as we are more refined, than the ancients, it is reasonable to conclude, that the fine arts are at present in a more improved state,

Utility of researches into the principles of ancient chronology in order to obviate the objection of Bolingbroke and others against the historic veracity of the Jewish scriptures on account of pretended errors in their chronology, and thereby to ascertain the meaning of various passages, now subject to confusion. Written by an eminent chronologer in Europe.

No regular and connected history of profane events

having been transmitted to modern ages in regard to those times, with which Jewish history is principally concerned, several learned authors, such as Scaliger, Calvisius, Petavius, Usher, Vignoles, Prideaux, and Jackson have endeavored to collect and put together in right, chronologic order such scattered historic remains of the times in question, as have by good fortune been preserved, in which they have often all improved upon each other. Dr. Blair in his Tables of chronology has adopted the best of those systems, which preceding writers had produced; and probably he himself as well, as the public in general, may have thought, that the subject was not capable of farther improvement. But, notwithstanding the reputation, which those several writers have justly acquired by correcting in their turns many errors of their predeceffors; yet, I fear, it will be found, that the best of them have still left several errors subsisting, which produce many incoherencies with the Jewish scriptures, and consequently raise many doubts in the minds of accurate readers. Hence in fact some of the friends of those original memorials of the antiquities of mankind have been inclined to suspect, and some of their enemies actually to affirm, that the whole chronology of those ages, both Jewish and profane, is no better, than an inexplicable piece of confusion, notwithstanding all

the learned labors, hitherto bestowed upon it.* That such an accusation is not totally destitute of foundation will certainly appear even from a transient view of a few of the disagreements of the best chronologers with each other, and at the same time with the Jewish scriptures. Still a doubt presents: itself, whether this apparent confusion and even contradiction have not arisen from those very labors themselves, both in number and abstruseness, which were intended to remove such objections, rather than from any real confusion in the subject itself; for when many errors have been made by preceding writers of reputation, it requires many words and much intricacy of reasoning to detect and remove them; and, unless such errors be displayed in a satisfactory manner, the authority of great names, when of a different opinion, lies heavy upon the recommendation of truth itself, if thus more new, than established error. We have seen almost every method applied, which human genius could suggest. By some learned men considerable assistance has been derived from a more critical knowledge of the Hebrew language; by others from a comparison of ancient translations with the original Hebrew, and with each other; by some great light has been thrown on phrases from the sense of words and other oriental and still living languages;. by others ancient manners have been investigated from the remains of them, still preserved in eastern countries; by some the most distant regions have been explored, in order to know from inspection those natural productions themselves, of which in scripture we only knew the names before; and another great undertaking now almost complete will soon point out what erroneous readings

* Most certain it is, that the history and chronology of the ages, that follow the beginning of the æra of Olympiads, are as confused and uncertain, as those, which immediately precede this æra. I have somewhere read, perhaps in the works of St. Jerom, that this father justifies the opinion of those, who think it impossible to fix any certain chronology on that of the Bible. We are indeed more correct, and come nearer the truth, than the Jews, because we make use of profane chronology to help us; but this itself is so modern, so broken, and so precarious, that its help does not reach to the greatest part of that time, to which sacred chronology extends, so that when it bepins to help, it begins to perplex us too. Bolingbroke Let. 111. on study of Hist.

can be removed, which have arisen from the negligence of ten centuries; but how many more errors of more ancient date may be still left subsisting, of which no traces can ever be discovered. This circumstance ought at least to induce us to omit no means within our power to understand rightly such passages, as remain exempt from error in words, but on which nevertheles an error in sense may have been fixed by the ill founded conjectures of expositors; and the right order of profane events will often assist in ascertaining this right sense, by determining the real historic action, to which the words allude. Errors in chronology therefore are not merely speculative errors, but very materially affect the meaning of whole sentences; nay, sometimes have had the effect to condemn a whole book of the Jewish canon, as being not authentic. Accordingly several learned men have rejected the book of Judith, and doubted concerning that of Tobit, principally on account of erroneous dates, which commentators have pretended to discover in them ; while St, Jerom on the contrary, in order that he might retain the book of Judith, has rejected and altered the dates; but, if it should appear from the result of these researches, that in case the dates of the best historians be rightly put together below in later times, an unsought for and unexpected consequence will arise, namely, that such coincidences will be produced higher up in more early ages, as will prove the dates in both the abovementioned books to be perfectly consistent with profane chronology; hereby that very circumstance, which is now made the chief proof against their authenticity, will turn out to be a solid proof in their favor. In many other places through the sceptical misrepresentations of some and the ill founded criticisms of others, the Holy Scriptures have been condemned for errors not their own; many persons have been ready to extend to the chronology of the whole this pretence concerning errors of date in particular places; and several have been as ready to join with Boling→ broke in passing condemnation upon the veracity of the scripture history, on account of such pretended errors in its chro nology. In no case perhaps has been the poet's observation

