« EdellinenJatka »
a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them
up in his arms, and put his hands upon them and blessed them.' Amen.
sages in this
P.S. Since writing the above I have been so happy as to meet with “ Conversations on Infant Baptism, &c." by the Rev. Charles Jerram, and have been much gratified to observe the close parallel of many parts of his argument with certain pas
may interest some persons to learn that the coincidence of my views, with those of the author referred to is entirely fortuitous; or, if I may be allowed to say so, a result that might be expected from any two minds engaging with equal sincerity in so plain an inquiry as the present. Mr. Jerram states that a general council of the Christian church (I believe the next after that of Jerusalem commemorated in Acts xv.) was convened for the purpose of ascertaining whether infants might lawfully be baptized before the eighth day of their age; so unquestioned at that time was their right to the privilege during infancy, and so excessive the disposition, on the part of many in the church, to regard the ordinance of baptism, even in its accidental circumstances, as a substitution for circumcision, and to regulate its administration accordingly. But it may be well to quote Mr. Jerram's own words upon this point.
• After these direct evidences of the fact for which we are contending, it might seem unnecessary to adduce any further authorities, particularly as we have seen that a single and allowed instance would be sufficient to establish our position, if no direct evidence can be brought against it. But I cannot dismiss this topic without giving you the solemn decision of sixty-six bishops, who were convened for the very purpose of deliberating upon a scruple, which had arisen in the mind of one individual, on the score of baptizing infants. It appears, that about a hundred and fifty years after the times of the Apostles, one Fidus, an African bishop, had some doubts whether children ought to be baptized before the eighth day, in order that the Christian ordinance might more correctly correspond with that of Abraham respecting circumcision. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, therefore held a convocation of bishops, for the purpose of settling the question. At this synod sixty-six bishops assembled ; and they came to an unanimous conclusion that children were eligible to baptism from the first day of their birth. Now it should be noticed, on this decisive historical fact, that there was no controversy at all whether infants should be baptized; this was agreed on all hands : it was simply, whether the rite should be performed earlier than the eighth day; and this question was determined against the objector.”
REVIEWS AND MISCELLANIES.
ON THE HERMAIC RECORDS.
By I. CULLIMORE, Esq. The Astronomical and Chronological Principles and Epochs of the Hermaic
Records, or Royal Canicular Almanacks of the Ancient Egyptians. Although the recorded observations proper to Egypt do not claim an equal antiquity with those of Chaldea (which latter, in their earlier stages, were in a measure the common property of the human race assembled on the plains of Shinar, and the basis, or centre, whence the light of science became universally diffused)—the former being limited by the series of eclipses mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, the astronomical root of computation adopted by Theon of Alexandria, the period of 2000 years mentioned by Augustin and Simplicius, and the recorded age of the Egyptian Belus, and of Hermes Trismegistus the father of the system, to the sixteenth or seventeenth century before the Christian æra *-the Hermaic system of time constructed in that age furnishes a series of fixed astronomical cycles (for the years of which the almanacks of the Egyptians were calculated, and by which their chronicles were dated and regulated) which conduct us to results the most important, harmonious, and satisfactory, whether regard be had to their retrospective or prospective bearings on history, both sacred and profane.
In the present inquiry, the fragment preserved by Syncellus, (pp. 51, 52, edit. Par.), under the title of “ the old Egyptian Chronicle," deserves our first attention ; because it affords a solution to the great problem of Egyptian chronology, alike simple in its nature and profound and satisfactory in its results ; and the more desirable at a crisis when the progress of discovery has rendered the early Egyptian dates of infinite importance, while the monumental inscriptions, however corroborative, have presented no primary source for determining them t.
We learn from the chronicle under consideration, that, according to the Genesis of Hermes, the author of the Egyptian system of time, the sacred records preserved in the temples were dated in the years of the great zodiacal revolution of the equinox, consisting of 36,525 erratic Egyptian years (which was accordingly, as we learn from Manetho cited by Jam
* See “ Criteria,” Morning Watch No. IX., and Essay on the Chaldean and Egyptian Astronomy and Chronology," Morning Watch No. XV.
+ See note (A) at the end of this Essay.
blichus, the number, or rather the proposed number, of years from which the Hermaic, or Cyrannic* epheinerides were computed), compounded by multiplying the solar canicular period of 1461 years into the lunar cycle of 25t. This system, therefore, in its composition, partook of the nature of our Julian period, which consists of a series of solar and lunar cycles I, and derives from them determinate characters for each year of the revolution, which can never return but with a new period. Hence the certainty of our Julian dates; and it no where appears why Egyptian dates, derived from a period similarly constructed, should be less certain. It is clear that no two years of the period of 36,525 could have the same solar and lunar characters; and unless it be admitted that the Egyptian minor cycles, like our own, possessed determinate astronomical epochs, derived from the coincidences of the solar and lunar phenomena, the whole system would be no better than a tissue of unbased invention ;--a supposition to which the mere fact of its existence affords self-evident confutation. Fortunately, however, the epochs of the solar canicular periods have been preserved with the greatest certainty; the end of the last of the series & being fixed by Censorinus and other high authorities, confirmed by a host of collateral proofs, to July 20 A.D. 136. It follows, that we can be at no loss for the æras of the whole series of which the zodiacal revolution was constructed ; and the dates of the twentyfive solar periods being known, those of the 1461 lunar cycles follow, both being subject to the test of astronomical calculation. If this system ascends into imaginary ages, so does our Julian. The quantity of the former, which is proleptical, will appear.
The author of the Chronicle further assures us, that next to Hephæstus (or Phtha), the Egyptian Demiurgus, who reigned in the eternity preceding the system ||, his son Helius ruled 30,000 years; then Cronus and the rest of the twelve gods, 3984 years, and the eight demi-gods 217. To these succeeded the Mestræi, or princes of the Cynic cycle (i. e. the princes whose reigns were proleptically accommodated to that cycle 1),
* See note (B). + See note (C). || See note (D). I i.e. The solar cycle of twenty-eight years, multiplied into the lunar cycle of nineteen years = the Dionysian period of 532 years, which, being too limited for historical purposes, is again multiplied into the civil cycle of Indiction, fifteen years; and hence the Julian period of 7980 years, which takes its date from January 1st of the proleptical Julian year 1.c. 4713. But as the protracted Greek computation of Scripture outstrips the system by about eight centuries, a proleptical Julian period is imagined to meet the difficulty, taking its date from the imaginary year B.C. 12,693. With such recognised principles, we surely need not be surprised at the Egyptians' conceptions of time.
§ i. e. Of that solar canicular period with which the zodiacal revolution, and in which the history of the Pharaohs, terminated.
See Essay on Chaldean and Egyptian Chronology, sect. vii.
commencing with Menes the founder of the monarchy, which was therefore set up, according to this account, when 34,201 years of its system had elapsed. As to the filling up of this interval, it is of little comparative consequence, so long as the date 34,201 be found correct. It is right, however, to observe, that the period of Helius, which forms so large a portion of it (30,000 years), was known to the Phænicians (Syncel. p. 17), as well as to the Egyptians; and the cosmogony of both nations having been derived from the same source-the Hermaic writings *—it hence appears that 30,000 was the original Hermaic number. It may be added, that if the sun's reign refer to the existence of solar light and heat previously to the order of the universe established on the fourth day of the hexaëmeron, there is nothing extravagant in its assumed duration. The time of the gods, or antediluvians, 3984 years, is the number of hori, of three months each, contained in the reigns of the gods, here put to represent years, as appears from Manetho's account of the same period; and that of the eight demi-gods, or post-diluvian patriarchs, 217 years, agrees with the same authority, being years of 360 days, put to represent solar years of 365 days t. The originality of the date of the monarchy, with reference to the Hermaic books (An. Zod. Per. 34,201), may therefore be considered as established by its composition.
