is meant to prove the truth of Ezekiel's prediction of 390 years, and may serve as a register of time, from that noted epoch, the feparation of the two kingdoms." Pref. p. 6. &c.

On the plan and execution of this work, it is judged expedient to fuggeft a few curfory remarks.

1. USHER'S admirable system, assigning a false date both for the creation, and for the vulgar era, takes four historical years from the age of the world, and by the fame quantity anticipates the true year of our Lord's birth. Thus the interval, which comprehends 4008 aftronomical years, is reduced to 4000.

To give, if poffible, the figure of scientifical precifion to a mutilation fo violent, the Primate was obliged to retrench four years from the reigns between David and the 11th year of Zedekiah. Hence the chronology of the Annals, erroneous in the beginning, middle, and end, forfeits every claim to the character of an accurate and infallible directory, for the interval.

THE great Sir Ifaac Newton, projecting a well proportioned and durable fabric, had not the precaution to clear away the rubbish of the old building, before he laid the new foundation. For this reafon, certain imperfections, inherent in the compofition of the ANNALS, are derived to the CHRONOLOGY of ancient Kingdoms AMENDED.

MR. Falconer, not fufpecting fundamental overfights in the principles affumed by his predeceffors, and eager to reach the conclufion of his work, tranfports his

readers,

426 FALCONER'S Chronological Tables.

、readers, at once, into the very center of his subject,
like Homer in the very opening of his poem,

Semper ad eventum festinat; & in MEDIAS RES
Non fecus ac notas Auditorem rapit.—

But to the grand event he speeds his course,
And bears his readers with impetuous force,
Into the MIDST OF THINGS.

HOR.

FRANCIS.

To ascertain the true date of Solomon's acceffion, it is neceffary, that Usher's radical mistake, in connecting the first year of historical time with the number of the Julian Period 710, inftead of 706, be rectified.

FROM the creation to the demife of David, the intermediate space is 2991 aftronomical years, the laft incomplete, at his death. Solomon's reign is therefore dated from the Hebrew month Nifan, A. M. 2991; to this fum add the antemundane numbers of the Julian Period, 705, and the first of Solomon coincides with A. P. J. 3696. In the 40th of his reign he died, and that year, as incomplete, is accounted the firft of Rehoboam. From the 39th, therefore, of Solomon exclusively, are the 390 years of forbearance with the apoftate tribes computed:

OBVIOUS is the incongruity of Usher's notations for the number of the Julian Period, and the years before the vulgar era. Falconer does not follow him implicitly, year by year, and deviates so much farther from truth, by injudicious correction.

THE true quantity of the interval from the 39th of Solomon, to the 11th of Zedekiah, excluding both, is a problem easy of solution. It is divided into three periods, as in the fubjoined scheme.

1. Revolt of x Tribes. 2.The two thrones vacant. 3.Reduction of Samaria.

Rehoboam

Abijah

Afa

Jehoshaphat 24 Uzziah

Hezekiah

6

93

165

132

IN col. 1. the 41ft of Afa, and 25th of Jehoshaphat

are, as current, accounted feverally the firft of the

subsequent

fubfequent reigns. Thus are the 95 years of this first period reduced to 93 and 93+165+132=390, the laft of this number ending fome time in the fourth Hebrew month of the xth of Zedekiah. This prince was taken into cuflody, and transported one full year, after the ultimate term of the Divine patience with the offending house of Ifrael.

IT has been noted, that Ufher affigns but 4000 years from the creation to the true historical year of the Incarnation, and that this number is deficient by eight years. Of thefe 4 have been reftored by transferring the date of the creation from the 710th to the 706th of the Julian Period. The Primate retrenches the 23d and 24th of Jehoshaphat, the 40th of Jehoafh, and the 16th of Ahaz, not only without authority, but in direct contradiction to every criterion of hiftorical truth. Thus are the 390 prophetical years either reduced to 386, or their expiration brought four years lower than their defined period. But be thefe four years reftored to the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, and Ahaz, then chronology will perfectly accord with hiftory, the true year of our Lord's birth with A. M. 4004, and the Vulgar computation with 4008. Thus far concerning thofe arrangements, which affect the Sacred History alone. It remains to examine

2. THE fynchronifms of the Sacred and Gentile Hiftory. In his advertisement Mr. Falconer notes, "Whether we adopt the extended calculations of Eratofthenes, or those more contracted by Sir I. Newton, the fcripture history is equally diftinct from the profane;

and

and the taking of Troy, wherever it is placed, has no reference to the Jewish history, or any of the kingdoms connected with it."

THIS pofition is rather bold than juft. If it be fufceptible of a good meaning, penetration, in no common degree, is requifite to make the difcovery. The Scripture History is diftinct from the Profane, because the records of both are distinct. But if those records which contain an account of the kings in Judah and Ifrael fuggeft plain intimations of affinity with the royal family of Tyre, and of a famine in Ifrael and Phoenicia, in the reigns of the contemporary princes Ahab and Ethbaal, it feems ftrange to affirm, that the annals of Tyre have no reference to the Jewish history. Should it appear, from any record, not formally proved to be a counterfeit, that Troy was overthrown in the archonship of Meneftheus, an Athenian magiftrate, coexiftent with Jehoshaphat in Judah, the man who would affert, that fuch an event had no reference to the history of the Jews or Athenians, might justly be fufpected of sceptical infatuation.

FROM various, arbitrary and equivocal, pofitions of Herodotus, and other authorities, equally controvertible, this writer poftulates, that Troy was demolished in the 12th of Rehoboam, which year he marks in parallelifm with A. P. J. 3754, and before the vulgar era 960. These notations, however, indicate the 18th of that reign; or the 60th year prior to the 18th of Jehoshaphat. That arrangement has not the recommendation of one decifive fynchronism; this of Sir I. Newton

derives