Nisan; and the passage of the Red sea, as it may be with reason conjectured, on the night of the seventeenth, or the evening of the Jewish eighteenth. Now the passage of the Red sea by the Israelites, and the overthrow of the Egyptians in its waters, have been considered by the Church in all ages to be a striking emblem of Christian baptism, and of the spiritual conquest which was achieved by Christ in his resurrection from the dead. It is not inconsistent with this analogy that, as our Lord rose again on the first day of the week, so the passage of the Red sea took place on the same. And if the tenth of Nisan fell on the Saturday, this must actually have been the case; for the seventeenth would fall on the Saturday also, and therefore the eighteenth upon the Sunday. The analogy is, perhaps, even closer than this; for as God began to trouble the Egyptians first with the arrival of the morning watch, and brought back the sea upon them finally when the morning appeared; so was it between these same limits that our Saviour arose from the dead; not before the one, and yet not after the other. Again, if we refer to Exodus xvi. 1. it will be seen that, on the fifteenth day of the second month, after the departure from Egypt, the people arrived in the wilderness of Sin. On the evening next after this arrival, they were supplied with the quails; on the morning after that with the manna; and on the sixth day, exclusive of this morning, was the first of the sabbaths as such c. Nothing, I think, can be more probable than the inference from these facts, viz. that the people arrived at Sin on the morning of the last day of one week; and were first supplied with c Exod. xvi. 6. 8. 12. 13. 22, 23. 27. manna on the morning of the first day of the next. If so, the fifteenth of the second month was a Saturday; and therefore so were the eighth and the first. Consequently, if the month before this, the month of the Exodus, contained thirty days, (which would be. certain, if the year of Moses was still solar or Egyptian, and not absolutely improbable even though it was already converted into a lunar one ;) the twentyfourth, the seventeenth, the tenth days of that month, respectively, must all have coincided with the seventh day of the week. In other words, the lamb for the first passover was originally set apart, B. C. 1560, in the year of the Exodus, on the same day of the week, and on the same day of the month on which Christ, who was always adumbrated by that victim, was ultimately born, B. C. 4, in the year of the nativity. This conclusion may be further confirmed as follows. As I acknowledge no true measure of time but the revolution of the tropical year; so do I acknowledge no true division of weeks but the succession of days in that year; to which, it is manifest, no criterion is applicable like the solar cycle of twenty-eight years, (a cycle intended for the Julian year exclusively,) but only the simple and natural one of the reduction of years into days and nights, or vux¤ýμepa, and of days and nights, or vuxenμepa, into weeks. With this view I will assume for the present that, according to Sir Isaac Newton's computation, the mean length of the solar or tropical year is three hundred and sixty-five days, five hours, forty-eight minutes, and fifty-seven seconds. It has been demonstrated by the celebrated astronomer La Place, that about B. C. 4004. was the era of d Compare in proof of this, Gen. vii. 11. viii. 4. vii. 24. viii. 3. a grand astronomical epoch; viz. of the time when the axis major of the earth's orbit coincided with the line of the equinoxes; and consequently when, at the vernal and the autumnal equinoxes respectively, the year was equally divided, or the summer half of the earth's annual revolution was exactly of the same length as the winter. This equality has not subsisted since: on the contrary, it has been gradually varying; so that the former of those periods is now more than a week longer than the latter. The period in question, then, from which this inequality begins to proceed, or before which it cannot be proved to have existed, may justly be regarded as a grand astronomical epoch; and it furnishes no slight confirmation to the conclusion, otherwise obtained, that the same year, B. C. 4004, was (as the Bible chronology assumes it to be) the first year of creation, answering to A. M. 1. For if the effect in question might a priori be expected to exist at any time, in general; it would most reasonably be expected to exist at the time of the creation, in particular. Assuming then, that A. M. 1. and B. C. 4004. both which correspond to the year of the Julian period, 710, coincided together, we may calculate, by the help of the method alluded to above, that the sun entered the equinoctial sign of the vernal quarter, A. M. 1, upon April 22; not earlier than twelve, nor later than six in the afternoon. Now, it is a possible case that, as the first production of light and its separation from darkness were so far the beginning of the revolution of days and nights-and as it is reasonable to conclude that, at their first separation, the day and the night were equal—so both this production and this separation coincided, in the year of creation, with the time of the vernal equinox. Nor would it be any objection that the sun itself was not created until four days afterwards. The revolution of days and nights had begun four days before; and it is no anomaly to say that, in the year of creation, before the sun itself was in being, the year was four days old. I will assume, then, that the revolution of days and nights, or rather of vʊx¤ýμepa, or days and nights as such, begins from the date of the vernal equinox, A. M. 1; about six in the evening of April 22. Let us now consider on what day the third of April, taking its rise from this point of departure, would be likely to fall A. M. 2445, in the year of the Exodus from Egypt. These days being reduced to weeks = 127521 weeks, five days and nights, five hours, fifty-three minutes, and forty-eight seconds; which fraction of time (for a reason which will appear by and by) being neglected, the excess is reduced to five days exactly. Hence, if A. M. 1, the first vuxenμepov of the first week began upon April 22, about sunset; A. M. 2445, the first vʊx¤ýμepov of the 127522d week began at the same time upon April 17 consequently, April 17 was a Saturday; and therefore April 10 and April 3. In like manner 4000 tropical years = 1460969 days, seven hours, twenty minutes; that is, 208709 weeks, six days and nights, seven hours, and twenty minutes; or as before, six days and nights merely. For Sir Isaac Newton's mean length of the tropical year differs from that of Delambre, which comprises the result of the most laborious and accurate of modern observations, by an excess of about six seconds; which excess, in the lapse of four thousand years, will amount, as nearly as possible, to the fraction of time in question. Hence as before; if A. M. 1, the first vuxenuepov of the first week began about sunset on April 22*; A. M. 4001, in the year of the nativity, the first vʊx¤ýμepov of the 208710th week would begin about the same time on April 16; that is, April 16 would be Saturday, and therefore April 9 and April 2 also. ρον It is true, we have endeavoured to prove that A. M. 4001, in the year of the nativity, not April 2, but April 3, was Saturday; from which conclusion what we have just arrived at differs by a day. When it is considered, however, that these calculations were founded on the mean length of the tropical year, which mean length has not yet been exactly settled, and, beginning from the time of Sir Isaac Newton, the more strictly it has since been ascertained, the more it requires to be reduced not increased in its amount; even this approximation to the truth may appear as near a coincidence as the nature of the case admits of. The mean length, whether of the solar or of the lunar * The rate of precession for the vernal equinox, which according to the standard of Newton was eleven minutes three seconds annually, will be eleven minutes nine seconds annually according to that of Delambre. But this difference will not affect the truth of the calculation that A. M. 1, the date of the vernal equinox was April 22, if B. C. 4 it really fell on March 22. In four thousand years the rate of precession according to Delambre, at the mean ratio of eleven minutes nine seconds an nually, would accumulate to forty-four thousand six hundred minutes; or seven hundred and forty-three hours, twenty minutes; which are equal to thirty days and nights, twenty-three hours, and twenty minutes, or what we may call thirty-one days and nights in all. Hence if the date of the vernal equinox A. M. I was April 22 at a certain time, the date of the vernal equinox A. M. 4001, B. C. 4, would be March 22 at the same time, within forty minutes of defect only. |