history of Livy, but we must hasten nearer home. Virgil and Livy pretty well agree, as far as regards Italy and the parentage of the Cæsars, but both unluckily forgot to account for the Trojan origin of the Britons-a defect which it was reserved for English romancers to supply. The original cause of this supplement to Livy and Virgil is thus beautifully developed by Ellis, in his preface to Way's translation of those fabliaux, which Le Grand had selected, modernized, and illustrated. After a description of chivalry, which, like Bracebridge Hall, is too good to be true, he thus continues:-" To the possession of all that sweetens life, religion added the promise of pure and unceasing happiness hereafter. The holy wars broke out and produced the golden age of chivalry; and the order of knighthood, endowed with all the sanctity and religious awe that attended the priesthood, became an object of ambition to the greatest sovereigns. At a time when chivalry excited universal admiration, and when all the efforts of that chivalry were directed against the enemies of religion, it was natural that literature should receive the same impulse, and that history and fable should be ransacked to furnish examples of courage and piety that might excite increased emulation." Arthur and Charlemagne were the two heroes selected for this purpose. Arthur's pretensions were that he was a brave, though not always a successful warrior-that he was certainly a Christian-that he had withstood with great valour the arms of the pagan Saxons, or, as the "Romans" with a want of tact which discovers their era call them, the Saracens-and that his memory was held in the highest respect by his countrymen, the Britons. They carried with them, into Wales and Armorica, the memory of his exploits, which their national vanity insensibly exaggerated till the little prince of the Silures was magnified into the conqueror of England, of Gaul, and indeed of all Europe.

(To be continued).

DEMAS.-BY MRS. ABDY.

"Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."-2 Tim. iv. 10.

My brother, my brother, I see thee depart,

And I mourn thy desertion in sadness of heart;

If duty's high mandate had drawn thee away,

My voice had sustain'd thee the call to obey:

But temptation's bright banner for thee is unfurl'd ;
Thou hast gone to the glittering tents of the world,
Thou hast stray'd from the paths in lov'd fellowship trod,
Forgetting thy people, forsaking thy God.

Apart from the haunts of the worldly we dwelt,
Affliction we bore, persecution we felt;

Yet dangers nor trials our faith could appal,

The peace of the Lord was our solace through all:
We gave the ungodly our warnings and prayers,

But we join'd not their revels, we turn'd from their snares;

And the world's fickle changes, its frown or its nod,
Were valued as dust by the people of God.

Thy share in this holy communion has ceas'd:
Thou shalt sit with the gay at the richly-spread feast;
Thou shalt hear the light jest of the thoughtless and vain,
And list to the harp and the singer's soft strain;
But think not that conscience shall silently sleep-
Her voice shall remind thee, in murmurings deep,
Of the ways where thy footsteps once happily trod,
Of the days when thy heart was devoted to God.

Ere long shall I cease to abide in the land,
The time of my summons I feel is at hand;
My perils are o'er, I have finish'd my course,
Deriving my strength from an infinite source:
The world's soft endearments I never have known,
But I griev'd not-the world ever clings to its own;
And I fear not death's terrors, nor shrink from his rod,
For my spirit would fain be at rest with my God.
Yet the world has still power my sad bosom to rend,
Since it holds thee in thraldom, my brother and friend:
Oh! place in the Lord thy dependence and trust,
And pleasure's vain idols shall crumble to dust;
Return to the peace of the Christian's calm track,
Return, and thy brethren shall welcome thee back;
And angels shall look from their blessed abode,
And joy to behold thee forgiven of God.

SACRED CHRONOLOGY.—No. II.

BY MRS. RILEY.

"The holy Scriptures have God for their author, salvation for their end and truth, without any mixture of error for their matter."-Locke.

In every system of historical chronology, the two grand eras of the creation of the world, and the nativity of Christ, have been usually adopted as standards, by reference to which all subordinate epochs have been adjusted. But Hales gives a list of one hundred and thirty chronologers, who date the era of creation from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C., differing so widely as 3368 years upon the same epoch. Usher places it 4004 B.C., but Hales 5411 B.C., thus adding 1407 years to the space of time antecedent to the Christian era. The leading date on which Hales's work was constructed, and by reference to which he "adjusted the whole range of sacred and profane chronology, was the birth of Cyrus, B.C. 599, which led to his accession to the throne of Persia, B.C. 559; of Media, B.C. 551; and of Babylonia, B.C. 536: for from these several dates, carefully and critically ascertained and verified, the several respective chronologies of these kingdoms branched off; and from the last especially, the destruction of Solomon's temple by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 586, its correcter date; which led to its foundation, B.C. 1027; thence to the Exode, B.C. 1648; to Abraham's birth, B.C. 2153; to the

reign of Nimrod, B.C. 2554; thence to the Deluge, B.C., 3155; and thence to the Creation, B.C. 5411." This date of the creation Hales obtained by the rectification of the systems of Josephus and Theophilus.

Hales divides sacred chronology into ten distinct epochs, extending from the creation of the world to the period when time shall merge in eternity; the first seven are those which include the Old Testament canon. The date at which Hales and Usher first coincide, is in the seventh period, at the return of the Jews from Babylon, on the decree of Cyrus, B.C. 536. Their most important differences are in the duration of the first and second periods, the former having six hundred years added to it, and the latter six hundred and fifty. The alterations throughout will be most plainly perceived by examining the comparative tables; and the reasons Dr. Hales adduces are subjoined as nearly as possible in his own words.