But, as by dividing any given year of the Julian period by 28 we find in the remainder the current year of the solar cycle; so, by dividing 34,201, the given year of the zodiacal period, by 1461, we obtain 23 canicular cycles and 598 years, or the 598th year of the 24th solar canicular period, for the æra of Menes and of the Cynic cycle. The date 34,201 I infer to be in the current year, rather than the past, as stated in the Chronicle, this being obviously the true mode of understanding it; because the cynic cycle, or great Egyptian lunar canicular period, is declared to have then originated ; and this period consisting of 28 erratic lunar cycles of 25 years each, it follows that one of
* From these writings, the respective histories of Saichoniatho and Manetho the Phænician and Egyptian annalists, were translated, the former into the Phænician language, and dedicated to Abibal, father of Hirom, king of Tyre; and the latter into the Greek by command of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
† 3984 hori of 3 months or 90 days each -- 4=996 years of the gods +217 years of the demigods=1213 years of 360 days, or 1196 of 365 days, being the corrected period of Manetho and Panadorus-(see Criteria, Morning Watch No. IX.) Or, casting off 3000 years for the reign of Cronus, there remain 984 years for the gods and 217 for the demigods=1201 erratic years. This differs little from the sums of Manetho's catalogue, as produced by Syncellus, which are, 986 years 270 days for the gods, and 214 for the demigods=1200 erratic years and 270 days. Observe, that Syncellus under-rates this period, in consequence of estimating the 9000 months of the reign of the second Hephæstus as lunations, instead of months of 30 days (see Criteria, ubi supra); whereby he obtains 724} years, instead of 739 years 265 days.
these necessarily set out on the same date, an. zod. per. 34,201; so 34,201 - 25 = 1368 lunar cycles, leaving the first year of the new cycle for a remainder. The composition of the great lunar canicular period, or Cynic cycle* of 100 years, recognised by Scaliger, is stated in my Memoir on the observations and chronology of the Chaldeans and Egyptians (sect. vii.) This cycle has been confounded with the solar canicular period (into the composition of which the lunar elements do not enter : Censorinus, ch. xviii.) by Champollion, and several learned men (M. Bailly, &c.) before him, [in consequence of both periods being denominated Cynic, Canicular, or Sothoic, from Kuv, or Sothis, the day-star, which was sacred to Isis, who was worshipped both in that star and the moon; and hence the lunar Canicular period of 700 years, and the solar canicular period of 1461]a supposition which is confuted by the old chronicle itself, which determines the year of the latter-i.e. the 598th, in which the former originated, as above; while both that record and Manetho distinguish the Mestræi, or Menes and his successors, in the first ages, by the name of the family of the Cynic cycle (Syncel. pp. 51, 91, 103)+. Were this and the solar canicular period identical, it is plain that the Pharaohs of every age would have been alike princes of the cynic cycle, and the distinction made by the Egyptian chroniclers without meaning,
On the above-mentioned assumption M. Champollion has, however, elevated the epoch of Menes, and of the lunar canicular cycle, 597 years, or to the first year of the penultimate solar canicular period, B. c. 2782, as he fixes it-an era several centuries above the dispersion of mankind and origin of nations, whatever version of sacred chronology we followi.
* Although the terms Cynic and Canicular are but different modes of Latinizing the Greek Kuvixos, the former has been usually adopted in reference to the lunar canicular period, and the latter expressing the solar. The terms are thus generally conventionally applied in the present essay, although it is a distinction without a difference.
+ The old Egyptian chronicle extends the family of the Cynic cycle to 15 generations and 143 years only, this being the sum of the reigns of Menes and his 14 immediate successors at Thebes, according to the chronicle of Eratosthenes. This period, deduced from the Egyptian æra An. Per. Canic. Solaris 598, B. C. 2188, points to the year B. c. 1745 as the date when the Egyptian system of time began to be corrected, and the preceding reigns to be adjusted by the cycles, as before alluded to—a date in harmony with the results of the hieroglyphic calendar B. c. 1769-1645, noticed in note (A).
Manetho, on the contrary, from the sacred record of Heliopolis, applies to this time of princes the astronomical measure of the cynic cycle, 700 years. The preference, historically speaking, is obviously due to the former authority.
| The Hebrew date of the birth of Peleg (" in whose days the earth was divided,” Gen. x. 25) falls in the year B. C. 2247; that of the Alexandrine codex of the Seventy, and the Samaritan version, B. C. 2597, according to the numbers of Josephus, B. c. 2647, and, if we follow the Roman codex of the LXX, B. C. 2697 ; all which dates fall far short of Champollion's Egyptian æra