and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (Acts ii. 9-11).-Hence these points present no difficulty to the patriarch having survived the dispersion; and, if I mistake not, this supposition is infinitely more consistent than to refer the whole time of his ministry to an age when the postdiluvian church was in a state of pristine purity, as in the case of the protracted supputations.

I will conclude these observations with a very apposite remark, communicated to me by a learned friend, on the perusal of this part of Mr. Cuninghame's Essay. "Several fragments of the heathen writers represent even Noah, and particularly his sons, wandering about to visit the different nations after the dispersion." Such appears to have been the fact, whatever were the heathen authorities for the assertion, from its consistency with the ministerial office of Noah, and of Shem, to whom his mantle descended (Gen. ix. 26), and with the unsettled lives of the prophets of the house of Abraham (Psal. cv. 13-15).

As to the alleged anomaly of the long-lived patriarchs, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber, having been co-existent with so remote a descendant as the patriarch Abraham, and some of them even with Isaac and Jacob, this possesses as little foundation as all the rest of Mr. Cuninghame's objections. In the first place, the lives of the patriarchs in question were all nearly double the length of those who came between Eber and Abraham in the times of the dispersion of mankind. But, whatever system we adopt, the procreating periods of the patriarchs of both classes were the same: hence all the difference lies in the residues; and, had the lives been of nearly equal duration, their deaths would have fallen in natural succession, whatever system of generations is adopted. A double residue implies a long survivorship, in our own times as well as the patriarchal. Should the age of a man now exceed a century, he will, in the course of nature, survive his sons, and probably his grandsons. It follows, that any system which, by lengthening the generations, makes the residues of both classes terminate in the order of birth, departs from the established course of nature, and must be as erroneous as it is inconsistent.

The mean of the lives of Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber is 445

* In the Hermaic Genesis, quoted by Sanchoniatho and Manetho, we find Cronus, and his three sons Osiris, Horus Senior or Apollo, and Typhon or Iapetus, both among the gods, or antediluvians, and the demi-gods, or postdiluvian patriarchs; and Cronus is represented as "going about the habitable world," through Babylonia, Phoenicia, Egypt, and Attica, founding cities and disposing of kingdoms. Such is the Hermaic version of the history of Noah and

his sons.

years *: the mean of those of Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah, is 212. But the generations of all, to the birth of Terah, are nearly equal, according to all the versions. The three first-mentioned patriarchs, accordingly, die in natural succession, and so do the five last. But those of the first class survive the latter (as the residues of their lives and the course of nature require), if the original Hebrew account be adopted; while the Greek and Samaritan systems, by destroying the survivorship, alike violate both nature and consistency.

Mr. Cuninghame's objection ought, therefore, rather to have been to the double lives and residues of the former patriarchs, whose generations are similar to those of the latter, than to their necessary survivorship. Wrong readings might have been inferred with as much propriety as in the cases of Terah's life and the 480 years of 1 Kings vi. 1 (Essay, p. 427); in both which instances the Hebrew and Greek give the same testimony. Even such a proceeding would have been more consistent than the rejection of the Hebrew on such grounds, alike opposed to the evidence of Scripture, of nature, and of reason.

The difficulty-if any difficulty exist-is, therefore, to account for the extraordinary difference in the duration of the life of man while the course of nature evinced in the times of tion remained unaltered, rather than to account for inevitable survivorships.

procrea

To this end, it seems only necessary to bear in mind that the longest lives all belong to the patriarchs of the Noachic church, as it existed previous to the dispersion and apostasy; while the shorter ones commence with Peleg, in whose days the dispersion and apostasy occurred, and all terminate before the Abrahamic church originated, which was in the very year of the death of Terah, the last of them. It has been already shewn that the long residues were not appropriated to the purposes of population, which did not require them, and are therefore to be otherwise accounted for. We have accordingly seen that that of Noah was devoted to preaching repentance to his apostate descendants, and we now behold the Noachic and Abrahamic churches connected by Shem, on whom the mantle of Noah

descended, and his three immediate descendants, who lived before the apostasy. We behold the chain of prophets unbroken, and a natural agency for the bringing up of Abraham in the true faith, amongst a nation and family of idolaters (Josh. xxiv. 2). For, according to the Hebrew text, the deaths of the four ancient patriarchs stood as follows: That of Arphaxad in the 88th year of Abraham, thirteen years after the call; that of Salah in the 18th year of Isaac's life; of Shem, in the 50th of Isaac ; and of Eber, in the 19th of Jacob, four years after the death of Abraham. If, on the other hand, we adhere to the Samaritan and Greek, all those personages died many centuries before, and for the most part, if not all, previous to the dispersion and apostasy (see the Table); thus breaking the chain of inspired persons, leaving their long residues unexplained, and destroying one of the most exquisitely beautiful features in the history of the Noachic and Abrahamic churches.

In further confirmation of these views, a powerful argument may be adduced from the appellative," Hebrew," applied to the people and language of Israel. We find the term first used in Gen. xiv. 13, where Abraham is denominated "the Hebrew;". a term which some learned men derive from the name of Eber, his sixth ancestor in ascent; while the majority, seeing no reason why Eber, rather than any of the intervening patriarchs, should have the distinction of giving his name to the posterity of Abraham, derive it from the Hebrew root y aber, "to pass over," because Abraham passed over the river Euphrates to come into the land of Canaan*. At first sight, it would certainly seem that Peleg, the head of the family of the dispersion from which Abraham was descended, had a better claim to have his name perpetuated in the house of that patriarch, than his father Eber, who was the head of a distinct family; and that some other derivation of the name "Hebrew" should be resorted to. I think, however, that Gen. x. 21 is conclusive for the derivation from Eber; for Shem is there styled "the father of all the children of Eber," plainly in reference to the chosen line of Israel, in which alone, of all the descendants of Isaac, of Abraham, of Terah, and of Eber, the name was perpetuated -a derivation, if it can be historically accounted for and explained, infinitely more conclusive than any critical etymology.

