The second text is found in Acts xx, 7: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”
Agreeing for the moment with those of the opposition as to the time of this meeting, and that the breaking of bread spoken of was the sacrament, let us see just how much aid and comfort they can legitimately derive from this passage, thus understood. If they get any it must be by proceeding upon the hypothesis that this was a regular, and not an accidental meeting. That they came together to break bread because it was their usage, and that Paul taking advantage of this gathering, preached before departing. How then can this be demonstrated? Certainly not from the context; for it contains nothing to show that they ever had before, or ever did after this, convene for a like purpose. And in the absence of any proof to the contrary, one would naturally conclude from the narrative, and the circumstances related, that the occasion of their coming together was a desire to unite with a beloved brother—perhaps for the last time in this world—in celebrating one of the most solemn ordinances of the Christian church.
How could he who was to depart, and the disciples who were to remain, furnish a stronger pledge of their mutual confidence and sympathy, than by coming around the table of their common Lord, and partaking of those emblems, which, while they reminded them of the sufferings and humiliation of him whose body was
broken and blood spilled for their sake, also pointed forward to the time when he should again unite with them in drinking of the fruit of the vine in a kingdom where Paul would have no more perils by sea and land to encounter, and where parting would be no more.
That the above view presents the real cause for the breaking of bread alluded to, becomes more apparent when we recollect that the early Christians had no fixed day for this purpose, but were governed entirely by their surroundings. That this is so, will be made evident by referring to Acts ii, 46, where it is stated: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” Such was the daily practice of the church at Jerusalem; a church whose opinions should have greater weight with us than those of any other, because its roll of membership bore the names of the apostles, and a large number of those who had been the friends and companions of Christ.
This example of the church at Jerusalem places two propositions beyond the possibility of successful assault. The first is, that the place where they should partake of the eucharist was of no importance; for it was their habit to do so from house to house. The second, that the day on which it was administered was not necessarily a holy one; else we must conclude that they regarded every one in the week as such; for by the record, each of the seven was in turn employed in this manner.
But if the above was true in Jerusalem, it was also true in Troas. That is, if the time and place could be varied at will in the one city, it could in the other. In fact, our adversaries have virtually yielded this point; for the very burden of their argument is to prove that the disciples at Troas communed only on the first day of the week. They thereby confess that they were not acting in harmony with those whom Acts ii, 46, represents as doing this daily.
But how can this conflict in the customs of Christians in different places be explained. The answer is clear. This was considered a matter of local control. One which every community of saints might regulate as their preferences or interests should dictate. The moment you have given your assent to this, however, the question assumes an entirely different aspect. The example of one or more bodies of believers loses its power; for if one could pursue a course at variance with that of another, it could change its own. So that even though you could show by satisfactory evidence, a line of precedents extending through a whole year, and indicating a uniform practice in this matter on the part of a single body, you would not have a solitary guarantee that this continued for one week after the time had elapsed covered by them.
This is forcibly illustrated by the text before us. The writer of the Acts represents the church at Jerusalem as in the outset commencing daily; but no one will insist that this was of long duration. Nay, it may be doubted whether a few months did not find them engaged in this no oftener than once a week, and perhaps a few years, once a month, or once in several months.
How feeble, then, is the hold upon life of that faith which rests its weight upon the slender thread of a single instance. A word of explanation, an allusion to an obsolete usage which was either never understood, or which had escaped the mind for the moment, might give the affair an entirely different complexion. For this reason it occurs not unfrequently, that this class of testimony, like the guns of a captured battery, may be turned upon, and be made to carry confusion and dismay into the ranks of the men who had previously regarded it as their stronghold. If we do not mistake, the case in hand is one of this character. Let us see.
That the gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the apostles, were written by the same individual, is rendered highly probable by the following facts:
1. They are both inscribed to Theophilus.
2. The latter alludes to a former treatise of all that Jesus began to do and teach, as having been made by its author.
3. The writer of the Acts was the companion of Paul in his travels. This was true of Luke, since he is spoken197of by name in 1 Timothy iv, 11, and Colossians iv, 14, as being with him.
A careful perusal of these two books, which cover a period of time stretching from the birth of Christ to about A. D. 63, will not, we think, disclose a single departure from the Jewish system of commencing and ending the day with sundown. A system which is so well understood by Bible students, that it will not be necessary to establish it here by Scripture references. We shall content ourselves, therefore with the following quotation which we present simply to show that there is no conflict between those who keep Sunday, and those who observe the Lord’s Sabbath, on this point.
“The day is distinguished into natural, civil, and artificial. The natural day is one revolution of the earth on its axis. The civil day is that, the beginning and end of which are determined by the custom of any nation. The Hebrews began their day in the evening. The Babylonians at sunrise; and we begin at midnight. The artificial day is the time of the sun’s continuance above the horizon, which is unequal according to different seasons, on account of the obliquity of the equator. The sacred writers generally divide the day into twelve hours. The sixth hour always ends at noon throughout the year; and the twelfth hour is the last hour before sunset. But in summer, all the hours of the day were longer than in winter, while those of the night were shorter.”—Dictionary of the Holy Bible, published by Tract Society, Art. Day.
Now as it is not to be presumed that Luke has, in the text before us, abruptly and unnecessarily departed from that mode of marking the day which he had elsewhere voluntarily adopted, and consistently pursued, it will be safe to infer that in this case, as in all others in his writings, when mention is made of the first day, it is understood as beginning with the sunset which closed the seventh, and ending with the one which introduced the second.
If so, the next information which we need is in reference to which of those hours, thus bounded, were devoted to the meeting held by Paul in Troas. This will be easily gained. It is found in the following words: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” Acts xx, 7.
By reading further, you will learn that after the interruption which was occasioned by the accident that befell Eutychus, Paul, when he was come up again and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while even till break of day, departed. Thus it appears that the whole night was consumed before the various religious exercises were brought to a close. One half, therefore, of the first day of the week was disposed of in this manner. Which half? That half which was covered by darkness; for when the day is begun at sundown, the evening, or darkness, must precede the morning or light.
It becomes important now, before we jump at the conclusion that this meeting establishes the fact that Paul looked upon the day on which it occurred as holy time, that we should ascertain whether the use to which he put its remaining hours can be made to accord with this theory. If not, then it must fall to the ground. What says the record? We answer,
1. It represents Paul as deliberately planning a journey on the first day of the week. Proof: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow [or morning], and continued his speech until midnight.” Verse 7. This morrow or morning, we have shown to be a part of the same day on which the meeting was held.
2. That he did really carry his purpose into execution, by starting on foot for Assos, according to previous arrangements. Proof: “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even until break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to
go afloat.” Verses 11-13. Assos was distant from Troas, in a direct line about fifteen miles. This journey Paul performed on foot, on Sunday, while his companions with the vessel went to the same place by the more circuitous route which the shape of the coast made it necessary for them to take.
So long as the sanctity of that day is maintained, no satisfactory explanation of this conduct can be given. Certain it is that the apostle, occupying the position before the believing world which he then did, would have hesitated long before doing any thing which could be construed even into an implied consent to the doctrine that traveling under ordinary circumstances was legitimate on the newly-appointed rest-day. How then, shall the entering upon this trip, at this time, be accounted for? The mariner, out upon the broad expanse of the ocean, may pursue his course on the Sabbath, because there is a necessity upon him which he cannot throw off. But the case of Paul assuredly furnishes no apology, of a physical nature, for the course pursued. Located as he was, in the midst of friends, who were only too happy when they could supply his every want, he was most favorably circumstanced for the observance of that day which it is claimed that he taught others to regard as sacred.
Do you suggest that it was the good of the cause, and that he was pressing forward to fill an appointment which had been previously made? We answer, the probabilities are against you.
1. Because Luke, who seems to have kept a journal of passing events, makes no mention of any meeting at this place, and seems to indicate that the journey was resumed as soon as Paul reached them at that point. He says, verse 14, “And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in and came to Mitylene.”
