Religious Tract Society’s Commentary on the Bible, from Henry and Scott. Mr. Clinton also very properly defends the right _interpretation_ of the passage; for he says, “some modern writers have very unreasonably doubted this portion of the Hebrew chronology;” see “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. page 299. Footnote 23: The following is the passage as written by Origen, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. John:—γέγραπται γὰρ έν τῃ τρίτῃ τῶν βασιλειων, ὡς ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ ξύλα τρισὶν ἔτεσιν· ἐν δὲ τῳ τεταρτῳ ετει, μηνι δευτέρῳ, βασιλεύοντος τοῦ βασιλέως Σολομὼντος ἐπὶ Ισραήλ, ἐνετείλατο ὁ βασιλέυς, κ.τ.λ.; which reads thus:—_It is written in the third [book] of Kings, so they prepared stones and timber for three years; and in the fourth year, in the second month, of the reign of King Solomon over Israel, the king commanded, &c._ 1 Kings v. 18; and vi. 1. Footnote 24: Mr. Cuninghame’s remarks on Usher’s system, in his “Synopsis of Chronology,” pp. 18–20, are very appropriate. We are forced to abridge them as follows:—“I have in my former works, shown that the learned prelate’s Chronology of this period is _manufactured_; and in this conclusion I have the support of the most eminent writers, including the names of Hales, Kennicott, Dr. Russell, Mr. Clinton, added to the whole of the ancient chronographers. The latest attempt made to prop up or patch his system as a whole, is that of the author of the Chapter on Chronology, in the last edition of Mr. Bickersteth’s _Guide to the Prophecies_. But while this learned chronographer thus sets his seal to the almost _exact truth_ of Usher’s _sum total_ of years, he no less sets his seal to the fact that Usher has _filled up_ the period by a _false chronology_. According to this learned writer, it is therefore undeniable that Usher’s chronology of the period from the Exodus to the first of Solomon is, as to its _particulars_, manufactured and erroneous. Now it is quite a fair question to Mr. Bickersteth and his friend, to ask them by what arithmetical process they have found out that the scheme which they thus bear testimony to be _false_ as to its _particulars_, is yet _true_ as to its _sum total_. Is it a newly discovered principle that many falsehoods make one truth? As to the scheme of particulars substituted for that of Usher in these tables, it is like that of the learned prelate himself, utterly opposed to the narrative and testimony of the book of Judges. There is one part of the scheme, however, which merits even more severe animadversion. The author of the Table makes the period in Acts xiii. 20, expire at the return of the ark from Kirjathjearim. Are we then to conclude that he has clipped down St. Paul’s 450 to 350? I can see no other mode of explaining his calculation.” Footnote 25: