Review and Herald, Vol. 37, No. 8.
OUR FAITH AND HOPE; Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We DoPage 1
Earlier text: OUR FAITH AND HOPE; Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We DoDon't Live beyond Your Means.
“THIS is pleasant!” exclaimed a young husband, taking his seat in the rocking-chair as the supper things were removed. The fire, glowing in the grate, revealed a pretty and neatly-furnished sitting-room, with all the appliances of comfort. The fatiguing business of the day was over, and he sat enjoying what he had all day been anticipating, the delights of his own fireside. His pretty wife, Esther, took her work and sat down by the table. “It is pleasant to have a home of one’s own,” he again said, taking a satisfactory survey of his little quarters. The cold rain beat against the windows, and he thought he felt really grateful for all his present comforts. “Now, if we only had a piano,” exclaimed the wife. “Give me the music of your own sweet voice before all the pianos in creation,” he observed complimentarily; but he felt a certain secret disappointment that his wife’s thankfulness did not happily chime with his own. “Well, but we want one for our friends,” said Esther. “Let our friends come to see us, and not to hear a piano,” exclaimed the husband. “But, George, everybody has a piano nowadays—we don’t go anywhere without seeing a piano,” persisted the wife. “And yet I don’t know what we want one for; you will have no time to play on one, and I don’t want to hear it.” “Why, they are so fashionable; I think our room looks nearly naked without one.” “I think it looks just right.” “I think it looks very naked—we want a piano shockingly,” protested Esther emphatically. The husband rocked violently. “Your lamp smokes, my dear,” said he, after a long pause. “When are you going to get a camphene lamp? I have told you a dozen times how much we needed one,” said Esther, pettily. “These are very pretty lamps; I never can see by a camphene lamp,” said her husband. “These lamps are the prettiest of the kind I ever saw.” “But, George, I do not think our room is complete without a camphene lamp,” said Esther, sharply. “They are so fashionable! Why, the Morgans and Millers, and many others I might mention, all have them; I am sure we ought to.” “We ought to, if we take the pattern by other people’s expenses, and I don’t see any reason in that.” The husband moved uneasily in his chair. “We want to live as well as others,” said Esther. “We want to live within our means, Esther,” exclaimed George. “I am sure we can afford it as well as the Morgans, and Millers, and Thorns; we do not wish to appear mean.” George’s cheek crimsoned. “Mean! I am not mean!” he said angrily. “Then we do not wish to appear so,” said the wife. “To complete this room, and make it look like other people’s, we want a piano and a camphene lamp.” “We want!—we want!” muttered the husband; “there’s no satisfying woman’s wants, do what you may;” and he abruptly left the room. How many husbands are in a similar dilemma! How many houses and husbands are rendered uncomfortable by the constant dissatisfaction of a wife with present comforts and present provisions! How many bright prospects for business have ended in bankruptcy and ruin, in order to satisfy this secret hankering after fashionable necessaries! Could the real cause of many failures be known, it would be found to result from useless expenditures at home—expenses to answer the demands of fashion, and “what will people think”? “My wife has made my fortune,” said a gentleman of great possessions, “by her thrift, and prudence, and cheerfulness, when I was just beginning.” “And mine has lost my fortune,” answered his companion, “by useless extravagance and repining when I was doing well.” What a world does this open to the influence which a wife possesses over the future prosperity of her family! Let the wife know her influence, and try to use it wisely and well. Be satisfied to commence on a small scale. It is too common for young housekeepers to begin where their mothers ended. Buy all that is necessary to work skillfully with; adorn your house with all that will render it comfortable. Do not look at richer homes, and covet their costly furniture. If secret dissatisfaction is ready to spring up, go a step further, and visit the homes of the suffering poor; behold dark, cheerless apartments, insufficient clothing, and absence of all the comforts and refinements of social life, and then return to your own with a joyful spirit. You will then be prepared to meet your husband with a grateful heart, and be ready to appreciate the toil and self-denial which he has endured in the business world to surround you with the delights of home; and you will be ready to co-operate cheerfully with him in so arranging your expenses, that his mind will not be constantly harassed with fears lest his family expenditure may encroach upon public payments. Be independent. A young housekeeper never needed greater moral courage than she does now, to resist the arrogance of fashion. Do not let the A’s and B’s decide what you must have—neither let them hold the strings of your purse. You know best what you can and ought to afford. It matters but little what people think, provided you are true to yourself and family. Political Reform.
