the entire truth of revelation had depended on that system of numbers. For this purpose, authentic history has been assailed, ancient records have been mutilated, oriental annals have been subjected to torture, and every effort of critical ingenuity has been resorted to. Nevertheless, within the last century we have seen some of our first biblical scholars united with our best writers on ancient history, in recognising and defending the claims of the Greek numbers. Bishop Stillingfleet, with his usual learning and judgment, states: "The whole controversy concerning this part of the chronology of the world comes to this: Whether it be more probable that the Jews, who lived under the second temple, (who then were the trustees to whom were committed the oracles of God,) whom the LXX. followed in their version, had the true reading; or the Talmudic Jews, after their dispersion and banishment from their country, when they were discarded by God himself from being his people."* Jackson, in his valuable work on "Chronological Antiquities," devoted great learning and immense labour to the investigation of the subject. He has given us, as the result, a powerful defence of the Septuagint chronology. Dr. Hales, in "The New Analysis of Chronology," has followed in the same course; and, with the exception of the second Cainan, has come to the same conclusion. Faber, in his invaluable "Pagan Idolatry," has also gone into the subject; and has adopted the Samaritan, which, as we have seen, very nearly approximates to the Septuagint, in the postdiluvian period. Sir William Drummond, also, in his Origines, asserts his belief in the extended scheme; and ingeniously accounts for the abbreviation of the Hebrew. And, lastly, Dr. Russell, who, in his recent work, "A Connexion of Sacred and Profane History," has richly contributed to our knowledge of the ancient world, has also given us a masterly defence of the Greek chronology. In company with such writers, we shall not be accused of temerity, if we avow our full conviction, that the chronology of the present Hebrew Bible, and, consequently, the numbers found in the text and printed in the margin of those editions of the English version which are enriched with references, are manifestly incorrect; and that the Septuagint chronology is supported by evidence which commends it to our approbation. (Pages 40, 41.) The second part of the Preliminary Dissertation contains "An inquiry into the intellectual character, and the literary and scientific attainments, of mankind in the early ages of the world." We cannot follow Mr. Smith throughout the course of his ingenious and conclusive reasoning on this controverted subject. A large space is devoted to an inquiry into the origin of alphabetical characters, and our author traces up their use to the Deluge. Dr. Adam Clarke somewhere records it as his opinion, that letters were first used by the divine Being on Mount Sinai, in the record of the Decalogue. We have often been surprised that this eminent biblical scholar should have overlooked the passage in Exodus xvii. 14: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book; and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua," &c.; a command which was given before the arrival of the Israelites on Mount Sinai. On this passage Mr. Smith has the following just remarks: There is not the least hint that writing was then newly invented: on the contrary, we may conclude that Moses understood what was meant by "writing in a book;" for he certainly would not have been commanded to write in a book had he been ignorant of the art of writing, and had he not known what was meant by "a book." (Page 74.) Our author is of opinion that alphabetical characters were in use before hieroglyphics. In this opinion he is opposed by Bishop Warburton and others, who maintain that hieroglyphical writing certainly preceded letters * Origines Sacræ, vol. ii., p. 165. In as the medium of communicating ideas; and that it was by improving and extending the former, that an alphabet was ultimately obtained. opposing this view, Mr. Smith asks, "If hieroglyphics were so general, and the ingenuity of man carried on a gradual improvement until letters were discovered, is it not remarkable that the various alphabets of the world can certainly be traced to one or two?" This appears to us to be unanswerable; for, as our author again demands, "should we not have as many alphabets as there have been separate and distinct nations ?” Besides, if this theory have any foundation in fact, would not some instances appear of nations "making this progressive discovery of letters within the range of existing history?" Writing is an art which requires some attention, study, and practice; and there have always been, in the most cultivated nations, a great proportion of the people ignorant of it. In early times, when materials for its use were, in all probability, less convenient and more difficult to obtain, a much smaller proportion of mankind would be able to write. If, then, in the separation of families, a few persons thus ignorant were to occupy a new settlement, they would be driven to adopt some mode of recording and communicating numbers, facts, and ideas; and thus hieroglyphics might be exten 88YYXX not many years ago, some of the small dealers, who were uneducated, kept very considerable accounts in a sort of artificial character, formed on a principle somewhat similar to that of the example just given. (Pages 55, 56.) which was explained to mean, "Two men and one boy, three quarters of a day, with two hods of mortar; ten shillings and tenpence. Settled." What is this but hieroglyphic writing? In Cornwall, and other parts of England, In illustration of this, the author inserts the following curious note :— writer a few years since, respecting one of these hieroglyphical accountants. A circumstance of rather a humorous