his position; and concludes his whole examination thus: "Nothing whatever, therefore, stands in the way of our assenting to the received opinion of the Hebrews, that the ancient method of reckoning the months according to the first appearance of the moon, continued down to the fourth century," (ibid., p. 408.)*

In truth, there is no positive information how the Hebrews reckoned their months prior to the law, and we are, therefore, left to the presumption, in the absence of any information to the contrary, that the same method prevailed from the earliest times, which we know obtained in later ages. How they came to have so precise a system as Dr. Akers supposes them to have started with, is certainly a mystery, and that they should ever have lost or exchanged it for one less accurate, is a still greater mystery. It would be more natural to suppose that theirs was the same with the Egyptian year of 365 days uniformly: the puzzle is, how to introduce the leap year, which cannot be slurred over with a “doubtless,” as by Dr. Akers, (p. 21.) As a matter of evidence, we may refer to that early Hebrew treatise on astronomy and topics pertaining precisely to this question, found in the "Book of Enoch," (Lawrence's ed., Oxford, 1838,) the author of which evidently knew nothing of such an exact determination of the length of a solar revolution, which he supposes to consist of precisely 364 days, (pp. 104, 89, and elsewhere,) measured by the twelve signs of the Zodiac, of 30 days each, with an intercalary day at each of the four seasons, (pp. 105, 106,) or by months of alternately 29 and 30 days, (p. 100.)

See also Petavius, who holds (De Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp, 1703, vol. i, p. 153, col. b) that the Hebrew year before the Exode was similar to that of the Chaldeans and Persians, namely, consisting of 30-day months, with 5 days intercalated at the end of the year, and an intercalary month every 120 years; but that after the Exode, the Jewish months were lunar, (ibid., p. 154, col. b.)

† See especially Des Vignoles, (Chronologie de l'Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738,) who reduces (vol. ii, p. 616, et seq.) all the theories for adjusting the primitive Hebrew year with the solar, to the following three: (1st,) The intercalation of a month after 120 years. This he pronounces "a mere chimera, forged by Scaliger," and based only on an incorrect interpretation of Gen. vi, 3. (2d,) By adding 5 days at the end of the year. This he thinks has a colour of probability from the Egyptian method of intercalation; but that there is a total absence of proof as to its adoption by the Hebrews: (3d,) The supposition of years of 365 days, equal to ours. This theory he ascribes to P. Bonjour, as cited by Le Clerc; but he finds this "pretended system full of paralogisms and false calculations." He accordingly concludes that the Hebrew year before the Exode was invariably 360 days long, (basing this position on the 150 days of the Flood,) without any intercalation; and fortifies this view by a careful analysis of texts and authorities. After the Exode, however, he thinks that the settled Jewish tradition of lunar months cannot be overthrown, and he cites and examines very many authorities to that effect, (vol. i, p. 556, et seq.)

Our limits forbid our entering further into the argument; we must content ourselves with remarking that the only passages quoted by Dr. Akers, as "establishing," or "abundantly proving" his theory of the Jewish months and days, (pp. 22, 23,) are the round numbers assigned these divisions of time in 1 Kings, iv, 7: 1 Chron. xxvii, 1-15; Rev. xxii, 2; and the 150 days of Gen. vii, with the periods of Dan. vii, 25; Rev. xi, 2; all of which are as applicable, in a popular form of speech, to one method of computation as to the other.* And after all, on Dr. Akers's own plan, one of the months has 35 days, or else we have an intercalary month of five days at the end of the year; and in later times, as we shall see presently, even a greater variation from the assumed standard.

