our assent. It rather seems to us one of those huge, omnivorous abstractions which may be used indifferently to justify or to refute almost anything and everything that may come up. We have endeavoured to state and explain it candidly and fairly; and we think, at all events, that it will hold perfectly good as an offset to Dr. Newman's. Moreover, in this age of free inquiry, we mean both to claim and to allow the prerogative of inquiry freely, having no fear but that the cause which has the better reason will in the long run make the greater progress. But, especially, we have no notion, we hope, of working men's minds into freedom from error, by getting or keeping them cooped up in our individual or party cave, and then urging them, in effect, to exercise their private judgment only under the torch-light of our private judgment.

For these reasons, and others such as these, we do greatly rejoice in Dr. Schaff's work. To the best of our judgment, it is decidedly a great book, and is destined to have a great influence. We should be puzzled to name any work of the sort written in our day, which we would more gladly see in the hands of all who are competent to take it in and digest it. In conclusion, we must give our readers one more extract, which will serve both as a favourable specimen of the author's workmanship, and as a further explication of one of his leading ideas. In pointing out "those general features of the modern German historiography which give it a decided superiority over that of the preceding periods," he has the following:

Its most prominent excellence, as to form and method, we take to be its scientific structure, and that spirited, lifelike mode of representation, which springs from the idea of an organic development. History is no longer viewed as a mere inorganic mass of names, dates, and facts, but as spirit and life, and therefore as process, motion, development, passing through various stages, ever rising to some higher state, yet always identical with itself, so that its end is but the full unfolding of its beginning. This makes Church history, then, appear as an organism, starting from the person of JESUS CHRIST, the creator and progenitor of a new race; perpetually spreading, both outwardly and inwardly; maintaining a steady conflict with sin and error without and within; continually beset with difficulties and obstructions; yet, under the unfailing guidance of Providence, infallibly working towards an appointed end. This idea of organic development combines what was true in the notion of something permanent and unchangeable in Church history, as held by both the Catholic and the Old-Protestant Orthodoxy, with the element of truth in the Rationalistic conception of motion and flow; and on such ground alone is it possible to understand fully and clearly the temporal life of Christianity. A permanent principle, without motion, stiffens into stagnation; motion, without a principle of permanence, is a process of dissolution. In neither case can there properly be any living history. The conception of such history is, that, while it incessantly changes its form, never for a moment standing still, yet, through all its changes, it remains true to its own essence; never outgrows itself; incorporates into each succeeding stage of growth the results of the preceding; and thus never loses anything, which was ever of real value.

The City of Sin, and its Capture by Immanuel's Army. An Allegory. By the Rev. E. F. REMINGTON, A.M., of the Protestant Episcopal Church. With an Introduction by the Rev. GEO. B. CHEEVER, D.D. New York: Published by Carlton & Porter.

It is not easy to convey, within the limits of a notice, such as ours must be,

any adequate idea of this book. Perhaps it may be best described, in geologi cal language, as a conglomerate, something like that which Hugh Miller describes as being at the base of the Old Red Sandstone system in certain parts of Scotland; only Mr. Remington's conglomerate is not so deep or so thick as Miller's, no, not by some hundreds of feet. But possibly some of our readers, with whom Geology has not talked, may be a little in the dark as to what a conglomerate is. To such, if any such there be, we would fain unfold the matter so clearly as to cut off all possibility of mistake. To those of them, then, who reside in or near the metropolis of New England, perhaps the point will be best secured by referring to the rocks of Roxbury, a very good section of which may be seen a short distance from Boston, on the Providence railroad. For the satisfaction of others, whose eyes have never been instructed by that curious workmanship of Nature, we will try to explain the matter in words. A conglomerate, then, in geological language, is a rock, sometimes of vast thickness, made up of fragments of older rocks; which fragments, after being rounded and worn smooth by the action of tides and waves and currents, were imbedded in a matrix of earthy paste, or mud, and the whole finally concre ted into a firm rocky mass. On breaking up the rock, the earthy matrix cleaves off, and the rounded pebbles reappear in form and aspect as the waters left them. Now, it seems pretty clear that those fragments of older rocks must have been rolled and tumbled about for many ages on the shores of lakes or seas, or in the beds of rivers, before they could have got thus worn and moulded into the form of pebbles; that is, they must have been used a long while upon the earth's surface, before they became such as we find them lying at great depths in her present structure.

