42 
edition of his book came out in successive volumes. During the publication 
of this edition, it was reviewed by a very able critic, who brought as an objec- 
tion to the doctrine, the impossibility of supposing that the divarication of 
races could have taken place in so short a time as is allowed by the usual 
chronology. In a long and learned note, Dr. Prichard goes into the question 
of what is the value of that chronology. Now, Dr. Prichard ranked as a 
physiologist among physiologists, as a philologist among philologists, and 
as a scholar among scholars ; and if any one will read the long note at the 
end of the fifth volume of his great work on the Physical History of Man , he 
will be impressed with Dr. Prichard’s thorough honesty and sincerity, and 
his strong desire to arrive at the truth. Dr. Prichard came to this 
conclusion— that while we may assign tolerably definite dates to the Exodus 
and the call of Abraham, yet if we interpret the antecedent records 
according to the usages of Eastern genealogies, there is no basis whatever 
for the received chronology ; and he finishes with this remarkable expression 
—more remarkable from its having been used thirty years ago : Beyond 
that event, we can never know how many centuries, may have elapsed since 
the first man clay received the image of God and the breath of life. Thau 
was the judgment of a most honest, religious, and conscientious man, given 
on the basis of scientific and scholarly investigation, thirty years ago, before 
the present question came up * (Hear, hear.) I do not say that I was 
not prepared, through having been Dr. Prichard’s intimate friend, associated 
with him in scientific inquiry, and asked by him to write a review of his 
work in the Edinburgh Review, for the results of later researches ; I was 
quite ready to accept them; but, on the other hand, I had no wish to 
accept and adopt them. I protest against the assumption that scientific men 
have entered upon the consideration of these subjects with any other than 
'”'Dr. Carpenter seems to be under the delusion that it is a kind of now 
discovery to theologians that the popular chronology will not hold water. 
I can assure him that this is a complete mistake, and theologians have 
long been aware of its difficulties, and of the uncertainty of the evidence 
on which it rests. Probably there is no writer of reputation who would, 
affirm that the so-called received chronology from the building ot solo- 
mon’s Temple upwards can be made out on a basis which will carry con- 
viction. It is notorious that we have three different systems of chronology 
in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek copies of the Bible respectively* mvo v- 
ing a large period of time ; and that the genealogical lists on which the popu- 
lar chronology is founded are not complete. As to the real interval of ime 
between the building of Solomon’s Temple and the creation of man, theo= 
looians hold the utmost variety of opinion. As scientific men would object 
t0 & be credited with popular opinions about science, and to be made respon- 
sible for them, so theologians ask at their hands that they will not credit 
them with the popular opinions about chronology. As also it is tar trom 
being the case that every person who volunteers to write on scientific subjects 
is a scientific man, so let not scientific men assume that every one who 
attempts to handle theological subjects is a theologian.— |_Rev. rreb. O. A. 
Row, M.A.] 
