exercise prescribed to him, by finding conferve of rofes and coltsfoot-tea joined to it: notwithstanding which we are told - his fever and fits went on confuming him till he died.' We are advifed, p. 173, that in an inflammation of the tefticle at cough ought to be fhunned, which would be a most useful direction, could it always enable us to fhun it. We read of a patient from a fracture, p. 180,, that there was not any altera tion upon him, no new fymptoms, convulfions, or pally upon any part, no inflammation or fwelling upon his eyes. This reminds us of another northern application of this particle, viz. Mr. A. is to be married upon Mrs. B. which fome may think more defenfible than Mrs. B's being married upon Mr. A; though this expreffion is alfo ufed. The word got is in high credit with our Author. Thus one got a purge, one got a vomit, one got a blooding, one got a blifter, &c. and many who were to be patients, though nameless, undoubtedly got a venereal difafter. The Doctor, in his own cafe never got paffage but with an injection, which word he constantly uses for a glyfter, though this laft word fhould be retained, to dif tinguish it from fuch injections as are applied to different parts. In the fame cafe, p. 188, the Doctor tells us, his head was carried, for which we fhould fay, he was light-headed. We are told, p. 216, of a patient in the fmall-pox, who was allowed wine, that he agreed with it.'-by which we hear he did not quarrel with his good liquor, and understand it did not disagree with him. Many other fuch idioms, which found very uncouthly here, occur much too often throughout this performance, and give too much colour to thofe whofe feverity may exceed their judgment, to treat the whole as mean or trivial. For our own part, we can truly aver, we should have been better pleafed with the abfence of thefe blemishes, than we can be with felecting this fample of them, tho' we think ourselves oblig'd to mention it. At the fame time we are not unmindful of that decent appearance the doctor had hitherto made in the Republick of letters; and we are confcious of having confider'd his prefent work with all that candour to which a candid writer has an equitable claim. His general ftyle will appear fufficiently from our citations in it. K Chronographie Afiaticæ et Ægyptiaca fpecimen. In quo—1 Origo Chronologia LXX Interpretum inveftigatur:-2. Confpectus totius Operis exhibitur. 8vo. 2s. 6d. fewd. Cooper. AVING had a former occafion+ to take notice of the Himportance of chronology to hiftory, and the neceff.ry + See Review Vol. xi. p. 380. rela relation they have to each other; let it fuffice at present to obferve, that the perplexities attending chronological researches are evident from the uncertainty we are ftill in with refpect to the precife dates of the moft remarkable tranfactions that have occurred in the earlier ages of the world, notwithstanding the endeavours of fo many refpectable writers that have heretofore traverfed this path of literature. That our author has devoted much time and attention to chronological enquiries, may reasonably be prefumed, from the account he gives of his former productions: the favourable reception they met with from the learned, he says, has induced him to profecute his labours on the fame fubject. His plan is copious and extenfive; it commences from the creation*, and undertakes to ascertain all the most memorable epochas for the space of 5500 years fucceeding. As this is a period wrapt up in the greateft obfcurity, if our author's execuction is but equal to his engagement, his work muft undoubtedly be a very acceptable prefent to every friend of learning.-Himfelf fhall declare the nature and extent of his arduous undertaking. In hoc opere veram et indubiam chronologiæ LXX interpretum originem inveftigavimus; antiquitates Chaldæorum, Thefe publications were all in English, but not having had an opportunity of feeing either of them, we have fubjoined the author's own account of them in his own words. The firft appeared twenty-two years ago; and in the prefent pamphlet is entitled • Differtatiuncula de h ftoria Ariftex circa verfionem fcripturæ facræ ex • Hebræo in formonem Græcum per LXX interpretes. In eâ, de fince ་ ritate et authoritate, quam hiftoria illa præ fe fert, fufe differuimus; objectiones adverfariorum diluimus; eorumque viciffim errores retexuimus.'-The fecond was published two years afterwards under a title thus tranflated. Critica examinatio evangeliorum S Matthæi et S Lucæ de anno natali Domini et Salvatoris noftri Jefu 'Chrifti: in qua demonftramus quod Jefus Chriftus natus fit 25to Decembris, anno urbis Rome condite 750; anno æræ Nabonafari 745; annoque Olymp. 194'-In 1741, Differtatio de Chronologia LXX Interpretum: In qua probamus, quod, fecundum rationes • veterum Hebræorum effluxerint ab orbe condito ad Chrißum natum anni 5500.'-In 1747, Supplementum ad Differtationem de chronologia LXX interpretum : ad examen revocavimus antiquitates veterum Græcorum et Sinarum : Epochas eorum celebriores ad annos mundi • fecundum LXX interpretes reduximus; multofque cum veterum tum ⚫ recentiorum de eis errores correximus.' The title of the general work is Chronographia Afiatica et Ægyptiaca ab Orbe condito ad Chriftum natum per annos 5500, ad fidem fcriptorum vetuftiffimorum reftituta et illuflrata. Digerente CAROLO PHILOPO. 5 • Affy • Affyriorum, Medorum, Babyloniorum, et Perfarum, ad examen revocavimus; Laterculos regum iftarum gentium fe<cundum ordinem temporis, quo finguli imperarunt, difpofuimus; et ex omnibus unam continuam regum in hac vel illa gente feriem à difperfione gentium ad folutam à CYRO captivitatem Babylonicam contexuimus, et cum antiquitatibus veterum Hebræorum contulimus. Porro, doctrinam veterum Ægyptiorum de Mestraim five Mifraim primo gentis conditore, et fuccefforibus ejus in Ægypto inferiori per 25 generationes; de Mene primo coloniarum ád loca interiora Egypti duce, regni Thebani • conditore et 38 fuccefforibus ejus; de triginta dynaftiis Manethonis; de regibus paftoribus qui fubegerunt Tanim et • Memphim; de peregratione filiorum Ifrael in Ægypto primò fub regibus paftoribus, et dein fub indigenis per 215 annos; doctrinam, inquam, veterum Egyptiorum de hifce atque fimilibus, ex fragmentis hiftoricis quæ adhucdum fuperfunt, rejectis omnibus