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 Alcohol's" subjects, that "he is dishonest, for instead of liquidating his debts, be 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 calculations; for the matter lies far beyond our criticism, and we pointedly disclaimed 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 and 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 vernal 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,

and other evidence, being discussed in my Summary. But, as the astronomer Theon was certainly acquainted with all those astronomical facts, according to which the 10th of May in 5870 B. C. was the day of creation, it is clear that his Canicular Periods must, like Manetho's great Sothis, be reduced to the said day in 5870 B. C. For, in that year, on the day of the vernal equinox, the Dogstar Sirius first rose together with the sun, and since that time several Canicular Periods of 1461 vaque years were completed and recommenced. Such a one. says Theon, was finished during the fifth year of Augustus, on the 30th of August, while the first of Thoth of the vague year coincided with the new year's day of the Alexandrian; and then the fifth Canicular Period since the creation began.

Perhaps, however, it will be asked, if Theon might not have begun his first Canicular Period rather 1461 before 5870, or 1461 years after? That query is answered by the very fact that in 5870 B. C. only, on the vernal equinoctial day, the Dogstar rose heliacally, and that Theon, in commencing his Canicular Periods 1461 years sooner or later, would have contradicted all astronomical traditions, familiar to him, which refer the creation to the year 5870 B. C. only. Supposing he had counted his first Canicular Period from the year 7331 B. Č., then the Dogstar was, at sunrise, on the said day, nearly 9 degrees below the horizon; consequently it could not, as Porphyrius says, rise together with the sun. The same is the case with the year 4411 B. C. For, on the beginning of that Canicular Period, Sirius stood, under the same circumstances, nearly 9 degrees above the horizon. Thus it appears that Theon's Canicular Periods, like Manetho's, of which the fourth closed in the fifth year of Augustus, must have begun with the rise of Sirius on the vernal equinoctial day in 5870 B. C. And that fact is a new mathematical argument in favour of the Biblical Chrononology preserved in the Septuagent.

There is, however, another objection to be removed. For, from 5870 to 26 B. C. four years more elapsed than four Canicular Periods of 1460 Alexandrian years; the fifth since the creation began rather in 30 B. C., August 29th, with the very first day of the Era Augusti, or Actiaca. How, then, could Theon have committed such an error of four years? Philologers probably would conjecture the transcribers of Theon to have been mistaken, putting an E (five) for an A (one). But as Halma found the fifth year of Augustus in all his manuscripts, such a conjecture seems to be too hazardous. Others, perhaps, would assume that Theon himself was mistaken counting from the creation to the fifth year of Augustus four Canicular Periods of 1461 Alexandrian years, instead of 1461 vague years. In that case, indeed, precisely four Canicular Periods elapsed from 5870 to 26 B. C. That supposition, however, is inconsistent with the accuracy of an astronomer like Theon. For my part, I am convinced that, because every Canicular Period must begin with a new year's day after a Period of 1461 vague years, and at the same time with the new year's day of the exacter, or Alexandrian year of 365 days and 6 hours, Theon intentionally prolonged his fourth Canicular Period by four years, in order to begin the following one in the year 26 B. C., on the 30th of August, with which both new year's days, the Alexandrian and the vague, then first coincided. In 30 B. C. the first of Thoth of the vague year preceded that of the Alexandrian by three days. Besides, since every Egyptian astronomer and learned man knew that the true beginning of the world in 5870 B. C. on the day of the vernal equinox was determined by a quantity of astronomical facts, a prolongation of that long period, since elapsed, by four years and a few months, was but a trifle! Theon preferred to begin the fifth Canicular Period since the creation in that year, during which both the new year's day of the vague year and that of the Alexandrian first coincided.

This short exposition of Theon's Canicular Periods, I hope, will show that my Summary, at far as it treats of the Canicular Periods, does not at all contain discrepancies which must "somewhat shake the faith in my researches and conclusions." I remain, Rev. Mr. Editor, yours truly, G. SEYFFARTH.

Concordia College, St. Louis, Mo., March 10, 1858.

READERS' EXCHANGE.

MR. EDITOR: I am not much versed in poetry, but in looking over an old book of quotations, published in England, I found the following:

The Fight grows hot, the whole War's now at work,
And the goar'd Battel bleeds in ev'ry Vein.

When Greeks joyn'd Greeks, then was the Tug of War;
And labour'd Battel sweat and Conquest bled.

-See Alexander.

Now, is the third line the real original, in English, of what is generally quoted,

When Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war?

Or is this last a misquotation, or has it been stolen, and altered, and credited to some new author?

It is said that there is nothing new "under the sun." Can you tell me who was the first author of the sentiment of the third line, and who has misquoted, who has stolen, and who appropriated it as original?

Q IN A CORNER.

THE CHURCH AT HOME.

AN OCCASIONAL PAPER has been issued from the Domestic Committee, having special reference to the seasons of Lent and Easter. It is in the character of an appeal to the Church, and evinces the usual energy and efficiency of the excellent Secretary and General Agent, Dr. Van Kleeck, whose signature it bears. Among other things, it sets forth a tabular statement, carefully corrected to March 1st, showing how many parishes have contributed during the current year, how many in each Diocese, and how many there are in each Diocese yet to be heard from. It appears from the table, that 589 have contributed, which is 85 more than had done so at the same date last year; and that the number yet to be heard from is 1,431. There is also an increase of about $3,000 over what was reported at March 1st a year ago. And this gain has taken place while other missionary societies are mourning over diminished returns. The whole sum reported at the date in question is not far from $30,000, which, at the lowest estimate, is but about one-half of what will be required for the wants of the current year. If all the parishes not yet heard from should do as well as those which have already contributed, the result would be nearly $90,000 of annual income; and an average of $30 from them would make the aggregate receipts for the year about $73,000. What should hinder the coming in of even more than this, with the natural and probable return of prosperity as the season advances? So may it be!

66

THE VENERABLE Dr. HARRY CROSWELL has gone to his reward, full of years and labour and honours. Many a heart grieves to think that his grey hairs, which were indeed a crown of glory," can be no more looked upon in this world. It was a sight beautiful to behold in itself; and to those whose inward eye was sometime wont to feed upon the beauty of his noble son, the early lost, the long deplored, it was the awakener of many, many precious memories. The hoary-headed father departed this life at 10 o'clock, on Saturday morning, March 13th, at the age of 79 years, 8 months, and 27 days. His funeral took place on the 16th, at Trinity church, New Haven, with an eloquent and impressive sermon by Bishop Williams, and with such an attendance of clergy and laity as was due to his great services and his honourable