2. Because Paul, having talked all night, and in addition to this, having walked fifteen miles across the country, could have been in no condition either of mind or body for further labor until exhausted nature should have been recuperated by rest and sleep.
No: a moment’s reflection will, we apprehend, furnish a better explanation of this matter. Paul, being anxious to spend all the time with the disciples at Troas, which he could consistently with his other duties, evidently hit upon a plan whereby his stay with them might be protracted somewhat, and yet his arrival at Jerusalem not be delayed for an hour. A glance at an ancient map will show you that Troas and Assos were seaport towns, situated on opposite sides of a peninsula. The land route, which lay across the base of this, was, therefore, much shorter than that which it was necessary for those to take who passed from town to town by water. So that Paul, while his comrades were engaged in the slow and tedious operation of sailing around this headland, might delay his departure for some time after they had started, and still reach the appointed harbor by way of the overland route in season to go on board of the vessel as soon as she should arrive. This being accomplished, and the sails given to the winds once more, he, while obtaining the required repose would be moving forward toward the point of his destination.
But if we are right in this, further argument is unnecessary. No ingenuity will enable those who have appealed to this text to avert the ruin which it brings upon their cause; for it not only refuses to yield an apostolic precedent for the keeping of Sunday, but it furnishes the most indubitable evidence that it was regarded as belonging to that order of days which might properly be devoted to travel; which was never true of the ancient Sabbath, and which could not, consequently, be of a newly-instituted one which had been clothed with all of its original sanctity.
We might pause here and contrast the claims of the Sabbath, with those of its rival, even when viewed in the light of example. For its friends, unlike those of the latter, may not only defy the world to produce from the sacred pages a single instance in which the apostles ignored its authority, but they can also adduce many in which they are represented as solemnizing it in a suitable manner. Turn if you please to Acts xviii, 4, and you may read as follows: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Again, Acts xvi, 13: “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.” Once more, Acts xiii, 42-44: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”
And so we might continue to collate the passages which bear upon this point, until it had been shown that in more than eighty cases, between the death of Christ and the close of the New Testament history, the Sabbath was celebrated in the exercises of religious rites. But this will not be required at our hands. For, there being, as has been shown, a positive precept for the keeping of the seventh day, this is, in itself prima facie evidence that it was strictly observed at all times by those whose lives were ever made to conform to the divine rule, even though mention had not been made of this fact. Look for example to the five hundred years which intervened between Moses and David, and in which there is not a solitary reference to the Sabbath. No thinking man will urge that this furnishes any good reason for believing that the conscientious among the Hebrews were, during the whole of this period, living in palpable disregard of the fourth commandment. On the contrary, silence under such circumstances should rather be received as a token that they both knew their duty, and were obedient to it on the whole. For had it been otherwise, the Divine displeasure must have been expressed in a manner so terrible, that it could not have failed of finding a place in the sacred history.
The opposite is, however, true of Sunday-keeping. Being nowhere enjoined in express terms, its vindication must be sought for in the sentiments of the early disciples, as enunciated in the record of their sayings and doings. Since it is not to be found there, the conclusion is irresistible that it must have had its origin somewhere this side of their age. For a moment’s thought must satisfy any unprejudiced person, that an innovation so radical as that which would be involved in a change of Sabbaths, would have been the never-failing source of discord and feud between the Jews and Christians, and, as such, must have required a large place both in the historic and the doctrinal books of the New Testament.
We might prolong this argument indefinitely by entering into an examination in detail of the many minor objections which are urged against the perpetuity of the law, and the obligation of the Sabbath. But this is unnecessary, since the same formulas of logic which have been employed in the disposition of those which are more weighty, will, if properly applied, furnish a full and satisfactory answer to these also. We deem it proper, therefore, to bring our labors on this subject to a close. As we do so, our feelings are those of mingled hope and fear: hope that under the providence of God, some may discover in what has been said, the dim outlines of a truth so glorious that they will resolve to make it their own at all hazards; fear, lest others, appalled by the magnitude of the cross which this new duty imposes, should hesitate about carrying out their convictions. To such we would say, falter not for your lives. The coming of the Lord is at hand. The three angels of Revelation xiv, who were to herald his advent, have nearly finished their solemn work. The third, and the last of these, is now sounding the gathering call which is to bring out a people from the world, and prepare them for this glorious event.