recentiorum conjecturis et hypothefibus, eruimus, explicuimus, et ad fua quæque loca et tempora reduximus; eorumque denique omnium plane mirandum cum • antiquitatibus Hebraicis, Chaldaicis, Affyriacis, Medicis, Babylonicis et Perficis confenfum et harmoniam demonftra• vimus. In his autem ad harmoniam redigendis nullas bypo thefes fingimus; nullas interpolationes admittimus; teftimoniis veterum unicè adhæremus. §. It may well be prefumed that such a defign could not be executed within a very narrow compafs; our author acknowledges his work to have grown to fuch a fize, that it cannot be carried thro' the prefs at a moderate expence, which he declares to be his motive for fubmitting this fpeci-. men to the judgment of the learned, and according to their approbation or cenfure the fate of the whole is to be determined. That we may contribute, as far as lies within the influence of the Review, to the laudable purpose of our truly learned and very induftrious author, we fhall lay before our readers the purport of what he has now offered to the public. The difference that appears between the Hebrew text, and the feptuagint verfion in computing the ages of the antedi. luvian patriarchs, and their fucceffors to the birth of Abraham, a difference of 1380 years, and the further difagree The above extract is printed exactly according to the original, and is intended to ferve allo as a fpecimen of our author's ftyle. ment ment of Jofephus with either, has occafioned much confufion in the chronology of thofe early times, and has been employed as a kind of artillery to deftroy the veracity of the S S and confequently to invalidate the evidence in favour of christianity. To reconcile these accounts is the professed intention of our author, which he attempts in the following manner. He contends, contrary to the opinion of many well received writers on the fame fubject, that this difagreement is not occafioned by accident, negligence, or defign; and produces feveral ftrong and unimpeachable evidences in fupport of the fubfequent affertions.-ift, That, according to Jofephus, the Jews were poffeffed of hiftorical memoirs relative to themfelves exclufive of the Hebrew fcripture, or the Greek verfion, called the feptuagint.-2d, That in the books employed by Jofephus in compiling his antiquities, the ages of the patriarchs were not described in the fame manner as in the Hebrew text or in the Greek verfion.-3d, That Jofephus in his antiquities has not described the ages of the patriarchs agreeably to the Hebrew or Greek text, but has adhered folely to the books given him by Titus Cæfar after the deftruction of the second temple.-4th, That the books made use of by Jafephus began from the creation, and contained the hiftory of 5000 years.-5th, That the hiftorical memoirs employed by Jofephus, were in the cuftody of the priests when the feventy tranflated the Hebrew into Greek,--6th, That the greater credit is due to Jofephus from his fteady adherence to the original materials with which he was furnished.-7th, That the Jews, till the deftruction of the fecond temple, had two methods of computing time; one myftical or prophetical, the other natural and hiftorical.-8th, That the myftical or prophetical computation was made ufe of only by Mofes and the prophets, nor was it permitted to communicate it to the vulgar, or employ it in any fecular purposes.-9th, That the natural and historical reckoning began from the creation, and according to Jofephus, comprehended the space of 5,000 years, to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus.-10th, That, whereas the ages of the patriarchs are calculated in Jofephus according to the natural computation, and taken from the antient writings that came accidentally to his hands; it may be concluded that the ages of the patriarchs in the feptuagint version (which for the most part agree with Jofephus) were determined from the hiftorical memoirs of the priests extant in the library of the temple built by Nehemiah.-11th, That the difagreement between Jofephus and the feptuagint, principally may have proceeded from the former's having made ule of lefs correct materials than the latter, and that it is not improbable that the more correct copies might have perifhed or been loft before the deftruc deftruction of the fecond temple.-12th, That the difference between the Hebrew text and Greek verfion does not arife from the corruption of either one or the other, but only from Mofes's having used the mystical and prophetical numbers, and the Greek tranflators the natural and hiftorical numbers; as more agreeable to the cuftom of other nations.* Such is our author's folution of this chronological difficulty, whether it will be deemed fatisfactory we fhall not take upon ourselves to determine. If an apparent honeft intention, an uncommon portion of learning, and the ftrongest proofs of affiduous application to the fubject are not fufficient recommendatiors, any thing we might think proper to add in favour of this undertaking muft be ufelefs.Some apology however is due to the author and the public for the delay of this article; and to confefs the truth, the best we can make is a bad one it was committed to the care of a gentleman whofe avocations from the bufinefs of reviewing are many, and whofe indolence is but too frequently prevalent. A word more to our author before we take leave: it is recommended to him to revife his figures: the fubdivifion of the fecond period, page 96 is calculated to comprehend the fpace of 1147, but which upon examination makes 100 years more. From the flood to the defection of Nimrod is calculated at From the defection of Nimrod to the difperfion years. 493 40 714 1247 We do not undertake to rectify the error, but that there is one is very evident, and as this is the bafis, fhould it be unfound, the fuperftructure must fall. This fpecimen is followed by a view of the whole work, comprizing a copious and accurate table of contents; but as an abridgement of this would be an abfurdity, and as the whole is by far too long for our infertion, we must refer the curious to the original. We have not given a literal tranflation of our author, as it would have extended the article to a greater length than our limits could afford. L N. B. The Foreign Books are deferred untill next month. MONTHLY |