In like sort, the book now in hand may be justly described as a conglomerate, made up of allusions, metaphors, similes, and divers kinds of "wise saws and modern instances," which, after being for ages rolled about on the shores of human thought and speech, and worn smooth by the waters of familiar use, have been gathered up, and imbedded in a matrix of autorial paste, and baked into such a degree of consistence as would serve for a book-formation.

To advance one step further in our exposition of the work: Some help towards a right conception of its texture and material may be given, by remarking that honest Domine Sampson, if the work had fallen under his learned inspection, would have been moved to exclaim over it, "pro-di-gi-ous!" though, to make the thing fit all round, we must suppose the exclamation to be accompanied with a slight eye-twinkle of benevolent mischief, such as the simple, guileless heart of the Domine aforesaid would nowise have permitted.

To throw further light on the quality of the work, it may be well to draw a little upon the introductory labours of Dr. Cheever, who stands forth as the friend and patron of the author, but whose style of (left-handed?) commendation might naturally provoke the question, "Call you that backing of your friends?" The introducer speaks thus in reference to the author: Let no one accuse him of presumption in essaying a method, in which John Bunyan's supremacy of genius and success might seem to have shut up the region to all after-comers, warning them off as by a stile and inscription, 'Over this inclo

sure lies the way to Doubting Castle, kept by Giant Despair.' Any man may indeed despair of coming within even planetary distance of Bunyan's flaming chariot; and yet no man is justified in burying his one talent in a napkin, be. cause he has only one, while the man who went before him had ten."

Having reached the summit of this "mount of vision," we may next proceed to remark, that most of the book is occupied with a flaming account of what the author seems to have imagined as Satan's metropolis in this world of ours, which he calls "The City of Sin." His description of the said City is very minute and elaborate; extending, horizontally, from centre to circumference, and perpendicularly, from pinnacles to pavements; taking up the subject street by street, and block by block, and entering into the detail of institutions and public buildings, wharves, piers, and shipping, gates, towers, and baths, walks, fountains, gardens, hotels, and theatres, together with the manners, customs, pursuits, pleasures, fashions, and figures of the inhabitants. Lest any honest New-Yorkers should suspect the author of aiming a sly thrust at their famous city, it ought to be noted that in the City of Sin the streets all radiate from a common centre; which is nowise the case with New York; so that the author cannot be supposed to have had that city in his eye at all. As a fair sample of the whole, take his account of one of the principal streets :

Credulity-street will next attract the eye, not from the splendour of its buildings, but from the uncommon appearance of its inhabitants. They are all characterized by a tremendous enlargement of the throat, and are distinguished for straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. And they are all so well trained from infancy, that they swallow down with equal ease ghosts, wizards, hobgoblins, and witches, as also the chimeras of sophists and the miracles of false prophets. You will find men living on Credulity-street who believe that the earth is a fragment knocked off from the sun in the concussion of some run-away comet; that men and animals once grew like trees out of the earth; that the stars are little apertures, where the gods look out on our naughty world. Here are men who believe Mohammed rode to heaven and back in one night, and that women have no souls. Here are multitudes who believe they possess fragments of the true cross, which if gathered and piled, the mountain thus formed would manifest the tallness of their credulity. Here you will find great numbers who imagine that gold is potent in lifting souls out of the fires of purgatory, and that the forgiveness of sins is the prerogative of the priest. On this street are the dilapidated dwellings of necromancers, magicians, soothsayers, sorcerers, enchanters, and fortune-tellers. They were evidently built up at great expense, but they are now fast tumbling into ruins; the excavations of men of science are undermining their foundations. Mormonism, Millerism, and Mesmerism are swallowed down just now by thousands on this street. Here you will find men who strain at the narration Moses gives of the world's creation, and swallow down the dogma that it was the work of chance, or that nothing can create something. They strain at the earth turning on its axis once in twenty-four hours, and swallow the theory that the sun, moon, and stars travel billions of miles once in twenty-four hours around the earth. They strain at the miracles of Christ, and swallow the impossibility of twelve ignorant fishermen fabricating the sublime scheme of the Gospel. They strain at the Balm of Gilead and the Physician there, and swallow an apothecary's shop of infidel absurdities. They strain at the idea of the Divine Spirit knocking at the door of the heart, and swallow the delusion that they can hold converse with the departed spirits of infidel scoffers. Finally, they strain at the Bible and swallow Tom Paine.

