numbers represent the former. These commutations have been made throughout the whole of the Chronology, as the first Table in the "Complete Systems" will serve to shew; but they are most clearly discoverable in our first Period. They have been effected by two methods-by variations in the authorities and their texts, and by the adoption of various years or periods of different lengths. The variations in the authorities appear to be of two kinds. First, single centuries or larger numbers have been introduced to make periods of solar years. These we have called "centenary or periodie additions." Secondly, certain smaller numbers have been used to form the "complement" or number required to supply the excess in number of the shorter years over the longer; for example, 2000 solar years of 364 days nearly=2056 lunar years of 354 days, where 36 is the complemental quantity. These we have termed "intercalations," though the term is not restricted exclusively to lunar-year additions. The various readings form another but different kind of variations.

31. The proof of this hypothesis arises from the results, which will appear in due course. In this place, we may con veniently mention one or two other and general indications of validity.

32. It is a confirmation of the doctrine of centenary additions, that Josephus (Ant. I. vi. 5) while he prefixes the single centuries to his several items, omits them in his sum-total.

33. An attestation to a certain extent, and applicable to all the recensions, is the proof that is afforded of the systematic alterations that have been made in the numbers by the adjustments between the ages at procreation and the remainders of years of life. Wherever a difference exists between any of the authorities in respect of the former, whether it consists of centuries or of centuries + tens and units, it is balanced by a corresponding difference in the latter, so as to leave the total ages the same in all the authorities. Hence it becomes evident that the total years of life were regarded as an invariable quantity; and the reason of this (as we expect to be able to shew hereafter) was, that they also were determined by astronomical computations, and so put together that the sum of ages in each division of the table should contain certain Cycles.

3 We have spoken of the total ages as agreeing in all the recensions; but this is to be understood only of the first genealogical series. The years of life in the second series are

• given in the Samaritan only. These, and those of the other recensions, (which are obtained by addition of the procreation ages and the remainders of life, and have on this account been distinguished in the Table by insertion within brackets), do not agree in many instances; they differ both in centuries and other numbers, all of which, however, are of an amount indicating design, and excluding accident. The Hebrew differs from the Samaritan only by the addition of 60 to the fifth and tenth names, the latter being a doubtful reading; but the Septuagint differs from it in all but the first and fifth.

Differences in total ages between the LXX. and Samaritan.

Nor, indeed, is our assertion true without exceptions in reference to the first series. All the recensions agree in the years of life of the first five, the seventh, and the tenth names; but they differ as to the other three, Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. These exceptions, however, only serve to prove the rule, and to establish our theory of intercalation and contrivance in the most complete and satisfactory manner, inasmuch as they occur only in the places and to the exact extent that the exigencies of the systems required. The durations of life in these instances are made longer or shorter according as the date fixed upon for the Deluge in the different recensions allowed and the commutations required. Thus, Jared's age at death is 847 years in the Samaritan, but 962 in all the other authorities.

Our 7th column added to No. 5 (inclusive) gives,
From Adam to Jared's birth
460 years.

From Jared's birth to his procreation ..........
Jared lived after procreation

62

785

Jared died in the year of the world 1307

}847

Note that 514 =

1028
2

1028600 + 428. 1030600 + 430.

So that the Samaritan subtracts from the number of years assigned to Jared by the other authorities exactly so much as, and not a year more, than was necessary to bring his death within its year of the Deluge.

35. Again, Methuselah's total age is, according to the Samaritan, 720 years; the others, 969.

Thus, in this instance also, the first two and the last authorities arrange their numbers so as to make the death of Methuselah also fall just within their respective dates of the Deluge. But the third places it 6 years before its date of the Deluge. How is this? Why should it form the only exception. It was not bound, indeed, to extend Methuselah's life to the Deluge. So that it did not carry it beyond the year in which "everything in which was the breath of life (save those that entered the ark) perished," it was under no obligation to make that particular patriarch's life reach to the Deluge, any more than that of any one who preceded him. Still it were natural to expect that this recension would have produced uniformity with the others, especially as the discrepancy was occasioned, not by any curtailment of Methuselah's years, but by its own retardation of the Deluge, through addition of 6 years to Methuselah's son's age at procreation; and we are entitled to look for some reason for the variation. We naturally ask, Why should the 6 years have been added at all? Why not left as it is in Josephus? Or, if it must be inserted, why not added to Methuselah's age at procreation, instead of his son's, and then uniformity would have been preserved, and that without any apparent inconvenience? The answers to these questions will fully account for the seeming inconsistency and exception. As to the first, it was indispensably necessary (as will appear in the sequel) to the commutation adopted in the Septuagint, that 6 should be added somewhere, to complete the number required for intercalation. As to the second, it was no less necessary that this number should be assigned to Lamech, and not to Me

