Page:Essays ethnological and linguistic.djvu/224

212 have, even in the present day, repeated this error, notwithstanding the labours of Dr. Hales, Bishop Russell, and others, who have so satisfactorily refuted it. Referring to these eminent writers for a full exposition of the correct dates, it is unnecessary here, in the sequel of this work, to enter into the subject further than to advert to their conclusions. From these it results, that the period which had elapsed between the creation of man and the advent of our Saviour, was of about 5500 years. With these conclusions I presume to differ only so far as to believe that it should have been estimated several centuries longer. Some of the best authorities cited by Bishop Russell, in his excellent work on the "Connection of Sacred and Profane History," such as St. Cyprian, Origen, Ambrose and others (vol. I. p. 113), declare the age of the world at the advent to have been nearer 6000 years. Beyond these, a due consideration of the events narrated in the Mosaic history will show, that the respected chronologists above mentioned have not allowed sufficient time for several important periods; as, for instance, that of the Israelites sojourning in Egypt. For this period they have allowed only 250 years instead of 430, for which they might have reasonably adopted the statements bearing that construction rather than the other. Conformably also with the probabilities of the case, the weight of authority seems to be in favour of the longer period; for we cannot in reason suppose the family of Jacob, consisting of about 150 souls when entering Egypt, to have increased, in less than about 400 years, to the numbers detailed of the twelve tribes at the exode, according to ordinary rules. We have no ground to suppose that their numbers were increased by proselytism or other extraordinary means, so that the slightest consideration of the experience we have of this question will suffice to show which estimate should be adopted. Difficulties may be suggested on both sides; but where authorities differ, we are warranted in adopting the conclusion supported also by the laws of Nature, as most consistent with reason.

These questions, however, are here only incidentally referred to, in exemplification of the assertions made in this work of prevailing errors, which require repeated confutation. Notwithstanding the labours of the learned chronologists above mentioned, the errors they have refuted continue to be repeated in new editions of the Scriptures, so as to render it necessary for every opportunity to be taken of calling for their correction. It is little creditable to this age to have writers, eminent by their position and abilities, assenting, so constantly, as we find them doing, to an exploded system of chronology as if it were unquestionable. But the evil is still greater when we find others,