Mr. Clinton, “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. pp. 288–297, after citing all the testimonies of the ancient chronographers _for_ and _against_ the generation of the second Cainan, hastily concludes that it is a “spurious addition to the text;” and, although he admits its existence in the “Greek copies,” yet he entirely omits to cite the testimony of St. Luke, who must have been better acquainted with the genealogy of Christ than any of the chronographers! His silence on this point would seem to indicate that he had some doubts of the authenticity of the text in question. He has, however, given an extract from Syncellus, affirming that the second Cainan was in all the copies of the Septuagint in his time, censuring Eusebius for omitting him, and stating that St. Luke reckons him the 13th from Adam. Syncellus, in this passage, very properly includes Shem in the genealogy, although he is necessarily omitted in the chronology; because, he was an _Antediluvian_ by birth, his _Antepaidogonian_ age being entirely omitted in the Scriptures, and the birth of his son being reckoned from the flood. Hence, we find that all the ancient writers reckon Noah the _tenth_ from Adam, and Abraham the _tenth_ from the flood, Shem being evidently the _eleventh_ from Adam, and Abraham the _twenty-first_. With feelings of the greatest respect for the extensive learning and deep research of Mr. Clinton, we would seriously advise him to consult the _Codex Alexandrinus_ in the British Museum, and convince himself by ocular demonstration, as we have done, of the genuineness and authenticity of the testimonies of the Evangelist and the Seventy Interpreters to the undeniable fact of the existence of the Postdiluvian Cainan. Dr. Hales, “Analysis of Chronology,”[12] vol. i. p. 90, appears to have strongly felt the weight of St. Luke’s authority on this point, although, following the recent Masorete and Samaritan texts, he rejects this generation.