thuselah, because to Methuselah's name is attached another small intercalary number, holding (as we shall see) a very peculiar position, so that it required to be made as conspicuous as possible, and might by no means be merged in another, as would have been the case if this 6 had been added to Methuselah's chronological age. We think these arrangements will be admitted to have afforded a strong proof beforehand of the theory we are about to propound respecting the intercalary character of the augmented readings which distinguish Methuselah and Lamech from all the rest.

36. We proceed to Lamech's name, against which we find in the 3rd division of our Table-

From the 2nd and 3rd Divisions we obtain as before:

From Adam to Lamech's

birth

From Lamech's birth to

his procreation-age From Lamech's procreation-age to his death

15} (a) 654
!}

37. We shall here call attention in the first instance to the discrepancy in the LXX., between "the total age" (753) of the text, and that obtained by addition of the years before and after procreation (783). This discrepancy will of course be attributed to corruption. But, inconsistent as it may seem, we are inclined to think from the occasion for both readings in the computations, that both are original, and designed to serve different purposes.

38. The addition of the 6 years of which we have spoken to Lamech's number, of course makes the difference which was noticed under the last name to disappear from this.

39. In this instance again the Samaritan makes the life to terminate at its date of the Deluge, but the others uniformly 5 years before their dates of it. Why is this? Why should not the deaths in their cases have been made either to be in consistency with the Samaritan-or, not having been so, have presented the appearance of fortuitous occurrence instead of so decided a manifestation of systematic arrangement? The

(a) A singularly near approach to coincidence. Add to which that Methuselah lived after Lamech's birth 653 years. So that at Lamech's birth was made an equal division (fractions being excluded) of the Samaritan duration of the Old World.

same reason has operated here as in the former instance. The scheme of intercalation can alone account for it, and this does so completely. It required this arrangement, and would allow of no other.

40. Before quitting this branch of the subject we must just direct attention to the century each, which has been allowed to remain to the procreation-ages of Adam and Seth, while in the other cases it has been removed. Now, if the removal we have made had been arbitrary-- i. e. guided only by the rule of removing centuries, it ought of course to have been applied to these equally with the others. But such was not the case. Our transpositions have been governed by the rule of transferring the century to the column of periodic addition only when there was both a centenary increase observable at the procreation-age, and also that increase was balanced by a coresponding decrease in the remainder of years. Thus our theory has the guidance not only of the principle of following the lowest numbers found in any one of the authorities, but also the sanction arising from the changes in the remainders of life, and which changes every one must allow cannot have been made without design.

41. These changes alone, it may be observed by the way, are sufficient to exclude both the views ordinarily taken of the Genealogies. How can those who abide by what is called the short or Hebrew Chronology, and who consequently must and do account for the additions by supposing them to have been made for the purpose of obviating objections and meeting the traditions of other nations-how can they explain the variety of additions? Why, in the first Series, should three centuries have been subtracted in one recension, and nine have been added in the two others; and again in the second Series, six added in one, eight in the next, and seven in the last? Why this diversity? If the object was to throw back the dates of the Creation and Deluge as much as possible, would it not have been done uniformly in all the recensions and to the utmost extent they would admit of? The same hand or hands which made alterations against some names, might with equal ease have made them against all. Or again, on the view of those who espouse the longer Chronology, and consequently must suppose the alterations to have been wilfully made for the purpose of reduction, (for accidental corruption none will maintain in such a case) what account can they give that will meet all the conditions of the case? What possible motive could any one have had