But, finally, actual notes of time in the Bible refute this theory of the Jewish calendar. We will instance but one case. The Prophet Ezekiel, on one occasion, was directed to lie on his left side 390 days, as a type of the sin of Israel, and 40 days more on his right side, for the sin of Judah, (iv, 5, 6.) Now, although it may be uncertain to what, if to any, definite period of years, these days may respectively correspond, there can be no reasonable doubt that the prophet literally complied with the command so explicitly laid upon him. Of course, he must have remained within doors and quiet during that interval; and such, we find from the history, was actually the case. The date of the injunction was not less than seven days (iii, 16) after the fifth day of the fourth month of the fifth year of Jehoiachin's captivity, (i, 1, 2,) and we find him sitting as a public teacher again, evidently having fulfilled the prescribed period, on the fifth day of the sixth month of the ensuing year, (viii, 1.) The interval is, in any case, not more than 1 year 1 month less 7 days, which, on Dr. Akers's scheme, would be only 388 days, whereas the terms of the command require at least 430 days. Reckoning in lunar months, however, and supposing the year an intercalary one, we have for the entire interval a space of 436 days, which allows a natural surplus of 6 days for the prophet to prepare for the task, and refresh himself after it. A more

The months of the deluge are really the only Scriptural evidence for solar years; the reader may see in Browne, (Ordo Sæclorum, p. 334; where all discrepancy may be obviated by including both extremes of the 150 days, after the Jewish custom,) how readily these conform to the lunar year. The other pas sages, if they proved anything, would prove too much, for they indicate a Hebrew year in all ages of 360 days, and no more.

†The peculiar adjustment of the year with regard to the Sabbath, supposed by Dr. Akers below, could not in any case extend the year more than 6 days, and might make it so much less.

decisive test of the proposed Jewish calendar could not well be devised.

The other position taken by Dr. Akers with respect to the Jewish calendar to which we refer, is a still more extraordinary one; he asserts that each year was so arranged as to begin with a Sabbath, inasmuch as the fifteenth day of the first sacred month was always to fall on that day of the week, (p. 99.) Of course, in order to allow this, the year must be lengthened or shortened a few days, so as to make it end with the 6th day of the week, (p. 109.) The only evidence of this arrangement that Dr. Akers has to adduce, consists of a comparison of the passages in Leviticus (xxiii, 10, 11, 15, 16,) requiring the day of Pentecost to be reckoned from the morrow after the Paschal Sabbath, which morrow, Dr. Akers attempts to show from a passage in Josephus, (Antiq. III, x, 15,) always fell on the 16th day of Nisan, consequently making the 15th a Sabbath, (p. 101.) But Josephus does not in that passage state such a coincidence: he merely says that the people were not allowed to partake of the harvest, in any case, before the 16th day, since the offering of the first-fruits was fixed to take place (on or after) that day; and in the beginning of this very section, he declares point blank that the month itself was lunar, thus necessarily excluding such a uniform correspondence of a given day with a certain week-day. If such a notable rule of ordering the Jewish calendar and week, as Dr. Akers conceives, actually existed, it is very strange that it should be so obscurely set forth in the sacred code, that no reader has ever been able to discover it till this late day; and even now we could not have divined it without the aid of Josephus, who, after all, says not one word about the Sabbath in the whole connection.

Dr. Akers seeks to fortify this hypothesis by a number of dates in Biblical history, in which he alleges a coincidence of the monthday with the week-day, called for by his arrangement of the calendar. Most of these are mere inferences of his own, drawn from very slight intimations as to the precise day of the week; but if they were all correct, they might be accidental coincidences that would not prove the theory. One of them, however, (which we select as being the most familiar instance,) instead of corroborating his position, peremptorily and palpably refutes it. This is the day of the crucifixion of Christ, which, as all know, was Friday. Admitting this, Dr. Akers argues, (p. 103,) or rather claims, (for his logic on this point is merely reasoning in a circle,)* according to the long-since

The only shadow of evidence referred to by Dr. Akers on this point, is the doubtful date, "the sixth hour" of "the preparation of the Passover,” (John

exploded interpretation, (see Dr. Robinson, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, August, 1845,) that this event occurred on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan in question; in the very face of the fact that Christ had partaken, the night before, with his disciples, of the Passover meal, which, as Dr. Akers himself allows, (p. 100,) was always eaten during the evening introducing the 15th day of that month. In this instance, therefore, beyond all dispute, the Jewish year began on Friday, and not on the Sabbath or Saturday. With this anachronism, Dr. Akers's whole calendar falls to the ground as imaginary.

