reckoning sanctioned by Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 11; Bell. i. 3), adopted by Hippolytus and Clemens, and used by Eusebius (Chron. sub. Num. 1913).

For the traditional æra of the Messiah's coming, which Syncellus and others call "apostolic," John Malala, who adopts it (Chron. 1. x. sub. init.) thus accounts:-"As God created man on the sixth day, according to the testimony of Moses (who also witnesses that a day and a thousand years are the same with the Lord, Psalm xc. 4), and as man then fell into sin; it seems altogether consistent that in the sixth millenary our Lord Jesus Christ should appear on earth to redeem mankind by his passion and resurrection." Accordingly, as the evening and night, or first half, of the sixth demiurgic day preceded the creation of man; so the night, or first half, of the sixth millenary from his creation, would, were the tradition well founded, precede his redemption, and hence the reference of the latter to the middle of the sixth millenary. It is evidently built on the idea that the sixth millenary night began from the destruction of the ancient kingdom of Judah and the temple, and was to continue during Daniel's seventy weeks, about the termination of which the millenary day would return with the Messiah's appearance. This is in strict harmony with the Jewish epoch of the seventy weeks from the first temple's destruction, and further stamps the traditional system, like the former corruptions, with the Jewish origin, which its æra, coming out in the first century B. C., fixes on it.

But the adoption of this system by Josephus, who, as abovementioned, brings down the end of the traditional period of 5500 years to the same point to which the modern Jews fix the termination of the seventy weeks, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans-in both cases obviously to invalidate the reference of both the tradition and prophecy to the Messiah, more than a century before we find it used by any of the Christian chronographers (Theophilus, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, being the first)-is conclusive for its being a Jewish invention, and for its fabrication, by consequence, preceding the coming of our Lord, and belonging to the first century B.C. as deduced from the numbers.

In conformity with Josephus having brought the end of the 5500 years to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, we find that the same period, according to Maximus, Panadorus, and Cedrenus, who refer the traditional Adamic æra to B.c. 5492 and 5493, as above, terminates not at Christ's birth, but at the time of the sceptre departing from Judah, in the banishment of Archelaus, and of our Lord's first appearance in the temple. We find that Sulpicius Severus, who refers the creation to

B. c. 5469, fixes the conclusion of the traditional period exactly at our Lord's crucifixion. So Eusebius, who refers the former to the year B. c. 5200, brings the latter to the final triumph and establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire.

Hence all these systems are alike founded on the traditional period, which, however they fix the Adamic æra, is alike adopted by all; and from this it appears that 5500 years from Adam to the Messiah is the true and original period of this system; and that, in computing the æra of its invention, reference should only be had to this number, with its adjuncts, which fix the corruption about 100 years before Christ, as above.

It might possibly have been invented by John Hyrcanus himself, who had the reputation of being a prophet (Jos. Antiq. xiii. 10), and doubtless originated from the application of Daniel's prophecy to the received age of the world. That the 5500 years should come out within from a few years of the true date of Christ's birth, does not appear surprising; an approximation which the seventy weeks would enable its compilers to arrive at without any claim to inspiration on their part. Although founded on a corrupted chronology, it might nevertheless have been suffered by Divine Providence to come out with some degree of accuracy, because adapted to prevailing notions; just as the received Greek version of Scripture was afterwards used and quoted by Christ and his Apostles, as the best adapted to forward the interests of Christianity.

Thus the time of the traditional corruption of the sacred chronology comes out, like all the preceding, historically right, according to all the historical elements extant; and, like the first Jewish corruption in the fifth century B. C., and those of the Seventy interpreters in the third, it is fixed on the Jewish doctors. A reference to the tables will also shew that the estimate of the original Hebrew reckoning, by the compilers of the traditional system, was in every respect the same with that of the first Jewish corrupters and the compilers of the Alexandrine numbers. Hence another proof is obtained of those corruptions resulting from the same source; and the original Jewish mode of estimating the inspired Hebrew chronology is further verified.

As to the Clementine Corruption: having seen that the traditional numbers of the Jews furnish the origin of nearly all the protracted reckonings of the Christian fathers, we now arrive at the last stage of protracted astronomical corruption, in the computation of the Adamic and Diluvian æras used by Clemens of Alexandria, which differ from, and ascend above, the systems of all other Christian chronographers.

He estimated the 200th year of the Christian æra, being the 954th of Rome, and the 129th from the destruction of Jeru

salem, which he dated A. D. 72, as the 5784th of the world. This computation, which refers the creation to the year B.C. 5584, although occasionally different from other chronological elements to be found in the pages of Clemens, is the only one ascending to the creation, and is twice repeated in his works, so that there can be no doubt of its being the original of his system.

From a careful examination of all the numbers of this writer, I find he follows the patriarchal chronology of Josephus, but raises it, by estimating, with Theophilus of Antioch, the Egyptian servitude at the full period of the 430 years of sojournment, instead of the true interval of 215, as computed by the ancient Jews, Josephus, and nearly all others. Hence the 700 years added to the original postdiluvian numbers in the first Jewish corruption, followed by Josephus, become 915 in the chronology adopted by Clemens. This will appear from the following:

Here the three periods within crotchets, 2148+1250+616= 4014, are supplied by Clemens, and their sum is the same with the 2256+1092+666-4014 from Josephus, the additional 115 being included in the latter sum total.

