REMARKS ON 1 KINGS VI. 1. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Nor being a Jew, but a Gentile, and being much averse to genealogies, any further than they are necessary for the purpose of biogra phical literature or chronological reference, I should not trouble your readers with any remarks on the subject of an Old Testament numerical date, except with a view to establish the authority of Revelation in contradistinction to Judaic tradition. The passage upon which I am about to comment is that of 1 Kings vi, 1 :-" And it came to pass, in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the temple of the Lord." The plain signification of this verse is, that from the Exodus from Egypt to that of the building of Solomon's temple, 480 years elapsed, whether reckoned in solar, lunar, or diurnal time. If therefore it can be proved to a demonstration that 612 years, instead of 480, is the more correct number, it either follows that the number 480 must be spurious, or that the passage itself is an interpolation; for historical facts and Scriptural testimony cannot be contradictory to each other. I shall proceed then to shew the incorrectness of the particular date under consideration from the collective dates derived from other parts of Scripture, which have been historically recorded by divine command under the old dispensation, and more especially from the declaration of the apostle Paul, who wrote under immediate inspiration in the new Testament. As it was in the second year from the Exodus, in the season of autumnal vintage, when the spies were sent on their mission, and Caleb was 85 years old when he was granted his inheritance-45 of which he himself states to have been passed in the wilderness-the whole time from the quitting of Egypt to the distribution of the lands in Canaan, may be calculated at 47 years. To these we may add— For the administration of Joshua, according to Josephus 20 8 To these must be added, For the administration of Samuel, on the testimony of Let it be observed that these periods are consecutive in their commencement and termination. : If we deduct thirty-two years, for which we have only traditionary authority, but which we have no reason to discredit, since we learn from the sacred history that both Joshua and Samuel administered the affairs of the Jewish people during the latter years of their lives, the remainder, namely 580 years, will be even then found to exceed by 100 the number of 480, which is inserted in our Bibles. Let us, however, next refer to Acts xiii. 17-22, in which chapter is narrated the preaching of the Apostle Paul at Antioch. "The God of this people of Israel chose our Fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their murmurs in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges, about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterwards they desired a king and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will." Here is asserted a specific period of 450 years between the division of the lands in Canaan and the time of Samuel, which will be accurately ascertained, if the reader will refer to the aforegoing table of Biblical computation. If this number of 450 be correct, which it undubitably is, being a portion of the 580, for which I have before adduced historical proof in figures from the Old Testament, to which must be added the traditionary twenty and twelve for the administration of Joshua and Samuel, it is at all events demonstrative that the number of 480 cannot approximate to the truth, or the Scriptural records would be inconsistent with themselves. I do not assert with positiveness that 612 is the correct date to a year, but there is strong probability for its near approach to the truth. The number mentioned in the Septuagint is 440, which is a still further deviation from accuracy; but there is reason for supposing that neither the one number nor the other, nor any at all, was to be found either in the Hebrew copies or the Septuagint, when our Lord and his Apostles were upon the earth, and that the alteration was made by the Jewish Rabbies or Scribes, who were in almost exclusive possession of their own Scriptures for the three first centuries of the Christian era. In order not to exceed 480 years, Dr. Wells, in the tables of Chronology annexed to his Geography of the Old and New Testa ment, has omitted some dates in the book of Judges. The opinion of Dr. Kennicott, who was one of the best Hebraists in his day, is that it was added to the Greek text after the year A.D. 230, which he infers from the evidence of Origen, who lived in the third century. There is no such number in 2 Chron. iii. 1, 2, in which chapter the same event of the building of the Temple is described, and where, if it were genuine, we might expect that it would occur. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, quotes a list of different learned critics, who have assigned numerous and discordant dates to this period of time. Mr. Townsend, in his Historical and Chronoligical Arrangement of the Scriptures, adheres to the date of 480 years. Perhaps some of your correspondents can throw some additional light upon this seeming anomaly. F. S. TEXT AND TRADITION. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. It is written in John xxi. 21-23, "Peter seeing John, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." We have these words left upon record; and is there any man who can mistake their meaning? Our Lord repressed the unprofitable curiosity of Peter respecting the events of futurity in regard to his brother Apostle; and exhorted him to attend to his own present duty of following his Saviour. But when, instead of having our Lord's own words to recur to and examine, they only floated in tradition, we see how strangely they were perverted; for there went abroad among the brethren "a saying"-(how slightly does the inspired writer speak of this traditive notion among the first disciples themselves! he calls it "a saying," or idle rumour) "that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" It cannot be contended that any tradition handed down to us through the Fathers, is more early or more likely to be secure from error, than this opinion professing to be taken from our Lord's own lips, and propagated among his immediate followers. We see, from the case of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, who said, “We thought that this was he who should have delivered Israel;" that to the end of our Lord's life, they understood not truly the nature of his mission, in its spiritual relation. Many other instances to the same purport might be adduced. The result of the whole matter is, that in all that the Apostles taught, as divinely authorised, they were infallibly guided into truth and preserved from error, whether they gave their instructions orally or in writing; but that in order to perpetuate this benefit to after ages, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to cause them to commit to writing all that was requisite for the instruction of the Universal Church of Christ. P. S. R. ON THE RUBRICAL DIRECTIONS RESPECTING THE READING THE GOSPEL, &c. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. N. R. has made a mistake in saying that "the standing up at the Gospel is not enjoined," as he will see by consulting the rubric; which, however, I have seen neglected in Ireland, a few only of the congregation standing while the Gospel is announced, and then resuming their seats. A PRESBYTER (BUT NO SACERDOS) OF THE The rubric to which our correspondent refers, is that in the Communion office, after the prayer for the Queen. We suspect that N. R. is not the only person who has overlooked that conspicuous rubric; for not a few of the clergy announce the epistle and gospel in a formula of their own, instead of using the words prescribed by the Church. Why substitute "taken out of" for "written in ?" Why also interject, as some do, the words "that by," where the rubric directs the clergyman to say "The Holy Gospel (or the Epistle) is written in the chapter of -;" not, "of that by -—.” What is meant by a Holy Gospel written in "that by" St. John? Is it that one Holy Gospel is written in another, in the same sense of the word? The interpolated relative pronoun "that" introduces the word Gospel or Epistle in its liturgical sense, as a portion of the communion service, and makes it synonymous with the word Gospel or Epistle as designating one of the books of holy writ. Many clergymen also innovate in announcing the lessons, using a formula of their own, about the first or second lesson for this morning or evening's service, instead of that prescribed by the rubric, "Here beginneth," &c. ON THE CLAIMS OF MR. RAIKES AND MR. STOCK TO THE ORIGINATION OF SUNDAY SCHOOLS. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. HAVING from my earliest years been connected by the ties both of kindred and friendship with the individuals who distinguished themselves by the introduction of Sunday School instruction into Birmingham, I have always felt particularly interested in the subject, and have observed with infinite satisfaction the salutary effects produced by it upon the morals and general conduct of the working classes, both in this town and elsewhere; and I can testify that many have been the instances in which the recipients of this admirable system of mental culture and discipline have, through its beneficent aid, been enabled to raise themselves from poverty and obscurity to wealth and fame. It would seem, however, that I have always been mistaken in ascribing to Mr. Raikes of Gloucester the high and distinguished honour of having been the exclusive founder of Sunday Schools; such, nevertheless, had always been the impression upon my mind, until within the last few weeks, and I believe that such also is the impression which generally prevails amongst all classes of Christians CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 42. 2 Y in this country. The fact, too, is expressly asserted in many publications of note, and in none more distinctly than in Dr. Rees's Cyclopædia, where, under the article "Sunday Schools," Vol. xxxi. it is said: "The original founder of these schools was Robert Raikes, Esq. of Painswick, in Gloucestershire, who saw with regret that the institution of Sunday, as a day of rest, intended for the most benevolent purposes, had in many cases a very unfavourable effect on the morals of the people; he therefore concluded, that the day might be made truly beneficial, if its hours, or a part of them, could be devoted to the instruction of children, in reading and other elementary principles of education." In reference to the beneficial effects produced by the adoption of this system, it is further observed, that "Mr. Raikes, the founder, has left on record, that during a period of twenty years, since the first establishment of Sunday Schools in Gloucester, about three thousand children had received education there; and although he had regularly visited the city and county gaols, he had only met, during that period, with one instance of criminality in any of the three thousand persons." In an article, which I wrote for the "Midland Counties Herald" of the 8th ultimo, on the subject of Mr. Rowland Hill's admirable postage plan, I thus expressed myself: "It is my opinion that Mr. Hill's plan will ultimately effect a change in the moral aspect and condition of society, second only to that which was produced by the invention of the art of printing; for I believe it will do more to realise the enlightened and philanthropic views of the benevolent Raikes (the distinguished founder of Sunday Schools) than any measure which has hitherto received the sanction of our legislature; and every body who has studied the subject knows how intimate is the connection which subsists between education and virtue, ignorance and crime." In the "Herald" of the following week there appeared a letter signed "Henry Wintle, Gloucester," in which, referring to my communication, the writer says, "I cannot agree with Mr. Clark in what he states about Mr. Raikes. The Rev. Thomas Stock, rector of St. John's in this city, was the originator of the plan of Sunday School teaching. The merit due to Mr. Stock has been withheld for years, though occasionally contended for by those who knew the circumstances. The character of Mr. Stock is here held in high and deserved admiration; and a subscription has been entered into for a monument to his memory, as the founder of Sunday School teach. ing, which is in hand, and will be erected in our cathedral." I have since been favoured with a letter, in which Mr. Wintle, (who, it appears, is a clergyman of Gloucester, and was personally intimate both with Mr. Stock and Mr. Raikes) gives a narrative of the facts upon which he grounds his assertion; and as, from inquiries which I have since made, I have every reason to believe that the statement is substantially correct, (as I shall hereafter shew) I will, with your permission, give it in the writer's own words. The Rev. gentleman's letter is dated "Wellington Parade, Gloucester, April 13th, 1841," and commences thus :— "As I am an entire stranger, it may be right that I should state for your information upon what I ground the assertion that Mr. Stock, and not Mr. Raikes, |