By T. L. Cuyler
THE wisest and best men of this State are becoming alarmed at the political dangers that threaten us. They have too good reason for the very worst apprehensions. The “Empire State” is fast becoming ruled by its great cities, and its great cities are being ruled by the vicious and dangerous classes. Huge and horrible facts are continually being brought to the surface to warrant the worst fears of every honest Christian citizen. It is a terrible fact that the elections in New York and Brooklyn have become so wicked a farce through the devices of ballot-box stuffers and repeaters, that the interposition of Congress has been invoked to protect the purity of suffrage—with what success remains to be seen. It is a terrible fact that the election of such men as Wm. E. Dodge or ex-Mayor Lambert to be the chief-magistracy of New York or Brooklyn, is now recounted as an utter impossibility. It is a terrible fact that the choice of nearly all our functionaries is really controlled in the dram shops. It is a terrible fact that the Romanists receive about everything they demand—whether it be immunity in an “Elm Park Riot,” or an appropriation of public moneys to a sectarian institution. It is a terrible fact that human life is becoming fearfully insecure; and justice is bought and sold in the city court-rooms. It is a terrible fact that laws for closing dens of debauchery on God’s day are openly set at defiance. It is a terrible fact that legislators in our city halls and in the State Capitol are bought up at so much per head, like bullocks in the shambles. For how else under the sun could men get rich by legislation at three or four dollars a day?—T. L. Cuyler, D. D. Imitators and the Example.
There is no thought more distressing or repressing to the devout disciple, than that of his being a stumbling-block to the impenitent and wicked. He is sorrowful on account of his sins, not only because they are an offense in the sight of God, but because they are an obstruction in the path of man. Alas! alas! he cries in great pain. Alas! that I should be so wretched an example, and, instead of helping, should continually hurt the hallowed cause by the manner of my life and the fashion of my behavior! And this Christian, going out and coming in, tormented with the reproaches of conscience, will have a deep longing for the sight of a human example. He will make a great account of any he may find among his acquaintances who are radiant with the graces of a Christian experience, and well reported of for consistency in Christian conduct. He loves them with tenderness, and points to them with pride, and would have their shadow fall upon him. And yet, like the ungodly, he may be hindered rather than assisted by the example of the exemplary. For, says he sadly, these are the exceptions, the others are the rule. The few attain, the many fall by the way. And then, he will see that this admirable deportment may be the result of natural disposition, rather than that of supernatural influence. The amiable and decorous by nature are not to be classed with those who are made so by grace. Those who shine with noble qualities which are the trophies gained in the battle with self, are more worthy of our applause than those who obtain these qualities with their father's blood or their mother's milk. The lives of some are all battle and few victories; while others, having obtained the victory by inheritance, do not have to fight for it. So far as a person behaves circumspectly, he is a proper example for our imitation; but it does not follow that he is therefore a strictly Christian example; since it were better for us to take knowledge of him who is inwardly in commotion with the war among the members, than of him whose composition is such as to render such a war unnoticeable, if not impossible. See, then, how utterly without a touchstone we are in the matter of a Christian example among men. We have no rules to go by, no date to judge by, no lines to hew by, no poles to plough by. We are reckoning without figures, writing without ink, putting to sea without rudder, chart, or compass. Look you, then; it is quite unfair and unreasonable to judge the Christian religion by the deportment of those who do or do not profess it; since the person whom you crown with your admiring commendation may be far less a Christian in every introspective and incisive sense, than he whom you brand with your stern condemnation. The best behavers are not always the best Christians. And so, while on this account they are without excuse who refuse allegiance to our Lord, for the same reason there is no warrant for disheartenment with those who, having put on Christ, have a rough time of it in trying to keep him on. As well hold the sun in the heavens responsible for the clouds that obstruct its rays, as to hold the Sun of Righteousness responsible for the obstructions he meets with in his