Would you be one of the number who are thus separated? There are two conditions precedent. Do you ask what they are? Listen to the voice of the angel as it echoes through the land, and you will catch these words: “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. xiv, 12.
Can you make the sacrifice? Are you willing to drink of the cup of which they are to drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which they are to be baptized? If so, happy, are you.
Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered
Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 12.
God Tempts Men.— And it came to pass, that God did tempt Abraham. Gen. xxii, 1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah. 2 Sam. xxiv, 1. O Lord, thou hast deceived (marginal reading, enticed) me, and I was deceived (enticed). Jer. xx, 7. Lead us not into temptation. Matt. vi, 13.
God Tempts No Men.— Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. James i, 13.
Temptation signifies nothing more than trial; any opposition or difficulty that may exercise our virtues, and make them known. In this sense God may be said to tempt men; that is he tries and proves them, and thus he tempted Abraham. Sometimes temptation means dangerous trials and enticements to sin, under which we are more likely to sink, than to overcome them. In this sense God “tempteth not any man;” nor will he if we resist them, “suffer us to be tempted above what we are able.” 1 Cor. x, 13.
On 2 Sam. xxiv, 1, it is sufficient to remark that it was Satan, not the Lord, who moved David to number Israel. See margin.
“The original word is pittithani, thou hast persuaded me, i. e. to go and prophesy to this people. I went, faithfully declared thy message, and now I am likely to perish by their cruelty. As the root pathah signifies to persuade and allure, as well as to deceive, the above must be its meaning in this place. Taken as in our version, it is highly irreverent. It is used in the same sense here as in Gen. ix, 27: God shall enlarge (persuade, margin) Japheth; and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.”
“The best commentators are of opinion that this expression imports: ‘Suffer us not to be led into, abandon us not unto, temptation,’ i. e., (by implication) so as to be overcome by it.”
Macknight translates the text, “Abandon us not to temptation.” This gives a correct idea of the text, and relieves it of all difficulty.
THE METHODS OF THE ROMISH CHURCH.
In last week's Herald I alluded to some of the most prominent religious methods by which the Papacy aims at the accomplishment of her designs in the United States. I have now a few words to say in regard to her political policy; and lest any should think my remarks unwarranted, or the danger exaggerated, I would here state that a Society has been in existence in Europe for a number of years for the express purpose of advancing the interest of the Papacy in America. It numbers among its members kings, princes and nobles; has contributed millions of dollars to the cause, supports seminaries for the preparation of Jesuits for the work, and sends numbers of the graduates to their mission-field annually. That this Society is uncompromisingly hostile to the principles of free government and to the institutions we love, we have abundant proof in the declaration of the Pontiff under whose auspices it was founded, “that liberty of conscience is a most pestilential error,” and that “unbridled liberty of opinion is that pest of all others most to be dreaded in the State,” as well as by the promises held out to all who should contribute to its support of full indulgence and remission of all sins. Nor is the present Pope a whit behind his predecessor in this matter, but reiterates his views on the subject of liberty, and charges the Archbishop of Mexico not to tolerate heresy in his dominions.
The Duke of Richmond, formerly Governor of the Canadas, in a speech made use of these words: “The government of the United States will be destroyed by subversion. The Church of Rome has a design upon that country; Popery will in time be the established religion, and will aid in the destruction of that republic. I have conversed with many of the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously expressed their opinions relative to the government of the United States and their desire to subvert it.” He went on to describe the modus operandi, viz.: to send over the surplus population of Europe, who would come amongst us with foreign views and feelings, and in the course of time be prepared to rise and overthrow the government. But I cite further evidence from the organ of the Archbishop of St. Louis, The Shepherd of the Valley, one of the most influential as well as most insolent Papist publications in this country. It says: “The church is of necessity intolerant; heresy she endures when and where she must; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruction; if Catholics ever gain an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end.” I might multiply evidences of this character, but enough has been said to show that the danger is imminent.