We have thus rapidly reviewed the main results and positions of Dr. Akers in the work before us, as candidly and carefully as we have been able. In conclusion, it is due to the author to say, that although we differ almost wholly from him as to his conclusions, we nevertheless appreciate the labour and tact displayed in bringing them out, and disposing them to the best advantage. Few have the patience to go through the intricate calculations necessary to such a work, and still fewer writers have succeeded in stating the whole subject in so brief and lucid a manner. Had the author possessed the advantage of access to the requisite authorities in compiling and perfecting his treatise, we doubt not he would have avoided many of the errors which we have pointed out, especially in the construction of his Jewish calendar. As it is, the book may stimulate, and to some degree assist, its readers to make researches for themselves in the important department of Biblical science of which it treats. Had our limits allowed, it would have afforded us pleasure to compare, more at length, with the Biblical dates and history, the collateral eras and profane dynasties, upon which Dr. Akers appears to have bestowed great attention, particularly in his copious Table; but we must leave these, for the present at least, for the reader to examine for himself.

It remains for us to submit our own table of Biblical chronology, which we have promised the reader. It is the result of much careful labour, and somewhat extensive research, and may prove useful in comparing and adjusting the various chronological data found in the Scriptures.

xix, 14;) which the best critics agree, must be interpreted according to Mark xv, 25, 42. (See Kuinōl, Lücke, Tischendorf, in loc. Joh.)

The careful reader will observe that Dr. Akers silently adopts the remarkable position of Dr. Jarvis, (Introduction to the History of the Church, N. Y., 1845, part i, chap. vi-xii,) of an error of one year in the entire Roman annals, by means of which correction our Saviour's crucifixion is placed in A. D. 28 instead of 29. This is not the only instance in which he has adopted the conclusions of others, without giving either arguments or credit for them.

ART. VII-ALCHEMY AND THE ALCHEMISTS.

L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes; ou Essai Historique et Critique sur la Philosophie Hermétique. Par LOUIS FIGUIER, Docteur ès Sciences Médicales, Docteur en Médicine, agrégé de Chimie à l'Ecole de Pharmacie de Paris. Paris: Victor Lecou, Editeur, Libraire de la Société des Gens de Lettres. Rue du Bouloi, 10. MDCCCLIV. 1 vol. 12mo.

AMONG all the forgotten or repudiated branches of occult lore, there is none which is more attractive in its strange legends and dreamy reminiscences, or which has been more efficacious in achieving our present attainments, than Alchemy. It has, latterly, been the most contemned, and yet it has been the principal instrument in introducing, guiding, and preparing the greatest and most practical discoveries of our times.

The links which unite Chemistry to Alchemy are so numerous and closely reticulated, that it is difficult to decide where extravagance ceases and sobriety begins. Shall we acknowledge that the characteristic difference consists in the fact that, while Alchemy had a determinate though unachieved aim, Chemistry pursues its researches without any distinct purpose, accepting and employing the discoveries which accidentally present themselves, in the course of a persevering but unregulated investigation into all the casual and possible combinations of dissimilar substances? Such an admission might save the credit of modern Chemistry, so far as its discoveries have been rendered available, but it would scarcely enhance its scientific character, and would only give it the prestige over Alchemy, which might appertain to a richer collection of special processes. For Alchemy can boast of many discoveries which are still assiduously employed by medicine, the useful arts, and the physical sciences; and if the age in which they were made be compared with the pretended illumination of the present generation, the alchemists might, perhaps, rightfully claim higher admiration than even the Lavoisiers, Blacks, Davys, Faradays, Liebigs, and Grahams.

We shall not attempt to draw the line of demarcation between Alchemy and Chemistry, but leave it to be traced by those who have a more unsuspecting reverence for the transcendent merits of recent science than we profess. We doubt the possibility of discovering any tenable principle of separation.* It can scarcely be conjectured to reside in the different objects of the two respectively; for, if Al

Proudhon, who, unlike most modern philosophers, is a logician, despite of his political heresies, illustrates these points with great acuteness, in his Création de l'Ordre dans l'Humanité, ch. ii, pp. 48, 57.