years; but if we adopt the details in the current history, giving to Joshua 27 years according to the ancient chronologers generally, and to Samuel and Saul 40, according to Paul (Acts xiii. 18-21), it is 600 years, as follows:

PERIOD V. FROM THE FOUNDATION OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE TO ITS

DESTRUCTION BY NEBUCHADNEZZAR.

There are some difficulties in the chronology of this period on: account of discrepancies in the sacred text; but these discrepancies are the same in the Septuagint as in the Hebrew, and the details in regard to numbers upon which the duration of the period rests, are precisely the same in both, as follows:

This is 40 in the Complut. Aldine and Georg. Slav. editions of the LXX and some two or three MSS. as noted by Holmes. But all our present editions have 20.

A close examination of the history of the period shows that the numbers of some of the reigns should be reduced by one to denote complete years. Such we regard the 3d, 6th, and 13th reigns. The grounds for this conclusion will be seen on comparing 1 Kings i. 1 and i. 10; 2 Kings viii. 16 and viii. 25; and xvi. 1 and xvii. 1. We have put down the time of those reigns accordingly.

PERIOD VI. FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE BY NEBUCHADNEZZAR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST.

The duration of this period cannot be determined by any scriptural data alone. For its commencement and chronological details, we have to resort to profane history. In reference to this point, the Septuagint and the Hebrew occupy the same ground. For, as we have before intimated, all essential difference between the two is confined to the first two periods, or the patriarchal ages, there being only a slight discrepancy afterwards, viz., in the 4th period, the years of Eli or the statement in 1 Kings, vi. 1. Since, then, our object is to give the chronology of the Septuagint, we, without discussion, remark

that the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar has been fixed by means of Ptolemy's canon at about B. C. 586, by the ablest chronologers, some varying two or three years on one side or the other of that date. Waiving the discussion of that point to another place, we assume that as the date of the destruction of the temple.

The chronology of the Septuagint presented in tabular form, stands thus :-(that of the Hebrew being added for convenience of comparison).

1013

427 1013

427 1013

586

586 586

586 586

5. Founding of the Temple 427 6. Destruction of Temple 586 The first column of figures in each system denotes the length of the periods, and the second, the date of the epochs beginning them. It should be remarked in regard to the Hebrew computation in the above table, that Hebraists generally make the second interval 352 years, by regarding Abraham as the youngest son of Terah, and born when his father was 130 years old, instead of 70, and the fourth period, 480, from 1 Kings, vi. 1, instead of 600, making the time from the creation to Christ 60 years less than it is in our table, placing the creation at B. C. 4006. The sum 4004, as indicating the date of the creation in our received chronology, is made up, in addition to the above modifications, by shortening the fifth period. But our table presents what we regard as the correct Hebrew chronology.

It should be further remarked, that most Septuagintarian chronologers make the first period 2256, out of deference to Josephus ; they likewise make the second period only 1072† by putting the years of Nahor at 79 instead of 179; or 942 by leav

The author of "The History of the World," Part I. of which has just appeared, Phillip Smith, B.A., one of the principal contributors to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, in his Note on Chronology, p. 10, says: "The Epoch of the Destruction of the Temple is fixed by a concurrence of proofs from sacred and profane history with only a variation of one, or at the most, two years, between B.C. 588 and 586 Clinton's date is June B.C. 587." This margin should be extended a little on each side of 586, as some, as Bede, have 589, and some as low as 583.

+ As Jackson. As Eusebius.

ing out the second Cainan with his generation of 130 years; or 1002,* by giving Terah 130 years to the birth of Abraham. We simply remark that our object is to present the chronology of the Septuagint according to the most approved texts. This we have done. We would state, however, that we think this version should be corrected to make it harmonize with Josephus in the length of the first period, since, by giving Methuselah only 167 years before the birth of Lamech, we make him survive the flood 14 years; and the 188 years of Lamech should doubtless be corrected by the Hebrew and Josephus and made 182; we would likewise give to Eli 40 instead of 20 years.

Thus it appears, that the highest date of the creation of man according to the Septuagint, and that is according to Mai's edition, is B. C. 5532, and the lowest, (arrived at by taking the lowest numbers, found in any text, of Methuselah (viz. 167) and Nahor (viz. 79), and the 440 of 1 Kings vi. 1, for the fourth period,) is 260 years less, i. e., B. C. 5272.

The difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew, according to our computation, is 1466 or 1446. This difference, by taking other numbers of the various readings, might be increased to 1620. It may be remarked, however, that the amount of difference, which is to be set down as the probable result of designed alteration in one or the other, is 1300 years, or, if we include Cainan's generation in this class, 1430 † viz. : 600 in the period before, and 700, or 830 in the period after the flood, the lives of 13 patriarchs before the birth of the son who succeeded being shortened or lengthened a century each, and the second Cainan being interpolated or left out. Other differences are probably the result of mistakes by copyists.

* As Hales. Hales, a Septuagintarian in chronology, gives Nahor 79, leaves ont the second Cainan, and makes Terah 130 at the birth of Abraham.

+ We are inclined to the opinion, however that the interpolation or omission of the 2d Cainan, whichever is adopted, is the result of mistake of copyists.

ARTICLE III.

BAYNE'S "TESTIMONY OF CHRIST TO CHRISTIANITY."

The Testimony of Christ to Christianity. By PETER BAYNE, A. M. Boston: Gould & Lincoln.

By all who have become acquainted with Mr. Bayne through his previously published works, this volume will be opened with pleasure. In his "Christian Life, Social and Individual," and his two volumes of "Essays, Critical and Biographical," we find a style vigorous and clear, and a soul appreciating the realities of the Christian religion as he portrays it in the lives of representative men in its theological, philosophical, and philanthropic departments; and also a mind alive to merit of every kind, as seen in his masterly delineations of poets, essayists and warriors. We are not surprised when we read in the life of Rufus Choate that he said, "I read every word of Bayne."

The title of this book first struck our attention as being somewhat strange and open to criticism; for what, we asked ourselves, is Christianity but what Christ taught? and what is the testimony of Christ to what he himself taught?

We look upon Christianity as the teachings of Christ, as really as the Baconian philosophy is that system taught by Bacon, or the Mohammedan religion as that taught by Mohammed, or the Copernican system of astronomy as that taught by Copernicus.

But when we look at the author's meaning, we see that he is pointing out a proof of the truth of Christianity which has been too little insisted upon, but which is massively strong, viz: That there are in the person of Christ, and in what he said and did, those qualities which command belief from every fair and candid mind, and make it as absolutely certain as testimony ever can be made, that Jesus Christ was a "faithful and true witness."

In his introduction, he refers to the common habit of Christians to rest satisfied with the proof afforded them by their own