Clinton says, “he supposed to be included in the years of _Saul_.” We do not agree with Mr. Clinton in this point; we think the passage bears evident marks that he had the separate period of Samuel in his mind; particularly, from his cunning “interim seponamus,”—“_let us pass in the mean time_.” In fact, he only pretends to forget it; for he knew that if he had added it, along with the periods of Joshua and Saul, he would have had the correct number at once, namely, 612 years! His accommodation to the spirit of the age in which he lived, by the insertion of the Hebrew chronology of this period in his Tables, instead of the Septuagint or ancient chronology which he has so clearly established by Apostolical tradition, exhibits a degree of vacillation and imbecility wholly unworthy the character of an able historian and chronographer, and quite unbecoming an ardent advocate of the Truth. We have sufficiently refuted this chronology in our _first Part_; and it is unnecessary to go over the same arguments, or attempt to strengthen them by the admissions of our opponents. Suffice it to remark that the Hebrew intervals of Eusebius amount only to 479 years, instead of 480 years, which it ought to reach according to 1 Kings vi. 1, and that even the Hebrew intervals of Usher amount only to 478½ years, p. 68; and although these amounts differ only by half a year, the details of their intervals exhibit a very surprising difference. Thus, Eusebius allows 27 years to Joshua and the Elders, Usher _none_, with the exception of 6⅓ years for the war and the division of the land; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Gideon at 40 years, Usher at 49⅙ years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Tolah at 22 years, Usher at 23 years;[106] Eusebius omits the Critarchate of Ibzan 10 years, and of Samuel 12 years; Usher admits the former, and reckons the latter 21 years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Samson 20 years, and Usher omits it altogether. Eusebius and Usher are indeed very fit authors to be classed together: both no doubt pious men and exemplary Christians; but both too much given to yield to the pressure of the times as historiographers and chronographers; and too much influenced by the bold assertions of the Jews respecting the immaculate purity of the Hebrew Text.