illumination of mankind. The water that bubbles up so crystalline in the spring among the mountains, is not to be confounded with the same water after it has washed the feet of the cattle in the meadow, and turned the wheels of a hundred distilleries. It will relieve us of much vexation and be the saving of the souls of some of us, to settle it once, and for all, that Christians are imitators, not examples. They have no right to set themselves up as examples, neither have any the right to make them their examples. Let us distinguish, then, between the business of making ourselves ensamples, and being ensamples as the result of our imitation of the only Ensample set before us in the gospels. I may not make the forsaking of my impenitence turn upon my being furnished, from among my companions, a specimen of ideal penitence. There is no such by-law of Christ's law. Even human legislation scouts the plea. And I may not sicken with self-depreciation, because there is a Christian before me who is outwardly my superior, nor because there are so few who adorn the holy doctrine by a holy behavior. The outward life is as deceptive as the inward heart. For the rebuke of the ungodly and of the disheartened, there stands one among them whom they know not as they should. He is the only example which the New-Testament policy of human reconstruction has agreed to furnish. Ecce Homo! He is the only sample specimen of his own religion, the only pattern believer of his own faith, the only ideal obeyer of his own law, the only perfect servant of the only perfect Master, the only immaculate subject of the only immaculate King. Why do any, and especially, why do Christians, look to, or look for, any other than the only Example—Jesus Christ!—Sel. A. D. SEPTEMBER 13, 1870. The Italian troops of Victor Emanuel, king of Italy, are entering Rome, to occupy the papal territory. We might say, Now the papal tyranny ends; but we dare not. What the end will be I know not. It is not 1116 years since Pope Stephen wrote to Pepin, king of Paris, sending him a letter, a forged letter, purporting to be from St. Peter, ordering him under pains and penalties to render certain assistance to the See of Rome. Up to this time, the Pope, as any other ecclesiastic, was subject to the ruling monarch. A. D. 755, Pepin, on receiving this order from Heaven, and the rude barbarian supposed it to be from Heaven, moved his savage troops immediately upon the Italian States. There was but a feeble resistance, and here I will repeat the words of the Catholic writers:— “In one short campaign, of the year 755, the valiant monarch of France wrested from the Lombards, the exarchate of Ravenna, with the greater part of its dependencies, Bologna, Ferrara, and the Pentapolis, which stretches along the Adriatic coast, from Rimini to Ancona, and in its midland directions as far as the Appennines. All this extent of territory, with two and twenty towns (cities), now by right of conquest belonged to King Pepin, either to be retained or to be disposed of by him, as in his wisdom he should judge fit. By a solemn grant, he bestowed the whole upon Pope Stephen III.” “During the first seven centuries the See of Rome, like other Episcopal Sees, had no ‘temporal possessions.’ By a new revolution of human events, the temporal power may be torn away, the spiritual power will remain unimpaired to the end of time.” (Reeves’ Cath. Ch. Hist. pp. 294, 295.) These “events” seem to have arrived. On Friday, Sept. 2, Napoleon, with McMahon and 120,000 soldiers, was surrounded in Sedan (in the north east of France) by the Prussians, and captured. When Pepin the French king bestowed the temporal possessions upon Pope Stephen III., A. D. 755, the Prussians were unconverted. The Prussians were, by a bloody war waged by the knights of the Teutonic order, “compelled” to be Catholics, in A. D. 1230, by the “execrable ruffians,” says Fortin iii. 311. Now they are largely Protestants (sixty per cent), and have broken the vertebra of popery. Saturday night, Sept. 3, a mob tore down the throne in the Tuileries. Sept. 4, a republic was officially proclaimed. Sept. 15, the Prussians are massing their army around Paris. The great danger is, that Prussia will now face about, and fight for Napoleon instead of fighting against him; and assist the tyrant in crushing the people. Austria and Russia, it is said, have formed an alliance; but this may mean no evil. God grant that it may mean the annihilation of the Turkish power in Europe. In any event, we hope that the pope will not be able to assume, in future, any temporal power in Italy, but that God may overrule coming events to his own glory. Sept. 20, 1870. The Italians have surrounded Rome. Sept. 21. The pope urges resistance. Sept. 22. Some ten are killed, fifty wounded. Sept. 23. Rome is taken, and the pope dethroned. Sept. 24. All political prisoners are liberated. Perino had been in prison 17 years.