The author then shows that in the first ages of Christianity, the Septuagint translation was esteemed a divine production; that by the citations made from it in the New Testament, it has received the stamp and seal of Christ and his Apostles, as a genuine and faithful witness of the truth; and that the ancient chronology of this version was reckoned authentic by the whole Christian Church till the ninth century. He next inquires into the authenticity of the chronological statements of profane historians, particularly among the Chinese and the Egyptians; and shows that the true and ancient records of these nations are wholly irreconcileable with the shorter chronology. Thus, the era of the Emperor Yao, according to the most authentic Chinese annals, is B. C. 2357; so that, according to the Hebrew chronology, even as expounded by Usher, he flourished _thirteen_ years before the flood! While, according to that of the Septuagint, he flourished in the ninth century after the flood, or _forty-one_ years after the division of the earth among the primitive founders of the nations.[9] The author next refutes some popular objections to the computation of the Septuagint, founded, _first_, on the supposed immaculate purity and miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text; _secondly_, on the supposed antiquity of the Chaldee paraphrasts, the Syriac version, and the Indian and Chinese copies of the Pentateuch; and _thirdly_, on the decree of the Council of Trent, in reference to the paramount authority of the Latin Vulgate. He concludes by offering some reasonable conjectures on the causes of the discrepancies in question; and, he shows that the early Fathers were generally of opinion that the Jews had violated and mystified the numbers of the sacred text, in order, to disturb and confuse the times which related to the Advent of the Messiah, and thereby to confute the Christians, by pretending to prove from that text, that Jesus Christ could not be the true Messiah, because he had appeared before the period predicted by the prophets, namely, the middle of the sixth millenary from Creation. Such is but a short and hasty sketch of one of the ablest treatises we have yet seen, on the Ante and Post Diluvian chronology of the Septuagint. 2. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV., In their Antepaidogonian ages—Table V., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table VI., In their whole Lives. The following Table relating to the _Second Age_, exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_ ages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, and the _years of the world_, in which they were born:—