CHRISTIANITY The church at Corinth was probably one of the larger of the apostolic churches (see Acts xviii. 1, 9-11, 18; and hence evils might be more liable to spring up in it than in some other churches. There were accordingly among them envying and strife and divisions' (1 Cor. i. 11, 12; iii. 3); it was reported commonly that there was fornication among them, and such fornication as was not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife' (v. 1); brother went to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers' (vi. 6); there were gross disorders in their manner of observing the Lord's Supper (xi. 18, 20-23); and there were other irregularities in their public worship (xiv. 26-33). These were grievous evils, and yet there was still spiritual life in the church, as is manifest from the whole tenor of the apostle's second epistle to them, and particularly from chap. vii., in which he gives a touching description of the penitential feelings which his first epistle had called forth in them; yet he appears to have exercised a 'godly jealousy' over them, and to have feared that numbers of them were still impenitent (xi. 2, 3; xii. 14, 15, 20, 21; xiii. 1, 2, 10). The church of Galatia appears to have been carried away by Judaising teachers, a set of men who early troubled the churches. The apostle upbraids them, reasons with them, warns them, expostulates with them, yet he does not despair of them; he still speaks affectionately to them, and calls upon them to give up with circumcision and the Mosaic law as a ground of confidence toward God, and to seek salvation simply through the grace that is in Christ Jesus. But Judaising, though a chief, was not the only form of error which appeared in the apostolic churches. Paul refers to some in the Corinthian church who said that there is no 151 resurrection of the dead' (1 Cor. xv. 12); and in his Second Epistle to Timothy he mentions Hymeneus and Philetus, 'who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some' (ii. 17, 18; see also 1 Tim. i. 19, 20; vi. 20, 21). And in the farewell address which he gave to the elders of the church of Ephesus he said, "I know that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them' (Acts xx. 29, 30). It is even painful to read what he says of some of the brethren in the church of Rome, though he does not charge them with doctrinal error (Phil. i. 14-18; ii. 19-22; 2 Tim. iv. 16). Still more painful is the account which the apostle John gives of Diotrephes: I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words; and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church' (3 John 9, 10). It is worthy of notice how remarkably free the other epistles are of charges against the churches to which they were addressed, thus leaving their piety unimpeached. CHRONOLOGY It deserves, however, to be remarked, that in the various epistles there are warnings against idolatry, theft, lying, drunkenness, and particularly against fornication and adultery, as well as many other sins of a less gross nature. Among the members of the churches there were doubtless numbers who had been chargeable with such practices (1 Cor. vi. 9-11; Eph. ii. 1-3), and from their past habits, and from the corrupt state of manners around them, the very atmosphere which they breathed being polluted, they were in peculiar danger of again falling into these sins. Hence we may well suppose the frequent and pointed warnings and exhortations against them (Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Cor. v. 9-11; vi. 15-18; x. 7, 8, 14, 19-21; 2 Cor. xx. 21; Gal. v. 19, 21; Eph. iv. 28, 29; v. 3-8; 1 Thess. iv. 3-7, etc.) Most of the passages already referred to throughout this article were probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and are therefore to be understood of the state of the churches before that time. In the Book of Revelation, written probably near the end of the 1st century, we have messages sent by Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia-Ephesus and Smyrna, and Pergamos and Thyatira, and Sardis and Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Smyrna and Philadelphia are praised throughout. Sardis and Laodicea appear to have been in a sadly declining state, while Ephesus, Pergamos, and Thyatira receive mingled praise and rebuke. Several of them are threatened with the removal of their candlestick out of its place except they repent. CHRONICLES. The two books of Chronicles title of Words of the Days,' perhaps meaning were comprehended by the Jews in one, under the by this diaries or journals. The present English title is taken from the Greek Xpovikov, which Jerome applied to them. Most of the ancient Jews, many of the Christian fathers, and the older theologians generally, held Ezra to be the author; but this is a mere supposition for which there is no evidence. Both the writer and his age must be held to be unknown. There are many difficulties in the Chronicles as compared with other books of Scripture, particularly with the books of Samuel and Kings. As the text of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles is in a more corrupt state than that of the other books of the O. T., this will account for many of the discrepancies and contradictions which are found in the Chronicles as compared with these other books. Many of these difficulties are in regard to numbers, as to which transcribers were particularly apt to fall into mistakes. Some of them, it is probable, will never be cleared up on proper authority, and it is better to allow them to remain than to have recourse to conjectural emendations. CHRONOLOGY. It is common for nations to compute the dates of events from some remarkable period in their own history or in the history of the world. Thus the Greeks reckoned by olympiads, the first of which was 776 years B.C.; the Romans from the founding of Rome in the year 753 B.C.; and the Mohammedans by the Hegira, or the year of the flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, A.D. 622. These points are termed epochs. Thus from the creation to the flood the number of years according to the 2256 (Hales, Chron. i.†) * In the text of Josephus, the number of years from the creation to the flood is stated to be 2656 (Antiq. i. 3. 3); but the sum of his numbers is as here given, 2256. The following table of the lives of the antediluvian patriarchs, according to the Hebrew text, presents some curious results : Samaritan. Septuagint The second period, reaching from the deluge | also the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint to the birth of Abraham, can, in like manner, texts, and Josephus, differ widely. The following determined chiefly by Scripture; but here table will shew the discrepancies between them: CHRONOLOGY 500 500 500 600 600 600 403 303 400 438 438 535 (Cainan II. 130 3. Salah 30 130 130 130 34 134 134 134 30 130 130 130 69 129 148 148 208 75 135 205 145 205 292* 942 1072 993 1656 1307 2262 2256 1948 2249 The third period, extending from the call of Abraham to the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt, is clearly determined from Scripture, all the authorities-the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint texts, and Josephus-agreeing in 430 years. 'Now,' says Moses, 'the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the self-same day, it came to pass that all the host of the Lord went cut from the land of Egypt' (Exod. xii. 40, 41). These words are probably often understood as 3334 3249 By looking at the table we see at once how many of the antediluvians were alive together at any particular time, and how many years they were contemporary one with another. Adam died in A.M. 930, which was also the year of his own age; and by looking along the line we see that he lived 800 years with Seth, 695 With Enos, 605 with Cainan, 535 with Mahalaleel, 470 with Jared, 308 with Enoch, 243 with Methuselah, and 56 with Lamech, the father of Noah. Again, by looking down the several columns, we see how old any of them were at the death of their progenitors. Thus, for instance, Noah, who might see all his progenitors except Adam, Seth, and Enoch, was 84 years old at the death of Enos, 179 at the death of Cainan, 234 at the death of Mahalaleel, 366 at the death of Jared, 595 at the death of Lamech, and 600 at the death of Methuselah. Shem, the son of Noah, who lived 97 or 98 years with Methuselah, lived after the flood at least till Isaac was 50 years old (Christ. Mag. 1804, p. 22). It is commonly taken for granted that Abraham was Terah's eldest son, and that he was born in the seventieth year of his age, as stated in the table. It is on this supposition that the signifying that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt 430 years; but the natural interpretation is to understand the clause 'who dwelt in Egypt' as descriptive of the children of Israel, and that their sojourning was 430 years, it having been partly in Canaan and partly in Egypt. The apostle Paul accordingly dates the 430 years from the covenant God made with Abraham on his entering Canaan (Gal. iii. 8, 16, 17, comp. with Gen. xii. 1-4, 7). Josephus is not less distinct: "They left Egypt,' says he, 'in period between the deluge and the birth of Abraham is stated as 292 years; but though he is named first among Terah's sons, it may only be on account of his greater eminence, or his being better known than the others (see Gen. vi. 10; x. 21). It is probable he was a younger son of Terah's, who, having left Ur of the Chaldees, canie to Haran, bringing Abraham with him. There he died at the age of 205 years; and it does not appear that Abraham left Haran until after his father's death; and when he did leave it he is said to have been 75 years old. But if he had been born when his father was 70, he would now have been 135 years old. If, then, we subtract 75 years from 205, he could not have been born earlier than the 130th year of his father's life. We are glad to find that Usher expresses a similar opinion as to this point. Now, if this view be correct, we would require to add 60 years to 292, making the time from the deluge to the birth of Abraham at least 352 years, and the total time from the creation 2008. It may here be mentioned that Josephus says Abraham was born in the 292d year after the deluge;' yet the sum of the numbers given by him amounts, as in the table, to 993 (Antiq. i. 6. 