is hit upon, they are seen to have a meaning and use; and the multitude of numerical discrepancies is accounted for in a much more rational and probable way than by the incredible supposition of a vast amount of accidental corruptions; a supposition which would be utterly rejected in any other case than that of numbers, and decried as utterly subversive of Revelation; but which in this is readily conceded, because (it is said)" numbers are peculiarly liable to corruption." It cannot be too often repeated that there is no foundation for this assertion: the words in which the numbers are expressed cannot be more liable to errors of transcription than any other words. 691. And this leads us, in conclusion, to ask, Can it be believed that this whole system, so symmetrical in itself and so indicative of designed elaboration, has been produced altogether by accident and the ingenuity of its compiler? If any reader can think so, let him try if he can frame any system like it out of all the materials which history affords in the last 18 centuries. We include not more ancient history, because we entertain great doubts whether the Cyclical system has not entered more or less into all ancient Chronographies. This is a fair test, and by the issue of it we are well content that our theory should stand or fall. Errors, it is to be expected, will be found in our development of the theory, and in our exposition of the several parts and systems. We doubt not that in some instances we may have accidentally made periods and coincidences where none were originally designed: and on the other hand there can be still less doubt that we have failed to discover many that were; for we are persuaded we have obtained as yet but a very imperfect insight into the system. But after the largest deductions have been made on the former account, a superabundance of proof will still remain, even in this one single system alone, to shew that a most artificial scheme has been in use, that the entire chronology has been framed according to its rules, and that the second destruction of Jerusalem has been had in view from first to last, as the grand dénouement of the whole. 692. Before proceeding to another system we must briefly notice how the foregoing Hebrew computation locates the principal events in reference to the Vulgar Era. From 659 take 70, and 589 will be given as the date B.C. of the 1st destruction. This looks like a cyclical number 500+ 89. But perhaps the intercalary 3 should be excluded, and in x that case the date will be 586, which is within a year of Clinton's, and is still more clearly cyclical, being = 293 × 2. 50 being deducted for the Captivity, would give 536 B.c. as the date of the Return, coinciding with the received date. The Exode will be placed 1586 B.C. The date of the descent into Egypt will be (586+1000 +214 =) 1800 B.C.; that is, there would be 3 "Great Years" between the descent and the Vulgar Æra. Again, there would be exactly 2 millennia between the interview with Melchizedec and the Vulgar Era. And the Flood would be placed B.c. 2442 (=37x 66): the Creation 4104 (=216 *Metonic Cycles) or 4102 (=293 × 14). 2. CLEMENS'S COMPUTATION. 693. Clemens appears, from some of his numbers, to have placed the Exode in B.c. 1656. Hence, in connexion with the Hebrew, we may make out the following Computation. 1. Creation to Deluge 2. Deluge to Exode (Heb.) 1656 2512 1656 1728(=216 x 8) 72 Here the interval between the Creation and the Vulgar Æra is made to have been 4 millennia, plus a Sacerdotal Cycle in years. 694. If No. 2 were reckoned at 800 years, the duration of the interval between the Creation and the Vulgar Æra would be 4112y., which is the amount of a computation of the whole period, to which we shall come presently. 695. Clemens himself placed the Creation B.C. 5600 (=70 × 80). * We omitted to notice in the proper place that Mr. Cuninghame has observed that the Metonic Cycle is a measure of the lives of Seth, Methuselah, and Lamech. He places the Call 2070 years (414 x 5), the Incarnation 14 × 391 years, and the Nativity 15 x 365 years after the Creation. "From these relations, and others of the same kind, he conceives that his system has an internal evidence of truth, amounting to demonstration." (!!) 700. Our Table, ¶25, Col. 11, shews that the number of the years between the Creation and the Call of Abram has been made 2056, which is half of the above 4112. Hence this computation may be regarded as having been bisected at the Call of Abram. On this account, for distinction's sake, we have designated it "the Abrahamic computation." The whole is of course, like the first half, commutable thus :4000 x 364 354 × 4112, or 4000 × 365–355 x 4112. And thus it is made to appear that a commutation on the same scale as was found to be applicable for Period A. to the Samaritan, the Hebrew, and the LXX., is also capable of application to the Hebrew computation of the whole duration. 701. The sum-total may be further corroborated thus : = Years. 1. Creation to Deluge (X. viii. 5) 1556 2. Deluge to Call (¶¶ 25. 103) 368 3. Call to Melchizedec, say 4. Melchizedec to 2d destruction (Wars VI. x. VI. x. 1) 2177 4112 702. The same number of years may be made out to the Vulgar Æra, thus: Creation to Exode (25) 1656. Thence to the Profanation (¶544) 2288. Thence to Vulgar Æra (¶483) 168=4112. 6. SOTHIAC COMPUTATIONS AND PERIODS. 703. It has been shewn (¶663) that the Hebrew Compu *Or, the computation might be made to A.D. 70, if 27 years be reckoned as Joshua's time. tation makes 4 Sothiac Cycles between the Creation and the 2nd destruction. Hence, after the computations more or less related to the Hebrew, we may appropriately introduce a variety of Sothiac Computations and Periods. 704. Censorinus states that the consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus (commonly placed in A.D. 238) was in the 100th year of a Sothiac Cycle. Hence the preceding Cycle commenced (20 July) 1322 B.C. The near approach to remarkable coincidences, which this date gives, is worthy of notice. If the number were 1320, it would be two of the 660-year periods. If it were 1332, it would be the sum of numbers found in connexion with "the half-week" of Daniel, and twice the number of the beast." If it were 1325 B.C. it would make, plus 135, (1460) the termination of the Sothiac Cycle, to fall in the year of the final desolation of Judæa. If, lastly, it were 1335, there would be the number of Daniel xii. 12 to the Vulgar Æra, and 1470 years (=210 ×7) for the whole period from the beginning of the Sothiac Cycle to the desolation of Judæa. One is tempted to suspect that there must be either some *error in the calculation, or that the differences have been adjusted by intercalation. 705. And here it may further be observed that Clemens places the Exode 345 years before the commencement of a Sothiac Cycle. Now, as the Cycle began in the middle of the 1322nd year B.C., it may with as much propriety be reckoned 1321 as 1322 years. 1321+345 gives as the date of the Exode 1666 B.C. (Comp. ¶663). No doubt the computation stood thus ;- the Temple of Solomon was built a millennium B.C., and the Exode took place "the number of the beast" before that. Note further 345y. = 23 × 15 or 750 Sacerdotal Cycles. 706. It may be supposed that the reckoning was made upwards from A.D. 135; and that at B.c. 1320, an equation of all the various periods was made by the introduction of the requisite intercalary quantities. The computation which we shall introduce after a few prefatory remarks, will tend to confirm this hypothesis. 707. In the first place, we must quote a passage from a Review (in the Christian Observer for Sept. 1848) of Dr. Nolan's Egyptian Chronology analysed: -"The next statement examined is that of Herodotus, who tells us that the priests reported 341 generations, or 11,340 years, down to * It is allowed that the precise epoch of the Cycle is "not well determined." |