character was communicated to the This opinion is supported by Mr. Hartwell Horne, "Bibliography,” p. 73. A general dealer, doing considerable business in a country district, was called on by a customer who wished to pay his bill. The characters and symbols constituting the account were called over; and amongst them the shopkeeper read, "A cheese, 7s. 6d." The customer declared that this must be a mistake, as he had never bought a cheese in his life. The dealer contended that his bill was certainly correct; for there was the account of the cheese, marked "7s. 6d." After much talk and some uneasiness, leaving this in doubt, they passed through the other items, when the customer, who was a carpenter, said, "You have, I think, made one omission; for I recollect I had a grindstone of you, which you have not mentioned." "Ay," replied the seller, "a grindstone! so it is a grindstone: look for yourself. What I took to be a cheese is really a grindstone. My sight not being very good, I did not perceive the little hole in the middle; but you see it is a grindstone: it is all right." (Page 56.) Mr. Smith goes on to prove the existence of early literature from Scripture facts, profane records, and ancient tradition; and then adds some valuable observations on the existence of science in the early ages, as illustrated by the history of astronomy. This is the stronghold of our author's argument, and the conclusion to which he conducts us is irresistible. If it can be shown that the science of astronomy was cultivated to any extent, and with any precision, in the ancient world, it will be undeniable that a considerable amount of intellectual improvement must have obtained among its inhabitants; for, as our author justly remarks, "this science could not have been cultivated without a knowledge of arithmetic, geometry, and other kindred branches of knowledge." The researches of the celebrated French astronomer, M. Bailly, have cast a flood of light on this subject. The testimonies which he furnishes from Chinese and Hindoo records, clearly show that the principles of astronomy were understood, even beyond the limits of authentic history. We have only space to refer to one of these records, the astronomical tables which were communicated by a learned Brahmin of Tirvalore (Trivalore) to M. le Gentil, known commonly as "the Tirvalore tables." These tables have been examined with much patience and ability by Bailly, who, says Dr. Robertson, "with singular felicity of genius, has conjoined an uncommon degree of eloquence with the patient researches of an astronomer and the profound investigations of a geometrician." The calculations of the French astronomer have been verified by Professor Playfair and Sir David Brewster, the latter of whom Mr. Smith quotes on the subject. "We are not," says Sir David, "left to the guidance of facts contradictory or ill-authenticated, or of deceitful observations founded merely on conjecture. The astronomical tables of the Indians are in our own hands; and with evidence almost as irresistible as that which attends the principles of the science, we can trace the remoteness of their origin, and survey the advancement of the human mind in the earliest ages.' The most complete refutation of the opinion which some philosophers have entertained, that the calculations of the Brahmins were carried backwards, is furnished by Mr. Smith :— This notion, however, can scarcely be entertained, when it is considered, "that all the elements, as assumed at the epoch B.C. 3102, are nearly the same as if they had been determined by observation;" and that the tables containing them were brought to Europe in A.D. 1687. If, therefore, the Brahmins of that day had compiled them, tracing their way upwards to B.C. 3102, it is scarcely possible they could have been acquainted with the theory of gravitation, and the refinements of modern analysis, at that time but just discovered in Europe. Yet we have only one of the two alternatives, either to believe that the Brahmins were in possession of this knowledge, or that the epoch of B.C. 3102 is real, and founded on observations previously made. (Page 91.) In closing his investigations into the chronology and learning of the ancient world, our author intimates that they had occupied more time than he anticipated; "but," he continues, -their importance demanded that, if possible, we should place before the reader evidence sufficiently conclusive to enable him to decide with satisfactory and well-grounded confidence on the chronology and learning of the ancient world. Although we are aware that the subject is not exhausted, that it might with greater ease have been expanded into a volume than condensed into a Preliminary Dissertation, we hope the result will be satisfactory. (Page 97.) Mr. Smith seems to have prepared his mind for a charge, which those who are bigoted in favour of the abbreviated chronology may be disposed to prefer against him,-that of tampering with revealed truth; and offers the following explanatory remarks, the truth of which, we can assure our readers, is fully borne out in the body of the work :— No one who will be at the trouble of perusing the entire work will charge us with any disposition to shrink from upholding the authority of holy Scripture, however it may be impugned by the professed wisdom of this world. There is no part of our duty to which we shall address ourselves with greater diligence and devotedness, than to the resistance of the pretensions of "science, Our author remarks in conclusion : It is an important consideration, that the results of the investigation perfectly harmonize. The chronology casts light upon the state of learning and science, and allows the admission of historic evidence which on any other theory would stand arrayed against it; while, on the other hand, the whole scope of our inquiries into the literature of