ing from the first autumn after Ezra's coming to Jerusalem, when he put the king's decree into execution, the death of Christ will fall on the year of the Julian period 4747, A. D. 34, and the weeks will be Judaic weeks, ending with sabbatical years; and this I take to be the truth: but if you had rather place the death of Christ in the year before, as is commonly done, you may take the year of Ezra's journey into the reckoning." Here, then, Sir Isaac, by taking the year of Ezra's journey into the reckoning, expressly admits the legitimacy of the principle of calculating as I have done by current time; and he sees in it not one of the dangerous consequences of unhinging all the chronology of Scripture history, and other evils, which Mr Faber fears from its introduction. Now, as I presume no one will question the competency of Sir Isaac Newton to judge and decide in a matter of chronology, I do not mean to add one word more on the subject, except for the purpose of remarking, that Ferguson the astronomer has, upon scientific principles, shown that our Lord's death did take place in the year 4746 of the Julian period. "The dispute among chronologers (he observes) about the year of Christ's death, is limited to four or five years at most. But as we have shown that he was cruci * Observ. on Daniel. fied on the day of a Paschal full moon, and on a Friday, all that we have to do in order to ascertain the year of his death is only to compute on which of those years there was a passover full-moon on a Friday."—" And I find by calculation, that the only passover full-moon that fell on a Friday for several years before or after the disputed year of the crucifixion, was on the 3d April, in the 4746th year of the Julian period, which was the 490th year after Ezra received the above-mentioned commission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, according to Ptolemy's ca non.” * Since, then, Sir Isaac Newton has pinned down the Nisan of the seventh of Artaxerxes to the year 4257 of the Julian period, and Ferguson the astro. nomer has also shown that our Lord suffered in the year of the same period, 4746, it follows, as already observed, that the seventy weeks, or 490 years, must be computed precisely on the same principle as I have reckoned the 1260 years, i. e. by current time. I shall only remark further, that as Mr Faber expresses a fear, that to compute by current time would unhinge all chronology, I greatly marvel that a person so acute as Mr Faber has failed to discover that his own mode of reckoning by complete time is quite as inconsistent with strict chronological accu *Brewster's Ferguson's Astronomy, vol. I. p. 464. racy as that of computing by current time. Let us, for example, suppose a series of ten sovereigns to reign in succession over a particular empire, each for ten years and a fraction, and that the mean fraction were six months, the result is, 10×10=105 years, as the exact duration of the reigns of the whole ten. Now, according to Mr Faber's principle of complete time in a popular historical narrative, the fractions would be left out, and the reign of each sovereign would be simply said to be ten years, 10 × 10=100. On this principle, then, the apparent duration of the whole ten reigns would be only one hundred years. years. If, upon the other hand, we reckon by current time, each reign would be considered as one of eleven years, 10 x 11110, so that the sum total would be one hundred and ten years. Thus, either principle when applied to popular historical narrative is equally far removed from astronomical accuracy; and how to reconcile with such accuracy the chronology of history prior to the era of Nabonassar, when the principles of astronomical observations and the phenomena of eclipses were first applied to the chronological elucidation of history, is a question equally difficult to solve, whether we reckon by past or by current time. I beg leave to observe, in concluding my remarks on Mr Faber's reasoning, that having, under the impulse of a sense of duty, recorded in these pages the reasons of my dissent from the learned author's prophetic scheme, should he honour this tract with any public notice, I do not pledge myself to reply, or to continue the controversy. Finally, should I have either misunderstood or overlooked any thing material in Mr Faber's arguments, I beg leave to assure him that it has been done unintentionally. It remains for me to observe, in conclusion, that, while these pages are passing through the Press, an awful crisis of our national affairs has arrived, and the Protestant Constitution of these realms is passing away. What may be the issue of this crisis, it is impossible for human wisdom to divine: but I myself believe it to be a part of the last great earthquake which has been held since the close of the French Revolutionary war, and which I doubt not is about, at no distant period, with new violence to shake, and convulse, and agonize, and bury in its ruins, the whole fabric of the Political and Ecclesiastical institutions of Christian Europe. MARCH 20th, 1829. CONTENTS. The Fundamental Principles of Mr Faber's Chronology of the Seven Prophetic Times, or Two thousand five hundred and Page. The Principles of Mr Faber's Chronology of the Latter Three Times and a Half, or the Twelve Hundred and Sixty Years of Daniel and St John, examined; and his Argument, that the unanimous recognition of the Papal Power, by the Ten Mr Faber's Argument against the Principle of computing the |