5). the month Xanthicus, on the 15th day of the lunar month, 430 years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but 215 years only after Jacob removed into Egypt' (Antiq. ii. 15. 2). It is not unworthy of remark that the long sojourning of the children of Israel was equally divided between Canaan and Egypt, 215 years in the one country, and 215 in the other (Gen. xii. 4; xxi. 5; xxv. 26; xlvii. 9). The fourth period, extending from the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt to the building of Solomon's temple, must also be determined by Scripture. But here there are considerable difficulties. In 1 Kings vi. 1 it is expressly said to have been 480 years. The Septuagint has 440 years, and Josephus 592 (Antiq. viii. 3. 1). But a still greater difficulty arises out of the statement of the apostle Paul, who says that from the division of Canaan by lot among the Israelites, there was 'until Samuel the prophet about the space of 450 years' (Acts xiii. 20). Various methods have been taken to explain these discrepancies, but we are not satisfied with any of them. Meanwhile, until the difficulties shall be cleared up, we are disposed to accept the number in the Hebrew Scriptures as being probably the original computation. The fifth period extends from the building of the temple by Solomon to its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. This may be found, though not with perfect accuracy, by ascertaining the length of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; but as this would require much minute discussion, we shall content ourselves with taking the dates set down in the margin of our Bibles of the founding of the temple 1012 B.C., and of its destruction 588 B.C.-leaving the intervening period of 424 years as the time which it stood. Josephus states it as 470 years, 6 months, and 10 days (Antiq. x. 8. 5). The sixth period, extending from the destruction of the temple to the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, consisted of 52 years (2 Kings xxv.; Ezra i.)—B.C. 588-536. The last period extends from the return of the Jews from Babylon to the beginning of the Christian era, and is collected almost entirely from profane history. Usher makes it 536 years. It will be seen from these statements that there are material differences between the chronology of the Hebrew text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint translation, and also of Josephus. The following table exhibits a view of these differences : subsequent examples of the same kind. The weight of this consideration is greatly increased in the postdiluvian period, when the lives of the individuals named were so much shortened, while yet most of them are made to live 130 years or more before the birth of their next descendant in their line. Without, therefore, accepting the numbers in the Hebrew text as absolutely correct, we yet see no special reason for questioning, still less for rejecting them. We apprehend, indeed, they are much more to be relied on than the other authorities, on which some place so much reliance, though, we think, with little reason. Even though there was nothing in the shorter chronology to recommend it, we would be disposed to abide by the Hebrew text till it is proved to be corrupted. As we adhere to it in other cases until satisfactory evidence is adduced of its erroneousness, so we apprehend it is reasonable to adhere to it also in its chronology. It will be seen from these statements that | 1, 2, 25); and so also more or less as to the there is an extended chronology founded on the Septuagint and confirmed by Josephus, and a shorter one derived from the Hebrew text, strengthened by the Samaritan Pentateuch. The latter is that adopted in the E. T., and placed in the margin of our Bibles. Its most distinguished advocates are Usher, Spanheim, Calmet, Blair, Clinton, and Greswell. The longer chronology has been supported by Vossius, Hayes, Jackson, and Hales. Though that of the Hebrew text may not be entirely trust worthy, yet we apprehend it may be more relied on than the others. All of them were liable to error in the transcription of copies by successive copyists; but the Hebrew text was the original authority all the others were derived from it; and on this ground they hold a secondary place. The generations of the Hebrew text, as being so much shorter, are so much less extraordinary, and consequently more credible, than the other authorities. It is not easy, for example, to believe that Adam was 230 years old before his third son Seth was born (Gen. iv. Indeed, we are disposed to