From the foregoing account, it seems clear enough that the street in question must be the very place of all the world for this book to sell in. Of course, the publishers have not failed to send a large supply to so inviting a market.

As praise is not apt to relish well unless it be seasoned with some little spice of censure, or at least some showing how the work might be made better, we will notice one more point. The author remarks of one of King Alco hol's" subjects, that "he is dishonest, for instead of liquidating his debts, he pours his money down his throat in the shape of liquid poison." This, to be sure, is very well; but would it not gain in pith and point by being thus? "Instead of saving his money to liquidate his debts, he keeps running in debt to liquidate his inward parts."

OUR LEFT-HAND DRAWER.

DR. SEYFFARTH'S CHRONOLOGY.-In our notice of Dr. Seyffarth's book, pages 141-5 of the present volume, we ventured to point out what seemed to us a few discrepancies in his statements. We did this rather in the way of seeking light on the subject, than as doubting the learned author's calcula tions; for the matter lies far beyond our criticism, and we pointedly disclaim ed all right to pronounce anything positively in regard to it. What we said has had the effect, as we hoped it would have, of drawing forth a communication from the author, which we cheerfully subjoin. Besides the seeming discrepancies already noted, we met with several others in the course of our reading of his work; though we had and have no doubt that most if not all of them grew from such causes as would infer no impeachment either of his accuracy of scholarship or his integrity of purpose. We cannot stay to enlarge upon the matter now. The work in question, as we understand it, did not pretend to give more than a very brief and rapid outline of the subject. And the author, in his unfamiliarity with our language and the narrowness of his scope, evidently laboured at a great disadvantage. We are much mistaken, if he have not plenty of matter to communicate, that is well worth our study. And we hope he will some day find time and motive to draw out his system more fully, to digest it into more lucid order, to clear it of redundancies and perplexities, and to have it printed, if possible, with unblemished exactness. With the assurance that we wish nothing but good to him and to his cause, we will now withdraw, and leave him to speak for himself:

REV. MR. EDITOR:-In the American Church Monthly, February, 1858, p. 145, it is said that my Summary of Recent Discoveries in Biblical Chronology, Universal History, and Egyptian Archeology, contains some discrepancies regarding the Canicular Periods of the ancient Egyptians. It is true, I asserted, p. 80, that those Periods, comprising 1461 vague years of 365 days, or 1460 Alexandrian years of 365 days and 6 hours, began on the 20th of July (Julian Style) in 2781 aud 1321 B. C., as Astronomers reckon. You will allow me to retain that astronomical custom, because the so-called historical method which counts 2782 and 1322 for 2781 and 1322 B. C., is wrong and deceptive, as I have shown in my Summary, p. 208. and which has created so many mistakes, at last even in the said Article, p. 145, at the bottom. The above-mentioned epochs of Canicular Periods, being thus determined by former Chronologers, are exact. For, from many Egyptian dates in the Fathers of the Church and other authors, compar ing Egyptian days with Roman days, it was concluded that in 2781 and 1322 B. C., and in 139 A. C. the beginning of the Egyptian vague year, viz: the first

of the month Thoth, coincided with the 20th of July (Julian Style). Further, on the same days in the said years, as an easy astronomical calculation shows, the Dogstar rose, in Egypt, a short time before sunrise; whence originated the name of the Canicular Periods, that is the Periods of 1461 vague years, beginning with the rise of Sirius, or Canicula, on Egyptian new year's days.