the falsely so called," in its proud and insidious aggression on the truth of revela tion. But this determination imposes on us the necessity of the utmost vigilance fully to ascertain what is actually revealed truth, lest, by vindicating error on the hallowed plea of inspiration, we injure the cause we are so anxious to uphold, and truth be impaired in the hands of its friends. (Pages 98, 99.) age confirms and establishes the chrono- The reader will be amply repaid by a careful and studious perusal of this Preliminary Dissertation. It will prepare him to accompany our historian in his researches into the patriarchal age. It will, in most cases at least, settle his mind on subjects respecting which he ought to have some decided opinion before he investigates the history and religion of the antediluvians and their immediate successors; and though the author's reasoning should fail to carry conviction to every mind, the reader will at least understand the principles on which the work is written. For our own part we have been at once gratified, instructed, and convinced. But it is to the work itself that we are chiefly anxious to introduce our readers; premising, however, that the limits within which we are of necessity confined, leave us no hope of being able to present an adequate view of its value and importance. Mr. Smith has followed the plan which he carried out with so much success in his "Religion of Ancient Britain,”—that of introducing, at the close of his historical investigation of each of the periods discussed, a chapter on the religion of that period. For us this plan has great attractions. It imparts variety to the narrative, and, consequently, relief to the student. It is calculated to shed light over many of the incidents and circumstances which have been previously brought under consideration, and frequently accounts, in a satisfactory manner, for the emergent actions of individuals and communities. Indeed, no history of any age, but especially of a remote one, can be considered complete, which does not give prominency to its religion. We give another part of the author's plan in his own language :— In referring to the various works which the author had occasion to quote, he had to choose between giving the substance of those extracts in his own language, or citing the very words of the writers themselves. He was strongly advised by some literary friends to adopt the former course, as a means of preventing those frequent alternations of style, and breaks in the narrative and argument, which must necessarily result from the other. After mature consideration, it has, however, been decided to submit to these inconveniences, and act upon the plan of citing from all the important treatises which have been consulted, either in the exact phraseology employed in them, or in approved translations. The principal reason for preferring this mode has been, that it pre sents to the reader, in all their integrity, the authorities on which any reliance has been placed; and thus affords every one the means of judging of their value, and appreciating their true character, to an extent that would have been impossible if their substance had been incorporated into the narrative, and a mere reference to the authorities had been made at the foot of the page. Although the adoption of this course may render the volume less acceptable to some persons, it is hoped that this defect, if such it be, is more than counterbalanced by its deriving from the same cause, notwithstanding its limited size, the character of a cyclopædia of all that is certainly known of the history and religion of that early period. (Pages vii, viii.) We agree with Mr. Smith that this arrangement greatly enhances the value of the work. If he had given the substance of his quotations in his own language, with only a marginal reference to the several works, the necessity of consultation would not have been obviated, and the student would still have been obliged to procure a large number of rare, valuable, and, consequently, expensive works: as it is, however, we have the opinion of these writers fairly and accurately recorded; and though there are, in consequence, occasional "alternations of styles," we have failed to perceive those "breaks in the narrative and argument" to which the author refers. The judgment and skill with which the quotations are interwoven into the work have truly surprised us, and we have little doubt that the great majority of Mr. Smith's readers will heartily thank him for acting upon this plan. We may add, that, having collated several of the quotations with the originals, we can speak with confidence as to the scrupulous fidelity and accuracy with which they are adduced. This is a characteristic on which, in historical works especially, we cannot set too high a value. Mr. Smith's arrangement of the subjects discussed in the several chapters is clear and comprehensive. The first chapter, on "The Creation of the World and of Man," is written with judgment and ability, and displays extensive research into ancient literature. The writer occasionally rises with his subject, and produces passages of great strength and eloquence. Speaking, for instance, of the insufficiency of human reason to discover the origin of the world, Mr. Smith refers to the failure of the Greeks in the following language : If ever a people were placed by Providence in circumstances which warranted the hope that they would evince superhuman powers of understanding, the Greeks were that favoured community. Yet even their gigantic intellectual efforts failed to elicit the elementary truth now under consideration. They were ignorant of creation. They did not perceive the possibility of any other change than one of form, and the giving a new mould to pre-existent materials. This was the plague-spot of their entire philosophy. It was this that shed the |