii. 19 ner. On this, our author remarks, and shows, at considerable length, that the opinion held by the Magians, to which Warburton refers, was entirely different from that which is expressed in the Book of Job, and which last is shown to be in perfect accordance with the opinion held by the Jews long preceding the Captivity.-22.) According to the Magian philosophy, the world was governed by two distinct and independent principles, whereas, in the Book of Job, Satan is described not as being of co-ordinate power and authority with the Almighty, but merely as the messenger of his wrath, and as much the instrument of his will as any of the more beneficent agents whom, at times, he is represented as employing. The doctrine held by the Jews on this subject, is thus stated by Dr. Russel; and if the reader will compare the extract from 1 Kings, xxii. with that passage in Job (ch. i. 6. 12) where the Adversary is introduced as presenting himself before the Lord, he will probably agree with us, in setting down the criticism of Warburton as one among the many examples which his work affords of rash precipitate judgment. "The simple theology which they held prior to the Babylonish captivity, taught them that all events, whether prosperous or adverse, proceeded from the direct counsel and appointment of Jehovah; that good and evil sprang from the same source; that life and death, heat and cold, light and darkness, pain and enjoyment, were measured out by the same hand, through the instrumentality of different agents. Their creed admitted the important tenet, that, among the various orders of intellectual beings superior to man, there were some who delighted in obedience and happiness; while others, actuated by pride and malignity, found their most acceptable employment in directing the arrows of affliction, and in covering with darkness and fear the hearts of the human race. But the Hebrew divines never allowed themselves to doubt that these spirits, as well as the more "It is not our business, at present, to inquire into the matter and authority of Micaiah's vision; but we may be certain that the theological views which it embraces were in perfect agreement with the belief of the two kings whom he addressed, as well as with that of his countrymen at large. The good and evil spirits are represented by him as standing around the throne of God, the one class on the right hand and the other on the left, and as equally ready to execute his commands: and whatever allowance we may be disposed to make for oriental figure, and the adaptation of divine things to the conception of an illiterate people, we must at least admit, that the Persian doctrine of the Two PRINCIPLES was not yet known to the inhabitants of Palestine."-vol. i. pp. 255 -256. Another opinion of Warburton appears to have been the occasion of suggesting to our author a long and learned, and very interesting inquiry into the state of opinion among the Jews, at the several periods of their history subsequent to Moses, concerning the immortality of the soul and a future state of rewards and punishments. Warburton had maintained that Moses himself was informed of this last doctrine, but kept it back designedly from the Jews. We forget, at the present moment, the reason assigned by the Bishop for this reserve, or rather we should say, the reason for supposing that any light had been vouchsafed to the Jewish Lawgiver, by God, which he was not allowed to communicate to the rest of his nation. In itself the supposition is not very probable, and, whether true or false, was not capable of proof. The refutation of it, how |