It is true, also, that with the aid of these Canicular Periods and their basis, the vague year of 365 days, which was, as Josephus testifies, the civil year also of the Hebrews till Nebuchadnezzar, many epochs of ancient history have been determined in my Chronologia Sacra and Summary; for instance, the Babylonian dispersion, and Moses' arrival in Egypt in 2781 B. C., 666 years after the Deluge; the Exody of the Hebrews in 1866 B. C.; the building of Solomon's temple on the verual equinoctial day in 986 B. C., 880 years after the Exody, and so on.

But quite another thing were Theon's Canicular Periods; which, in my Summary, p. 105, 209, have not at all been confounded with the former. The Alexandrian astronomer Theon (380 A. C.), says (Canon, p. 30, ed. Halma) that a Canicular Period expired during the fifth year of the Emperor Augustus. That fifth year of Augustus, of course, referred to the Egyptian Era Augusti, or Era Actiaca, which began on the new year's day of the Alexandrian year, on the 29th of August (Julian Style), one month before the battle near Actium. As the Astronomer Ptolemæus begins the Era Actiaca in the year 30 B. C., the fifth year of Augustus, according to Ptolemæus and his countryman and successor Theon, extended from the 29th of August in 26 to the 29th of August in 25 B. C. That same Alexandrian year, however, was an Egyptian leap year, wherefore the following Alexandrian year began one day later, on the 30th of August. During the same fifth year of Augustus the first of Thoth (the new year's day) of the vague year happened on the 30th of August, consequently on the new year's day of the Alexandrian year. Thus, then, Theon simply relates that an Egytian Canicular Period of 1461 vague years, or of 1460 Alexandrian years, expired during the fifth year of Augustus, viz: together with the last day of both the Alexandrian and the vague year. That fifth year of the Emperor Augustus, says Theon, extending from August 29th in 26 B. C. to August 30th in 25 B. C., was the last year of a Canicular Period. Everybody understands now that Theon did not speak of the Canicular Periods commonly used in Egypt, which began in 139 A. C.. 1321 and 2781 B. C. on the 20th of July, while Theon's began in 25 and 1485 and 2915 B. C., and so on, on the 30th of August. The question then is, what Theon meant, and from what year of the world his Canicular Periods proceed. That question is an irresolvable one for all those who do not remember that the ancient Egyptians used two different kinds of Canicular Periods, the one beginning with the commencement of the Egyptian empire, or Menes' arrival in Egypt on July 20th, in 2781 B. C., the other, its type, beginning with the commencement of the world in 5870 B. C., when Sirius first rose together with the sun, on the day of the vernal equinox. For that reason Manetho's Egyptian history was called "the great Sothis" (the great Canicular Period), because it began with the said day in 5870 B. C.. 2424 years before the deluge, and consisted of 25 Canicular Periods of 1461 vague years each, or 36,525 years, during which period the starry heaven performs, as the Ancients believed, an entire revolution about its axis. The same Egyptian Canicular Periods are clearly explained by Porphyrius (Ando. Nymp. p. 64 ed. Cant.), who says: 'prima mensis dies ipsis (Egyptus) est Sotheos ortus, qui generationes mundi ducit initium." For he testifies that, according to ancient traditions among the Egyptians, the Dogstar Sirius once rose together with the sun on the day of creation. That day was, as the Egyptians knew, and all the ancient nations relate, the day of the vernal equinox. (See Philo, Di Sept. c. 5 p. 1190 and 1191 ed. Frani., Ephiphan. Hær. I. 18.) Many other such traditions are cited in my Chronologia Sacra, p. 181. That same day of the creation is mathematically demonstrated by Tabari's Planetary Configuration, as explained in my Summary, p. 100, and p. 156. to be the 10th of May (Julian Style). The very year of Creation, 5870 B. C., is likewise determined by many astronomical, and therefore reliable facts, by the Hypsomata Planetarum among all nations of antiquity, by Tabari, by the successive recession of the equinoctial points, by the four large and nine smaller ages of the world since its existence,