adhere to the chronology of our translation until it shall be Josephus. proved to be erroneous, on the ground that it is the system commonly adopted in chronological tables, and to which comparative chronology is generally adapted. But while we are disposed to adhere to the general chronology of our Bibles in its great outlines, it must be admitted that when we descend to particular details we meet with many difficulties, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to remove them, and probably we shall never be able to clear up all the discrepancies and obscurities which are to be found in them. The Book of Judges, for example, affords little help in determining the chronology of the period to which it refers, because it does not contain a regular history of the successive judges, nor of the succession of events. The chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah, as contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles, has many difficulties and even discrepancies. Many of these have probably arisen from errors of transcribers, as errors are peculiarly apt to arise in copying numbers, there being often nothing in the sense to preserve the copyist from falling into mistakes. Some writers would in such cases take it upon CHURCH | them to correct the text; but unless proposed alterations rest on proper authority, they ought on no account to be adopted. However plausible they may be, that must always be a very unsafe course. It is much better to leave even manifest errors to stand in the text, yet at the same time honestly to acknowledge them. Though the chronology of the English Bible was regulated by the views of Archbishop Usher, who followed in general the authority of the Hebrew text, it must not be supposed that there is a general agreement in the common chronology. In regard to the epoch of the creation Hales occupies no fewer than three octavo pages with a list of the dates assigned to it by different writers. The list contains upwards of 120 dates, and the number might be greatly increased. They vary from 3616 years to 6984, the extremes being no less than 3268 years (Hales, Chron. i. 211). We have already seen the differences between the ancient authorities, the Hebrew text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and Josephus. The following table will shew the differences between some of our modern authorities: While there are great differences of opinion in regard to the main eras in the chronology of the O. T., there is a remarkable agreement as to the time of the nativity of Jesus Christ. Here also there are differences, but they merely range between three years earlier and seven years later (Hales, Chron. i. 214). According to the common chronology the birth of Christ took place in A.M. 4000, but the years of the world were carried on four years longer-viz., to AM 4004, after which the Christian era com mences. It was not, however, until A.D. 532 that the Christian era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth and a Roman abbot, who flourished in the reign of Justinian. The motive which led him to introduce it, and the time of its introduction, are explained by himself in a letter to Petronius, a bishop:-'Because St. Cyril began the first year of his cycle [of 95 years) from the 153d of Diocletian, and ended the last in the 247th, we, beginning from the next year, the 248th of that same tyrant, rather than prince, were unwilling to connect with our cycles the memory of an impious [prince] and persecutor, but chose rather to antedate the times of the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ; to the end that the commencement of our hope might be better known to us, and that the cause of man's restoration namely, our Redeemer's passion-might appear with clearer evidence. The era of Diocletian, which was chiefly used at that time, began with his reign, A.D. 284; and therefore the new era of the incarnation A.D. 284 +248 = A.D. 532. The now vulgar era began to prevail in the West about the time of Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II., A.D. 730; but was not sanctioned by any public acts till the first German Synod in the time of Carolomannus, duke of the Franks, which in the preface was said to be assembled Anno ab incarnatione Dom. 742, 11 Calendas Maii;' but it was not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV., A.D. 1431, who ordered this era to be used in the public registers according to Mariana and others (Hales, Chron. i. 83). But though the commencement of the Christian era may be held to be an ascertained point, the chronology of the N. T. is attended with much difficulty, particularly as regards the gospel history, the proceedings of the apostolic church, and the life and labours of the apostle Paul. CHURCH. The Greek word ékkλŋola, which is rendered church in the N. T., has a much more extended signification than our English word; and the knowledge of its primary and more general senses will aid us in understanding |