Hence the deficiencies and excesses of the rough Clementine periods exactly compensate each other, and make it evident that he followed the patriarchal chronology of Josephus (although omitting the particulars of the generations), with the addition of 215 years, as above; and rejected the interpolated Cainan, with Josephus, Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and all the early chronographers. The truth of this is further evinced by the exactness of his subsequent chronology, as below.

We are therefore safe in placing the Diluvian æra of our chronographer at the interval of 2256 years from the Adamic æra, B. c. 5584-2256 B. c. 3328, exceeding the true Hebrew date, B. c. 2347, by 981 years.

But 981 divided by 28, the difference between the ancient and true rate of precession, gives 34 deg. 24 min. 14 sec. for the precession from the deluge to the æra of this system; and 34 deg. 24 min. 14 sec. x 71=2460 years, the true interval

since the deluge; and B. c. 2347-2460 A. D. 114, the date of this corruption of the sacred numbers.

We obtain the same æra, according to the rule before given, as follows:

Thus the era of this system is obtained the same by two totally different processes; the first grounded on the diluvian æra of Clemens, the second resulting from his patriarchal periods. But as the latter produces the precise system adopted by him, that system is proved to have had a like astronomical origin with the previous Jewish corruptions, and the validity of what has been advanced regarding the chronology of Clemens is demonstrated.

Had it not been for this coincidence I should not have ventured to pronounce it any thing more than the rough offspring of the father's brain; as it is, it however possesses every character of a distinct corruption, and shews that the next step resorted to for raising the sacred chronology, as the astronomical error increased after the traditional corruption, was by increasing the period of the Egyptian bondage 215 years, as above; a corruption also adopted by Theophilus, the contemporary of Clemens, as before, although he inconsistently adhered to the traditional æra of creation.

The tables will shew the Scriptural periods of which this system was composed, according to the particulars supplied by Clemens, which are very precise in the interval from the Exode to the Captivity, and not liable to be misunderstood, being several times repeated in various ways, yet all agreeing with each other.

His æra of the temple's destruction considerably lengthened the times thence to the Christian æra, after the example of Josephus, who, I have stated, was the first who corrupted this part of chronology. Theophilus in this acted like Clemens, and they were followed by Africanus; all, however, differing in the particulars.

That Clemens, however, knew the right date of the temple's destruction, at least within two years, and the interval thence to the Christian æra, is evident, although he makes little use of it, for he fixes that event in the 48th olympiad, an. 1., or B.C. 588. It is, however, only with his mundane and diluvian æras that we are here concerned. According to them, the temple was destroyed B. c. 610, or 22 years earlier; the dif¿ference between the Persian æra of Cyrus, B. c. 560, and the

Babylonian, B.C. 538, which were confounded by the fathers; and this at once accounts for the double system of Clemens.

It is truly remarkable, and affords additional stability to our deductions from the Clementine numbers, that, coming out so nearly as they do to the time when our chronographer wrote, the epoch does not exceed that date, but precedes it about sixty years, so as to allow of their having been used by him as the last correction of the sacred chronology: for their æra falls A.D. 114, the seventeenth of Trajan; and Clemens wrote between the death of Commodus, A.D. 193, and the year 200.

This system, which takes its date in the year previous to the Jewish rebellion under Trajan, was evidently designed as a correction of the chronology used by Josephus (whose patriarchal times it adopts, as above); who, contrary to the progress of the astronomical error, depressed, instead of raising, the termination of the traditional period of 5500 years. It is therefore in

present system raised to eighty-four years before the vulgar Christian æra; whereby the same effect of falsifying the tradition of the Messiah's coming is produced as in that of Josephus, who depresses it seventy years, as above. It follows, that the date of this corruption comes out exactly where it should-i.e. between the times of Josephus and Clemens.

This corruption, like all the preceding, is therefore a piece of Jewish management-probably of the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria, of which place Clemens himself was a native-and shews how the system of astronomical corruption, commenced by the Jews of the Persian empire soon after the return from Babylon, and continued by the Samaritans, the Seventy elders, and the Jewish doctors in the time of Hyrcanus, was adhered to till about the date of the final dispersion of the Jewish nation, and their banishment from Judea, effected by Adrian, A.D. 137, and no longer for we find no further progress in raising the sacred numbers, and there is, as above, no variation amongst the computations of these Christian fathers which cannot be traced to and accounted for by one or other of these Jewish corruptions. Indeed, the protracted method of corruption could not have prevailed much longer; for although the ancient excessive estimate of precession still continued in use, as we know, from Ptolemy, its errors soon after his time began to be detected, and a more rational scale adopted.

Some writers, as Strauchius, deduce an Adamic æra still higher than that of Clemens, from the Paschal Chronicle-i. e. B.C. 608;-but that this is a mistake of a century will be evident to any person who examines that record.

This being the last of the protracted corruptions, and the annexed table No. 1. exhibiting the original Hebrew, as well as