—Christian Pulpit. An over-anxiety to see the result of their labor is a prevailing weakness of the professional ministry of our day. They seem to forget that sowing is the peculiar business of Christ's ministers; and though a Paul may plant and an Apollos may water, God must give the increase. Any increase gathered in any other way is not legitimate fruit—it is, to say the least, premature and unripe. "Sow thy seed in the morning, and in the evening withhold not thy hand"—no part of the day set apart for reaping. Men are too anxious to manifest great results of their labors—too anxious to number their host and thereby measure their strength and importance; so much so that they do not scruple to "gather where they have not strewn," and place the gatherings to their own credit. Better be patient, content in the humble calling of a sower, foregoing the praises and titles of men, bestowed upon those apparently the most successful. If the sower labors faithfully, and sows only the pure seed, it is none of his business about the result. He is not even responsible for the kind of ground it falls upon—whether by the wayside, in stony places, among thorns, or upon good ground—his reward is the same. Paul no doubt did his duty just as faithfully and acceptably when he preached without apparent result to the idle and curious Athenians as when he gathered a promising church at Corinth. God has only given the seed of the word into the hands of his ministers; he has never intrusted them with the sickle. "The harvest is the end of the world," when God will "send forth his reapers."—The Nazarene. In the International Exhibition of 1862 were two pictures which I shall never forget. The first was called “Waiting for the Verdict.” Standing at the door of a room where a trial was going on, there was a little gathering of people. A woman—oh, what agony was in her look! and a dear little child lying against her asleep; another who looked like the grandmother, holding the youngest child; the grandfather with one hand fallen down between his knees, the other covering his face, from which the big tears were rolling; the dog looking up, and wondering; the elder sister standing against the door, all anxiety. What meant it all? Before the bar in that court of justice, the father was standing, and they were “waiting for the verdict.” There was a second picture. The same people standing at the same place, only one is among them we did not see before. A man is sitting on the bench, his wife with joyful look embracing him; the dog licking his hand; the grandmother with eyes swollen with weeping, only they are tears of joy now, holding up a dear little child for a kiss from the father, who, a few minutes before, had been standing before that bar. Why are they all so changed? Why joy where there was sorrow? happiness where there was misery? A “word only” had done it all. Not guilty. “The acquittal.” Does not this remind us of a bar before which we must stand—a Judge before whom we must appear? We shall be “Waiting for the Verdict.” The “word only” of Jesus will have power to fix our state forever—“Come,” “Depart.”—Sel. The Birth-place of Genius.
It is one of the mysteries of life, that genius, that noblest gift of God, is nourished by poverty. Its greatest works have been achieved by the sorrowing ones of the world, in tears and in despair. Not in the brilliant saloon, furnished with every comfort and elegance—not in the library, well fitted, softly carpeted, and looking out upon a smooth, green lawn, or a broad expanse of scenery—not in ease and competence, is genius born and nurtured, but more frequently in adversity and destitution, amidst the harassing cares of a straitened household, in bare and fireless garrets, with the noise of squalid children, in the midst of the turbulence of domestic contentions, and in the deep gloom of uncheered despair, is genius born and reared. This is its birthplace, and in scenes like these, unpropitious, repulsive, wretched men have labored, studied, and trained themselves until they have at last eliminated out of the gloom of that obscurity, the shining lights of their times—become the companions of kings, the guides and teachers of their kind, and exercised an influence upon the thought of the world amounting to a species of intellectual legislation. From the report of the chief of the Statistical Bureau of the United States, it is learned that for the fifty-one years ending September 30, 1870, the total immigration has been 7,441,619. Regarding these immigrants as worth $1,000 each, they brought to us $7,441,619,000. If worth $500 each, they brought us $3,720,800,500. The best year for immigration was 1854. It then gradually decreased in 1856, 1857, and 1858, and then began again, and went up until 1861, and then up until the present year, when the number is reduced by war. The Third Day Since These Things Were Done.
On what day of the week was Christ crucified? and, On what day did he arise from the dead? These are questions which have been the occasion of no little discussion. There are substantially two views held in reference to them. The first is, that Christ was crucified on Wednesday, was laid in the tomb near the close of that day, and rose from the dead at a corresponding hour on the Sabbath, or Saturday, having lain in the grave exactly seventy-two hours; this being the three days and three nights during which the Son of Man was to be in the heart of the earth, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly. The second view, and the one most generally entertained, is, that Christ was crucified on Friday, and rose early on the morning of the first day of the week. There are others who place the crucifixion upon Thursday instead of Friday, thinking this necessary to make harmony between all the statements of the evangelists concerning that event. This view, however, does not obviate the difficulty which the first view is designed to meet; namely, the apparent failure of the words of Christ that the Son of Man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, if a period of time less than seventy-two hours elapsed while he lay in the tomb. The main question lies between the first and second views here stated. As already intimated, the first view rests wholly upon the testimony respecting Jonah. No other reason, at least of which we are aware, exists for placing the crucifixion so early in the week as Wednesday, except the statement of Christ that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the body of the fish, the Son of Man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Assuming that the phrase “heart of the earth,” means the grave, which may perhaps be questioned, all rests upon the meaning of this phrase, “three days and three nights.” What do these words signify? Must they be taken absolutely as they would be understood if used at the present day? or, was there in that age a usus loquendi, in accordance with which they could be taken in an accommodated sense? There is nothing in the record in Jonah to throw any additional light upon the expression; that is, there is no other testimony there, and no other events recorded, which show us that a period of time, absolutely seventy-two hours in length, is meant by the term “three days and three nights.” We do have, however, in the evangelists, records of predictions and narrations of events, from which we can determine something respecting the time during which Christ lay in the tomb. Now, instead of taking the bare expression, “three days and three nights,” assuming that the meaning attached to it when it was used, was the same as we would give it at the present day, and then using that as proof that Christ was for seventy-two consecutive hours in the grave, and trying to make all other testimony harmonize with this view, it seems to us it would be fully as legitimate a mode of reasoning to try to ascertain from the evangelists how long Christ was actually in the tomb, and use that as a key for the interpretation of the expression, “three days and three nights.” The words placed at the head of this article, give us, if we mistake not, a good clue to the solution of this question. They are the words used by the disciples to Christ when on their way to Emmaus. The time when they were used is beyond dispute. It was in the latter part of the first day of the week. And they said, “To-day is the third day since these things were done.” From this day, then, as a starting point, let us count back and see how early in the week it is possible to place the crucifixion. If the first day of the week was the third day, the day before the first day, or the Sabbath, was the second day, and the day before that, or Friday, the first day, since the events of which they were speaking took place; and this would forbid our placing the events themselves farther back than the preceding day, or Thursday. Reasoning from this statement of the disciples, we see not how the trial and crucifixion of Christ can possibly be placed earlier in the week than Thursday. How, then, do those who place this event on Wednesday, meet this testimony? We have never heard any one try; but we have heard that some do attempt to get around it (for we can call it nothing less) by saying that the word since means from the first day; that is, the third day from the first day of the occurrence of these things. But it looks to us that this is not even respectable sophistry. If we are to reckon from some point subsequent to the occurrence of the events, then we are cut loose from all moorings, and might just as well say that that was the third day since Jonah was put into the whale’s belly. The original is very definite. “Τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον, ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγένετο. This day is the third day from the time when these things took place.” Suppose, now, that the crucifixion took place on Wednesday. He was laid in the tomb that day. All was accomplished before Thursday began. Would not Thursday then, be the first day following those events? Would not Friday be the second, and Sabbath the third, even stretching the time all that it is possible to stretch it? The expression, since these things occurred, cannot exclude Thursday; for Thursday was not the day of the occurrence of these things, but the day following their occurrence; and the disciples did not say, To-day is the third day from the day following the occurrence of these things; but the third day from the time when they occurred. This is a nail in a sure place; for, in view of this testimony, we cannot go back more than two days from the first day of the week for the crucifixion, making it occur on Thursday, the third day, according to the most liberal reckoning, from that point. We do not say it did occur then, but only that we cannot go back farther than that day. The seventy-two-hour theory thus falls to the ground; and we are held to the conclusion that the expression, “three days and three nights,” cannot be taken to mean absolutely that length of time. The way is, therefore, now all open to adjust these events in such a manner as a harmonious interpretation of all the testimony shall demand. And first, we call the attention of the reader to those passages which declare that Christ would rise on the third day from the time of his trial and crucifixion. There are eight of them, as follows: Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7; and two passages state that he did rise on the third day: Luke 24:46; 1 Cor. 15:4. Take these texts with the declaration of the disciples, “To-day is the third day since these things were done,” and, as it seems to us, the day of the resurrection is clearly identified. Christ was to rise on the third day after certain events, and the disciples naming those very events, and speaking on the first day of the week, say, “To-day is the third day since these things were done.” The day on which the disciples uttered these words, if they were correct in their reckoning, was the very day on which Christ was to rise, according to his own predictions. Did his predictions fail? If not, his resurrection is immovably fixed upon the first day of the week. There is a passage in Mark which we consider a direct declaration that Christ did rise on the first day of the week: Mark 16:9: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Greek: “Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου, ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ,” &c. Literally, “And having arisen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,” &c. The only question here is, whether the words, “early the first day of the week,” are an adjunct of the participle, having risen, or of the verb, appeared. We think they qualify the participle; for, first, the verb has a qualifying word, in the word first, which seems to be all that the evangelist wished to assert respecting his appearing. There would be no propriety in saying that he appeared first to certain ones on the first day of the week, unless it is told to whom he appeared first upon some other day. Secondly, it would appear more important that the time of his resurrection should be named, than the time when he appeared to his disciples. But if it is said that this is the important point, then we reply that this certainly took place on the first day of the week, and hence Sunday-keepers retain all the force of their argument for first-day, based on the resurrection of Christ, even though the resurrection itself be removed to another day. This brings us to another difficulty involved in the view that Christ lay in the tomb, seventy-two hours, from near the close of Wednesday to near the close of the Sabbath; namely, it makes the resurrection of Christ occur on the Sabbath. Is there any testimony to show that Christ arose on the Sabbath? Matt. 28:1, is claimed for this purpose. It is held by some that this language means, “Late in the Sabbath [the day ending at sunset] as the first day of the week was drawing on;” that is, before sunset on the Sabbath, came the two Marys to the sepulcher. Previous to their coming, there had been a great earthquake, the stone was rolled away, and an angel, assuring them that the Lord was not there, but had arisen, bade them go quickly and tell the disciples that he was risen, and would go before them into Galilee where they would see him. This, it is claimed, is the record of a previous visit, which none of the other evangelists mention, they all speaking of a visit on the following morning, after the Sabbath was past. We showed two weeks since that the language of Matt. 28:1, is clearly susceptible of the translation given it in our common version, and that it means, after the Sabbath, in harmony with the other evangelists. Let us now inquire whether this idea of a previous visit, in Matt. 28:1, is consistent with the record of the other evangelists. 1. According to the view under notice, this visit was made on the Sabbath. But Luke says (23:56) that the disciples rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. It is hardly probable that they would thus clip the end of the Sabbath by a journey to the sepulcher, work from which they had so scrupulously abstained at its commencement; nor could such a course easily be reconciled with the testimony of Luke, above referred to. 2. The same Marys, according to Mark (16:1, 2), came to the sepulcher very early in the morning of the first day of the week; and they brought the spices they had prepared to anoint the Lord, Luke 24:2, and wondered who would roll away the stone for them. But how can it be supposed that they would come for this purpose on first-day morning, if they had been to the sepulcher the night before, and found the stone rolled away, and been assured by an angel that the Lord was not there, but had risen? Were they so forgetful, or so thoughtless? 3. While the women were returning to tell the disciples, as the angel had bidden them, according to the record in Matthew 28, the guard went into the city, and between them and the chief priests the story was fabricated that the body of Jesus was stolen while they slept. Now, the supposition that Jesus rose in the daytime before the close of the Sabbath, involves the absurdity of supposing that the guard would acknowledge that they were asleep in the daytime! and that the body was taken in broad daylight! To avoid this, it is said that only the first eight verses of Matt. 28 refer to the Sabbath visit, the language of verse 9, and onward, referring to the morning visit which is noticed by the other evangelists. But this is a most forced and unnatural interpretation; for there is nothing in the language to denote a jump of a whole night between verses 8 and 9, and not an intimation that the record from verse 9 applies to an occasion different from that introduced in the preceding verses. But this view involves an absurdity equal in magnitude to the other; for it follows that the guard, after being