66

* The period of Abraham's birth is not precisely marked in the Scripture narrative, but Gen. xii. 4, describes him as being seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran." The marginal date affixed is 1921, and adding seventy-five to this, we gain 1996 as the period of his birth.

Respecting this period, Hales remarks, that "the removal of error is the first step towards the discovery of truth. Let us, therefore, proceed to examine carefully and critically the most ancient of those venerable documents which have survived the ravages of time, and are still extant in the records of the genealogies of the antediluvian patriarchs, Gen. v., and of the postdiluvian, Gen. xi.; for upon these every system of patriarchal chronology must necessarily be built."

"The first circumstance that strikes us on comparing these lists, as they are given in the Masorete and Samaritan Hebrew texts, in the Greek version of the Septuagint, and in Josephus (who was well acquainted both with the original Hebrew and with the Greek version), is a remarkable difference in the lengths of the successive generations, amounting to six hundred years; and which, it is evident, could not have originated from accident, but from premeditated design; for in the Hebrew, the centenary deficiencies in the lengths of the generations are added to the residues of the lives; whereas, in the Greek version, the centenary additions to the lengths of the generations are subducted from the residues of lives, so as to make the totals of lives equal. Thus, Adam's generation (or his age at the birth of Seth) is reckoned by the Masorete and Samaritan Hebrew texts, one hundred and thirty years; the residue of life, eight hundred years; and the total, nine hundred and thirty years: whereas, in the Septuagint and Josephus, the generation is enlarged to two hundred and thirty years; the residue of life diminished to seven hundred years; so as to make the total, nine hundred and thirty years, the same.'

"In the antediluvian genealogy, the centenary addition is still found in the sixth, eighth, and ninth generations of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. Had these been curtailed, like the rest, their lives would have extended beyond the deluge, contrary to Scripture: for, deducting their three centuries, the deluge would have happened in the year of the world 1356: consequently, had their three centuries been added to their residues of lives, like the rest, Jared would have survived the deluge sixty-six years; Methuselah two hundred years; and Lamech ninety-five years. Not daring, therefore, to shorten the lives of these three patriarchs, the Jews were forced to let the original amounts of their generations remain unaltered."

The motive which induced the Jewish writers to alter the patriarchal genealogies, was the vexation they experienced at finding their own Scriptures testified to the truth of Jesus as the predicted Messiah; not only bearing witness to his sufferings and death, but also confirming a prevalent tradition as to the actual time of his appearance. To contravene this tradition they altered their accustomed chronology from that of the Septuagint vulgate version; and were accused of this wilful perversion of facts by Epiphanius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Ephram Syrus, writers who lived at the time, or soon after the alleged alterations. * * (See No. 1, in amplification). The "Masoretic text" which Hales mentions, is supposed to be derived from the word Masorah, signifying tradition; and the Masoretic notes and criticisms relate to the books, verses, words, letters,

H

vowel points, and accents. "Concerning the value of the Masoretic system of notation, the learned are greatly divided in opinion; some have highly commended the undertaking, and have considered the work of the Masorites as a monument of stupendous labour and unwearied assiduity, and as an admirable invention for delivering the sacred text from a multitude of equivocations and perplexities to which it was liable, and for putting a stop to the unbounded licentiousness and rashness of transcribers and critics, who often made alterations in the text on their own private authority. Others, however, have altogether censured the design, suspecting that the Masorites corrupted the purity of the text, by substituting for the ancient and true reading of their forefathers, another reading more favourable to their prejudices, and more opposite to Christianity, whose testimonies and proofs they were desirous of weakening as much as possible."*

Following the authority of the Septuagint and Josephus, Hales has added one hundred years to the generations of six of the antediluvian patriarchs, and thus greatly extended the period between the creation and the deluge. His article "on the revision and comparison of the shorter Hebrew and longer Greek computations in the patriarchal genealogies," is very interesting throughout; and he closes the chapter with this remark: "The whole weight of antiquity and of the earliest Fathers of the Church, is decidedly in favour of the longer Greek computation, Origen and Jerome excepted; whose authority is more than compensated by that of the learned chronologers, Theophilus and Eusebius, who expressly applied themselves to the study, which the others only noticed casually or incidentally. We may, therefore, without hesitation, adopt the conclusion of Eusebius:

"Wherefore it is with reason that in our chronology we follow the version of the Septuagint; which was made, as it appears, from an ancient and uncorrupted Hebrew copy.'"

CHAPTERS ON POETS.

BY JOSEPH FEARN.

NO. II. ROBERT MONTGOMERY.

THE individual whose works are now lying before us, is a poet of no mean order; and while, probably, he is over-rated by the few, we cannot but think that he is under-rated by the many.

We have heard again and again the opinion expressive of aversion to a poem which appears to be a favourite with its author-we mean "Satan ;" and the perusal of it has, in many instances, deterred the reader from studying the other effusions of Montgomery's muse. We confess such has not been our case. But while (to say the truth) we turned with a degree of distaste from this pet production of the poet, we sought more refreshing and palatable provision, though fetched from the same store-house; and we were fortunate enough

Horne, voh ii., pp. 37-39.