In accordance with the statement of the Governor of Canada we find the Jesuits of Europe preaching, not a crusade, but emigration to the United States; the advantages to be gained, the natural superiority of the country, as well as pecuniary assistance, are the arguments used to induce the faithful to accede to their wishes. This is one of the reasons why the preponderance of Catholic over Protestant emigration is so great; another is the sympathy of Catholic rulers with the object in view, and indifference of the Protestant to the loss of a class of subjects unreliable and dangerous to the State.
Let Americans reflect upon the subject and bear in mind that from one hundred and forty millions of Romanists in Europe, enough can easily be spared to turn the balance of power in their favor, and then “religious freedom in this country is at an end.” Another link in the chain of their policy is the keeping of these emigrants from contact with Americans as far as practicable. To this end societies have been organized and agents appointed all through the country, several grand objective points have been chosen which are daily advertised in their journals whither the emigrants are urged to go by the strongest inducements, and here they find existing or are formed into, communities bearing all the distinctive features of their nationalities, and where are carefully preserved the peculiarities of language, manners and faith to which they have been accustomed. With a keen eye to the advantages of position, the Mississippi valley is especially favored, and St. Louis constituted the headquarters of that region. In Iowa, also, colonies are planted, and Irish Catholics are earnestly solicited through their journals to come and take possession of that State. New York is the great entrepot and maritime metropolis of America, hence its importance cannot be overlooked; though they prefer that not more should remain there than will suffice to sway the elections and give tone to public opinion—and but few are aware to what an extent the public mind is biased by Roman influence.
This brings me to the consideration of another feature in their methods. Among the “energies” put forth by them, not the least important are lectures by eloquent and learned men. One of the most prominent and popular of these, the late Dr. Cahill, made the tour of the United States a few years ago, delivering lectures principally on the races. Thousands of Protestants attended them, the press spoke in the highest terms of them, applauded the lecturer, and endorsed his sentiments; yet the whole course pursued by the wily churchman was part and parcel of the plan for the subversion of the liberties of the country. His main arguments went to show the superiority of the Celtic and Latin races over the Anglo-Saxon. On this point he lavished his greatest efforts, colored his subject with the skill of a master, brought into play his almost inexhaustible fund of knowledge and the ready wit of an accomplished satirist, extolled in glowing and eloquent terms the races which in every age have proved to be enemies of progress and education, arrogant, despotic and intolerant; and holding up to contempt and ridicule the whole Anglo-Saxon race, the true conservators of liberty and civilization. Nor did he labor alone in this cause, but numbers of lesser stars have followed in the same course, using all their powers to awaken and foster a spirit of jealousy and hatred between the races; while the Romish press has constantly watered the seed thus sown, and endeavored to stir up still further the demon of discord by predictions of a future and not far-distant war of races. All this has not been without effect; it has given to the American mind a decided leaning toward the Latin race, as is evidenced daily by the press at large and by the outspoken sympathies of the people. How otherwise can American admiration for the perjured despot and betrayer of liberty who sways the destinies of France be accounted for, and whom his admirers a few months since fain would have us believe held the fate of Europe in his hands. In these Jesuitical agencies you will find a true solution of the regard for France, as well as the intense desire for a war with England which pervades a large portion of our citizens. The cool, unprejudiced observer of current events must admit that had the English government given half the provocation manifested by Spain, France or Austria, for the last twelve or fifteen years, war would have been the inevitable consequence long ere this.