crefcit eundo more truly verified; therefore in no case can it be more satisfactory to find solid reasons to stop this pro gress in the very outset and first premises.

But, even if sceptics and infidels did not draw such unwarrantable conse quences from the present discordant state of chronology yet, when the dates of events, fixed by indubitable principles of astronomy as well, as by other sufficient proofs, are moved sometimes upward, and sometimes downward at the mere will and pleasure of every commentator in order to suit his own fanciful interpretation of prophecies of dubious senses; then friends themselves to the Jewish scriptures cannot but take offence at such misplaced zeal, as tends to injure the cause of truth and religion, which it was meant to serve; and even the most candid readers will then be apt to remember the objection of Censorinus, that such disagreements become a proof of some degree of uncertainty,* when perhaps originally there was no room for any doubt whatever. To remove then all objections of this kind, raised by a few mistakes, which have dropped inconsiderately from the pens of such approved au thors, as Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, and others, can neither be in itself an incurious subject, and will even become highly useful, if it shall tend to explain and reconcile any passages of scripture, now involved in doubt and disputation; neither can it be any way injurious to the memory of those learned writers, but will rather justify the solidity of the chief part of their chronology, by clearing away all difficulties concerning some particular parts, which they had worked up in a less judicious manner, than the rest, while they were intent upon correcting the errors of their predecessors; and which, although amounting only to a few years, will yet be found attended with more important consequences, than might have been expected, by deranging the order of events in other places, and by giving rise to monstrous suppositions in order to reconcile them with profane history, Neither is it to the scripture chronology of these authors, that such defects are so much to be imputed, as to their pro * Ipsa dissentio incertitudinem declarat.

fane chronology of the times connected with the former; and it is by correction of the latter, that the former is chiefly to be corrected likewise; for until some more fixed and indubitable standard of profane chronology shall be established, it is impossible to judge how far the dates in scripture do or do not accord to truth; but, when such an accurate rule shall be formed, we shall then be capable to form a trial of the accuracy of the dates, found in the Jewish scriptures. How then can any reader of these scriptures act at present? Shall a German place implicit confidence in the system of profane chronology, formed by Calvisius; a Frenchman in that of Petavius, an Englishman in Usher and Prideaux; and every one in such, as has been compiled by some eminent native of his own country? Or, if these be all found to disagree, must each reader be obliged to study the voluminous and abstruse, chronologic works of each compiler in or der to form a judgment, to which of them he ought to give the preference? Neither perhaps will such a tedious task be ever attended with the desired success; for readers will be too often misled by the plausible arguments, which each writer produces in confirmation of his own system; but, if they should even discover the fallacy of those proofs, they will be nothing better enabled to correct them; for any er ror in one place is commonly communicated to many others, both above and below; so that nothing but a very compre hensive view of the whole chain from first to last will be sufficient to discover, where the error began; and consequently how it may be entirely removed, and not merely shifted to some other place. Hence most persons finish their labotious studies on this subject with the dissatisfaction of finding almost equal difficulties in every system, hitherto presented, and almost equally good demonstrations in favor of each; they join therefore with Bolingbroke in concluding, that profane chronology itself is so broken, so precarious, that, when it begins to help, it begins to perplex us too, instead of enabling us with accuracy to try and ascertain the chronology of scripture. In this situation of things a diligent reader of the holy scriptures will doubtless be glad to find