This last-mentioned etymology and explanation are adopted by Mr. Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 1, 2). Mr. Bellamy, who, in his "History of all Religions," adopts the same etymology, has applied it in a very beautiful and comprehensive manner; namely, with prospective reference to the Jewish Passover, and ultimately to "Our Passover," whereby God's promise to Abraham was fulfilled. This explanation is so satisfactory, that I think it may well be received, conjointly with the historical etymology, which the inspired record does not permit us to dispense with.

Here again the Hebrew account of time assists us: for we find that Shem and Eber survived the longest of any of the ancient patriarchs; the former to the fiftieth year of Isaac, and the latter to the nineteenth of Jacob, as above. But Eber was the youngest of the four ancient patriarchs, and, after the death of Terah and the vocation of Abraham, the next ancestor of the great patriarch, then in being: the house of Abraham were therefore in reality "the children of Eber," according to the literal language of Scripture and the system of the sacred genealogies. And hence Abraham is properly styled "the Hebrew," in Gen. xiv.: hence also Shem, who was still alive, became the immediate "father of all the children of Eber," his third descendant*: and when we reflect that these ancient patriarchs formed the link which connected the Noachic and Abrahamic churches, and that Jehovah is called "the God of Shem" (Gen. ix. 26), "the God of Abraham," "the God of Isaac," and "the God of Jacob," the sacred and historical connection is drawn still closert.

If, on the other hand, we adopt any of the protracted systems, we shall find that Shem and Eber died centuries before the house of Abraham had existence, and therefore, that the etymology of the name "Hebrew," and the appellative of Shem, set forth in Gen. x. 21, bear no relation to sacred history; while the Hebrew text is in these instances, as in all others, consistent with itself and with the whole tenor of the patriarchal annals.

There is a circumstance detailed in Gen. xlvii. 8, 9, which forcibly bears on the co-existence of the ancient patriarchs with the house of Abraham: "And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou? And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not

According to the Hebrew, Arphaxad died in the 88th year of Abraham, Salah in the 118th, Shem in the 150th, while Eber survived Abraham four years. It follows, that, as Eber was the geneological father, so Shem became the geneological grandfather of Abraham, during the thirty-two years which Shem survived Arphaxad and Salah.

I am here beholden to the same learned friend who directed my attention to the Heathen traditions of the wanderings of Noah, for an important illustration of the present subject. It is contained in a passage preserved from Molo, in the tenth book of Eusebius, de Pr. Evang.; which runs, that “after three generations from the person who was saved in the Deluge Abraham was born". μετα δε τρεις γενεάς ̓Αβρααμ γενεσθαι. This record is in strict harmony with the present result of the Hebrew numbers-Noah, Shem, Eber, Abraham; but has no bearing upon the patriarch's natural descent, his generation being the tenth from Noah.

The certainty that a more ancient and a superior order of priesthood did exist in Melchizedek, king of Salem, to whom Abraham paid tithes-whoever Melchizedek was-ought to satisfy us that the church on earth was always maintained by a succession of holy persons; and that the connection between the Noachic and Abrahamic churches was complete and unbroken, as the Hebrew system supposes.

attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage."

Here, I think, it is plain that Jacob's allusion to the longevity of his fathers cannot refer to the lives of his immediate ancestors, Abraham and Isaac, which were not widely different from his own; neither to remote ancestors, whose lives but little exceeded those of Abraham and Isaac, and who died before, or during the period of the dispersion of nations and settlement of states and kingdoms. But when we reflect that the long-lived patriarchs, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber, were the contemporaries of Abraham and Isaac, and Eber the contemporary of Jacob himself, the difficulty vanishes. Thus does the Hebrew system alone answer every condition to be found in patriarchal history.

From Jacob's communication to Pharaoh I also collect that the long lives of the priestly line of Shem were not common to the Egyptians and the rest of the world, and were common to that branch of Shem's posterity only from whence the house of Abraham descended. This, I think, further evinces that these lives had reference exclusively to the economy of God's church, and by no means to the natural economy of the universe, as the defenders of the Seventy infer. Further: ample proof has been already adduced to shew that the generations and lives of the house of Israel, during their sojourn in Egypt, were like those of other men in every age, with the exception only that the ravages of disease and death were withheld in an extraordinary degree from the chosen line during that interval (Exod. i. 19; Ps. cv. 37). As, however, the generations of the chosen race of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were protracted in an extraordinary manner, and against the course of nature, we find the same principle was continued in the priestly house of Levi, through Kohath and Amram, to Aaron and Moses; as well as in the favoured house of Judah, through Pharez, Hezron, Aram, and Amminadab, to Naashon, the prince of the tribe of Judah at the time of the exode; and further, through Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse, to David, when the nation and polity of the Israelities assumed a settled form. We again recognise lives much longer than the course of nature in the times of the captivity; as in the cases of Ezra, of Nehemiah, and of the priests who returned from Babylon*; in which I think the Divine economy for the more secure transmission of religion and truth is very apparent: while, reverting from these instances to the patriarchal ages, viewed through the medium of the Hebrew chronology, the prevalence of the very same economy may be recognised throughout every age of the patriarchal and Mosaic churches.

*See Newton's Chron. edit. 1728, pp. 358-360, 368. 150 years, and Nehemiah and many of the priests 120.

Ezra lived at least