According to their estimate of the extent of the different ages of the world up to this epoch, their respective dates, according to the preceding Tables will stand thus:— TABLE V. AGES OF THE JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. WORLD. CHRON. Years. Years. Years. Years. Years. 1st Age 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262 2nd Age 1068 1011 1015 1017 1145 3rd Age 430 645 430 430 430 4th Age 612 541 745 480 632 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— TO SOLOMON’S 4366 4439 4452 4169 4469 TEMPLE Had we corrected these dates on grounds already stated, and which by many would have been deemed sufficient, we could have shown a much nearer coincidence between them and the true date; but our object was to show what the details of the different authors really are as exhibited in their works now extant. It is satisfactory, however, to observe that the difference between the latter and either of the former, is very small, and in the case of the greatest magnitude, is very easily accounted for on the principle of Rabbinical authority and influence. The following remark of Mr. Clinton, p. 313, is much more in point than the former above cited; our only wonder is that he seems to think the extent of the period itself not sufficiently established: “This extended term of 612 years is inconsistent with the date in the Book of Kings (1 Kings vi. 1), which reckons the foundation of the Temple in the 4th year of _Solomon_ to be _in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt_. But the computation of Paul, delivered in a solemn argument before a Jewish audience, and confirmed by the whole tenor of the history in the Book of Judges, outweighs the authority of that date; and we may agree with Jackson and Hales in rejecting it.” To this he might have added, and we ought rather to agree with the whole Christian Church in adopting the extended period, than with the Jews, the persecutors and vilifiers of that Church, in adopting the curtailed period, and thus giving countenance to their interpolations of Scripture.