These apostles of discord stop not at the most glaring falsehoods; for years they have awakened the sympathy and indignation of Americans by passionate declamation on the subject of Irish oppression and “British misrule;” while the fact stands out in bold relief, attested by our own tourists and authors, and by the unvarying evidence of Irish Protestants, that Ireland's degradation and down-trodden condition lies at the door of the church of Rome. Why do Americans reject the evidence of unbiased and intelligent men, and accord credence only to that of the sworn foes of Protestantism; the foul-mouthed traducers of everything that dares to assert independence of Papal authority? Is it not because the public ear is rankly abused by these Romanizing lecturers, the public mind poisoned by their foul slander, and to such an extent that anything uttered by them prejudicial to England is eagerly caught up and adopted without proper consideration? Many of these lecturers are sent here at the expense and under the auspices of the Society before alluded to. There was a noteworthy coincidence in one of the reasons urged by Louis Napoleon for the invasion of Mexico; that he desired to protect the interests of the Latin race in America. Was Dr. Cahill the pioneer of the French Emperor, or had each his portion of the work assigned to him? Probably Archbishops Spaulding, Lynch, or McCloskey could enlighten us.
That the whole Romish church, clergy and laity, are hostile to American institutions needs no further proof, and that all their efforts here have invariably and persistently been to involve the nation in difficulty, embarrass and paralyze the arm of the government, divide that they might the more easily rule, distract the councils and prevent the restoration of harmony, is equally susceptible of the clearest proof. Foremost in the battle-cry and loudest in the demand for annexation in the time of the Mexican troubles, as well as in the Lopez, Kinney and Walker filibustering schemes; persistent advocates of the right of secession, and open foes or thinly disguised traitors to the government during our late fearful struggle for life, and even now actively endeavoring to involve us in a war with England. Does any one ask what they would gain by these ends? They would hinder the progress of the nation, gain at one swoop millions of fellow-laborers in the same cause instead of waiting the slower process of immigration, more speedily obtain ascendancy in the South, especially as the interests of slavery and Catholicism would be identical on the subject of annexation, and gratify their hatred of Protestantism by seeing its champions engaged in deadly strife, while they stood ready for either alternative—to take advantage of the exhausted powers of the nation, or gain by the annexation of British America large accessions to their ranks.
One more point I will notice before closing this article, viz., the influence of the priesthood upon the ballot-box. In the exercise of the elective franchise the communicants of the Romish church are completely and thoroughly under control. The strongest presumptive evidence of this is given by the unanimity with which they select the same party and the tenacity with which they adhere to it. Any one familiar with the feelings of the laity toward their clergy and church would expect nothing less of them. The Universe may challenge us to show an electioneering priest—the rank and file of their adherents are too well drilled to require solicitation by their officers; a hint that the priest favors this or that party, a nod, a beck, even the slightest intimation, bears with it the weight of an imperative mandate. Nay, further still, any public man who is on terms of intimacy with the clergy, or a regular attendant at their places of worship, is regarded with a veneration little less than that accorded to the priest himself. They follow his leadership as sheep the bell-wether; vote as he directs, favor the candidate or party he favors; while those who may be in any way inimical to the clergy or church are certain of receiving expressions of the most bitter hatred. Nor are these feelings confined to the strict observers of their religion, but all share them alike, the vilest and most depraved; they who are under the ban of their priest, who neglect their religious duties and seldom or never attend their worship, are as zealous in these particulars, as forward to show their acknowledgment of pastoral authority and as expressive in their loyalty as the most faithful.
If any one supposes that because the Romish priests go not to the polls to publicly electioneer for their favorite party, they are therefore neutral or indifferent as to the result, they are awfully mistaken. I could name Judges and Senators in New York city who owe their election to their intimacy with priests, although their hands were not seen in the matter.
If time and space permitted I could relate some interesting electioneering incidents of which I was an eye-witness, but at some future time I may return to this subject. Of one thing be assured, no man, even though a Catholic, could secure either nomination or election at the hands of the Catholic party unless he was in good standing with the priests. Is it reasonable to suppose that a people who openly disavow any right to the exercise of their judgment in religious matters would not also accord to their leaders and teachers the right of judging for them in political?—Zon's Herald.