And, last of all, Mr. Bentley seems completely to have settled the point, in his two most ingenious and learned papers, in the 6th and 8th volumes of the Asiatic Researches, in which, he not only contends, that from the principles of the Hindu astronomy, the recent date of the

of their great antiquity, but reduced their date even lower than the second century, since he places them lower than the age of Ptolemy, who lived until 161 A. D.

Having been led to make mention of this eminent mathe. matician, than whom a greater name has not arisen since the days of Newton, I cannot forbear noticing, as a matter of singular curiosity, the coincidence of a remarkable astro. nomical epoch, as fixed by his calculations, with the year, in which Archbishop Ussher has placed the creation of the world, according to the chronology of the Hebrew. The epoch is that of the coincidence of the greater axis of the earth's orbit with the line of the equinoxes, at which time the true and the mean equinox were the same. This M. Laplace computes to have taken place, about the year 4004 before the Christian era; which is the very era of the crea tion, as chronologists have derived it from the Hebrew scriptures.--Traité de Mécanique Céleste, tom. iii. p. 113.--This point I have stated, merely for the gratification of the curi ous reader, without intending to lay upon it any particular stress. At the same time, I cannot avoid observing, the if a coincidence, equally striking, bore an aspect unfavour. able to the truth of the scripture history, it would be cried up by a certain class of literati, (who admire Mr. Brydone's lavas and such like trash,) as a circumstance amounting to a demonstration of the falsehood of the Hebrew Scriptures.

tables can be deduced; but that also, from authentic testimony, independent of all calculations, the age of the Surya Siddhaánta can be proved such as not to carry the date of its composition farther back than the year 1068. In his endea to establish these points, he has not scrupled to pronounce M. Bailly and Professor Playfair to have been totally mistaken, in their reasonings, concerning the antiquity of the Indian astronomy; and to have proceeded upon an entire ignorance of the principles of the artificial system of the Hindus: the nature of which he states to consist in this,—that " certain points of time back are fixed upon as epochs, at which the planets are assumed to fall into a line of mean conjunction with the sun in the beginning of Aries; and that from the points of time so assumed as epochs, the Hindu astronomer carries on his calculations, as if they had been settled so by actual observation; and determines the mean annual motions, which he must employ in his system, from thence, as will give the positions of the planets in his own time, as near as he is able to determine the same by observation." (Vol. vi. p. 542.)-He then proceeds to shew by what means, such fictitious epochs may be assumed, without incurring the danger of a perceptible variation from the real mean motions and upon the whole, he has fortified his argument in a way that renders it not easy

to be shaken. The high authority of the names, which Mr. Bentley has to oppose on this subject, (Sir W. Jones himself, having, as well as M. Bailly and Professor Playfair, maintained the antiquity of the Indian astronomy,) may occasion some delay to the reception of his opinions. But from the proofs which have been advanced in their support, and from the additional lights to be expected upon this subject, there seems little reason to doubt, that they will ere long be generally acquiesced in.

At all events, the main foundation, on which the extraordinary antiquity of the Indian records has been built, must be given up as no longer tenable: and the decided priority of the Mosaic scriptures, cannot any longer reasonably be questioned. So that, as the Chaldean, Phe

* Mr. Nares, in his valuable note upon this subject, (Bampton Lecture, p. 256-273.) seems somewhat reluctant to admit Mr. Bentley's results, in opposition to those which could boast so many distinguished names in their support. He has, however, with great learning and ability, shewn, that even from the evidence, which M. Bailly himself adduces in corroboration of his opinion, no inference can reasonably be drawn, which in any degree interferes with the truth and originality of the Scripture history. Indeed, the whole of Mr. Nares's discussion of this subject, is par ticularly worthy of attention. Of his entire work, it may be, as it has been, most truly affirmed, that there is perhaps no other extant, which, within the same compass, brings so much argument to bear, against the various enemies of our religion from without, or against the betrayers of it from

nician, Egyptian, Grecian, and Chinese antiquities, which at different times have been deemed irreconcileable with the truth of Scripture history, have, to a more minute inspection, contracted their dimensions to a perfect agreement with the Scripture standard; so it may without hazard be pronounced of the Indian antiquities, that the day of their exaggerated extent has nearly gone by; and that there is no longer much danger of any serious impediment, from that quarter, to the belief of the Mosaic history. That the Indians did, at a very early age, cultivate astronomy, and that to them we are indebted, for that most ingenious and useful invention of an arithmetical character, possessing at the same time an absolute and a local value, cannot, undoubtedly, be denied. And yet, it must be admitted, that there are such indications of gross ignorance, in the very science, which they have so much studied, that one scarcely knows how to give them credit for certain other discoveries which are ascribed to them. To make the circumference of the earth amount

within. And, as compressing, in the best manner, the greatest quantity of important information, on all the great subjects, on which modern wisdom has attempted to assail Revelation, I most earnestly recommend it to the Theolo gical student. I cannot permit the very favourable mention, which this author has made of my former publications on the Atonement, to prevent me from giving a testimony, which the cause of religious truth so imperiously demands,

to 2,456,000,000 British miles (Asiat. Research. vol. v. art. 18.) and to hold the moon's distance from the earth to be greater than that of the sun,* are not proofs of any great progress in astronomical research. On this subject, see Montucla's observations, in the part referred to in the note below. In truth, from circumstances such as these, joined to the fact, of the Indians being unable to give any explanation of, or assign any reasons for their particular tables and calculations, there seems good reason to think, that much, of what has been supposed to be their own invention, has been derived to them from other sources; as has proved to be the case, with respect to the Chinese tables; and as Mr. Nares has well shewn to be extremely probable, with respect to those of the Indians likewise. Bampt. Lect. pp. 270, 271.

* "Ils font aussi la Lune plus éloignée de nous que le Soleil, et même ils sont aussi attacheés à cette opinion, qu'on l'est encore dans certaines contrées à nier le mouvement de la terre. Un Brame et un missionaire étant dans la même prison, le premier souffroit assez patiemment, que l'autre entreprît de le désabuser du culte de Brama; mais lorsque, dans d'autres conversations, il vit que le Missionaire préten. doit, que le Soleil étoit au delà de la Lune, ç'en fut fait: il rompit entiérement avec lui, et ne voulut plus lui parler."Montuc. Hist. des Mathem. tom. i. p. 404.

+ Will not this supposition throw some light upon that extraordinary acquaintance with certain Trigonometrical principles, laid down in the Surya Siddhanta, which have excited Professor Playfair's wonder in Edinb. Trans. vol. iv?