struck down as dead men by the glorious manifestations attending the resurrection of Christ, on Sabbath afternoon, waited a whole night, till first-day morning, before they went into the city to acquaint the chief priests with the wonderful events which had taken place. Having now found that Christ’s resurrection took place on the first day of the week, the only importance attached to fixing the day of the crucifixion is to show a fulfillment of Christ’s words, and make all the statements of the evangelists harmonize. It has already been shown that we cannot go back farther than Thursday for the date of that event. The question here, then, lies between Thursday and Friday where it is generally placed; and it is only material to take that day which is required by the testimony in the case. Let us suppose it to have occurred on Friday. The betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and entombment, of Christ, then, occupied almost that entire day. Could this be taken as the first day in the computation? If so, then Sunday would be the third day, as the disciples said. In Luke 13:32, we read that Jesus sent this word to Herod: “Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” The to-day in which Christ speaks, is here made the first in the order of reckoning. In Acts 27, we have an account of some of Paul’s perils by sea. In verse 17, he speaks of a certain day of their distress. The next day, he continues, they lightened the ship; and the third day, cast overboard the tackling. Verse 19. Here it is evident that the day mentioned in verse 17, is called the first. In Esther 6, we have an account of a feast given by the queen to Haman and the king. The next day she gave another; and that next day is called the second. Esth. 7:2. So in reckoning backward, the day on which the person spoke was the first day, and the day but one before that, was called the third. See the marginal reading of Ex. 4:10; Deut. 19:4; Josh. 3:4; 1 Sam. 4:7; 19:7; &c. From this it is evident that when Christ predicted that he was to suffer certain things, be put to death, and rise the third day, he reckoned the day of his suffering as the first day in the computation. But how can a portion of Friday, the Sabbath, and a part of Sunday be called, three days and three nights? There is no difficulty, if such was the manner of speaking in use among the Jews. What did they understand by it? This is the only question to be settled. There is a passage in Esther which would seem to throw some light upon the question. She told Mordecai (4:16) to gather the Jews together who were in Shushan, and fast for three days, neither eating nor drinking night or day; and she would do the same, and so would go in unto the king. This expression is certainly equivalent to three days and three nights. And how was it fulfilled? In chap. 5:1, we read that on the third day Esther appeared before the king. So Joseph put his brothers into ward three days, but on the third day he released them and permitted them to depart to Canaan. From these instances it appears clear that, according to Jewish usage, it did not require three full days and nights to answer to the expression, “three days and three nights;” but that it was applied to a period of time covering the part of one day, the whole of another, and a portion of a third. The day following the crucifixion the chief priest came to Pilate desiring a guard to be set; and it is objected that they would not do this upon the Sabbath. This is not the way, to be sure, we should expect the Sabbath to be spoken of; but as to the chief priests and Pharisees, we do not think we can presume much on the piety of men who were just then so infuriated with the spirit of the devil, as to condemn the Saviour to the cross. It is far easier to suppose they would come to Pilate upon the Sabbath, than to think that the Sabbath which followed that preparation day, Mark. 15:42; Luke 23:54, and which the women kept according to the commandment, Luke 23:56, was only a ceremonial sabbath. But, says one, if we could show that Christ did not rise on the first day of the week, how it would sweep away the argument for Sunday-keeping. To be of any service the argument to this end must be very plain and positive; for all the world almost are established in the belief that his resurrection was on Sunday. The evidence is not so clear; and to try to use it, is to seize the maul by the head instead of the handle; for it would be a hundred-fold harder to make a person believe that Christ’s resurrection did not take place upon the first day of the week, than to show him that if it did, it proved nothing in favor of a Sunday Sabbath. Were we arguing with a Sunday-keeper, we would prefer to admit Christ’s resurrection on Sunday rather than otherwise; for we like to agree with an opponent as far as possible; and because, after he has carefully built up his argument, it is so easy to show that point after point is only assumption, and that the whole structure falls in hopeless ruin to the ground. And farther, to undertake to prove Christ’s resurrection upon another day, is a tacit admission that if he did rise on the first day of the week, it is of force in behalf of a Sunday Sabbath; whereas if ten thousand resurrections could be shown upon that day, it would prove nothing whatever in its favor as a day of rest and worship. THE reader will be interested in the tabular view of the principal events which transpired in Europe in the latter part of 1870, presented in another column. We take it from the “Franklin Almanac,” published by A. Winch, 505 Chestnut St., Philadelphia. In view of the course and results, so far, of the war between France and Prussia, the address of the French Senate to Napoleon sounds bitterly sarcastic. Another point will not fail to strike the reader; namely, the contrast between the boastful, independent spirit manifested by the French, and the humble acknowledgment on the part of the king of Prussia, of entire dependence upon God. We regret that the record comes down no later than Oct. 30.