the Saviour's mortal agony, overspread the land. Can anything be more expressive! Here the Saviour agonized, till suddenly the pitcher was broken at the fountain, and the wheel was broken at the cistern. At the moment of his intensest suffering the chord of life was snapped asunder. Agony broke his heart.

In less than three hours from the time of his death, that is, before the evening sacrifice, at six o'clock, the bodies were taken down from the cross, according to the Jewish law. When the soldiers came to discharge this duty, the thieves were evidently still alive, and were therefore despatched by breaking their legs, according to the Roman custom; "but on coming to Christ, as they perceived that he was already dead, they did not break his legs; one of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came forth blood and water.” Now this is a phenomenon that can be explained only on the theory of a rupture of the heart, and the consequent hemorrhage of blood into the pericardium, when it would speedily be resolved into crassamentum and serum-blood and water.

The quantity of blood and water must have been considerable, to have attracted such distinct notice, and thus been made a distinct matter of record. And this, we find, accords with the observation of physicians in cases of severe rupture and sudden death. Mr. Watson mentions a case in which the rupture was nearly three-fourths of an inch in length, and where a quantity of coagulum and serum was found in the pericardium, amounting to about five pounds. In the case of Sir David Barry, who died suddenly, the quantity of serum and clotted blood amounted "to full five pints." Here, then, so far as quantity is concerned, the theory of our author would fully meet the conditions of the case, and encounters no obstacle.

But the Saviour must have been dead less than three hours, probably not more than one and a half, as the body was embalmed and laid in the tomb before six. Would this admit time sufficient for the separation of the blood into its elements? According to Hewson, the process will have perceptibly commenced in a few minutes, "and the complete separation of the serum and crassamentum will occur in an hour." To the same point is the testimony of Mr. Paget and others. As to the notion that the blood spoken of proceeded from the heart, and the water was the natural fluid contained in the pericardium, and that both were pierced by the spear; it is a sufficient reply to say, that on the most careful examination, the pericardium has been found to contain no such fluid, except in rare cases, and then in extremely minute quantities.* And also the term employed by the

*«Haller states that a small quantity of water, not exceeding a few drachms, has frequently been found in the pericardium of executed persons; but, except under

evangelist denotes clotted blood, rather than the clear fluid that flows from the heart.*

Again, to the supposition that the blood and water proceeded directly from the heart, our author cites three insuperable objections. (1.) That the separation into serum and crassamentum of the blood remaining in the vascular system of dead bodies, is of very rare occurrence. (2.) That such separation, if it happened at all, could not have happened within the specified time of two hours; since, in the majority of cases, the blood remaining in their natural vessels does not even coagulate for the first four hours after its rest has commenced; and in many, it remains fluid for six, eight, or more hours. (3.) That, independently of these difficulties, the escape of such constituents from any of the cavities of the heart would be scanty, slow, and probably indistinct; and therefore at variance with the evangelical narrative. The theory adopted by him obviates all these difficulties. The pericardium would, and often has been found to, contain a much larger quantity of blood than could possibly remain in the heart; the blood effused into it would within the allotted time separate into its elements; and, on the side being pierced, these constituents would flow out in so conspicuous a manner as to attract the notice of the most ignorant or indifferent spectator. If we now recur to the simple narrative of this event in the sacred text, it must be obvious that the discharge of blood and water was considerable, and the distinction between them well marked, to have been so clearly observed, and such a specific record made of it by the evangelist who beheld it.

So far as the physiological argument is concerned, we have now only to follow Dr. Stroud to his conclusion; and this we shall give in his own words:

"It may, therefore, with certainty be affirmed, that between the agony of mind which the Saviour endured in the garden of Gethsemane, and the profuse sweat mixed with clotted blood which so rapidly followed it, violent palpitation of the heart must necessarily have intervened; this being the only known condition which could have been at once the effect of the former occurrence, and the cause of the latter. In like manner, when on the cross this agony was renewed, and, by the addition of bodily suffering, was increased to the utmost intensity, no other known condition could have formed the connecting link between that mental anguish and his sudden death,-preceded by loud exclamations, and followed by an effusion of blood and water from his

very peculiar or morbid circumstances, the eminent anatomists, John and Charles Bell, deny the occurrence altogether."-Physical Cause, p. 138.

* Hieronymus Bardus, who advocates this theory, "is at a loss to understand how the two liquids could have issued separately without a miracle, which, to this extent, he consequently admits.”

side, when afterward pierced with a spear, than the aggravation, even to rupture, of the same violent action of the heart, of which the previous palpitation and bloody sweat were but a lower degree and a natural prelude. If, while every other explanation hitherto offered has been shown to be untenable, the cause now assigned for the death of Christ, namely, rupture of the heart from agony of mind, has been proved to be the result of an actual power in nature, fully adequate to the effect, really present without counteraction, minutely agreeing with all the facts in the case, and necessarily implied by them, this cause must, according to the principles of inductive reasoning, be regarded as demonstrated.”—Physical Cause, pp. 155, 156.

We have endeavoured in the preceding pages to give a compendium of our author's arguments in relation to the physical cause of the death of Christ, and are not aware that any essential point has been overlooked. We do not know that the human mind will ever be able to attain the certainty of knowledge upon the points here discussed; but hitherto we have met with nothing upon the subject that seemed so plausible, so consistent with rational facts and science, and so accordant with many of the allusions made by the inspired prophets. Indeed, we think strong corroborative testimony to his view might be gathered from the prophecies of the Old Testament. No expressions, certainly, in those prophecies more distinctly foretel the intense thirst or the bloody sweat, than others do the mortal rupture of the heart. In the sixty-ninth Psalm it is said, "Reproach hath broken my heart;" and in the fifty-third of Isaiah, “He poured out his soul (or, as Michaelis and other distinguished Hebraists render it, his life's blood) unto death." Mark also the types of the Old Dispensation, which prefigure the expiatory sacrifice of Christ by the "shedding of blood." When, also, we refer to the symbols of his death, the breaking of the bread, the pouring out of the wine, we must confess that the explanation of Dr. Stroud takes a still stronger hold upon our convictions. Nor are we able to dissent, when he says:—

"The peculiar cause of the death of Christ, which, by a regular induction from the evangelical narrative, has been ascertained as a fact, remarkably illustrates the entire series of types and prophecies relating to that solemn event, which could not, indeed, in any other manner have been fulfilled. These, in turn, by their minute and perfect correspondence with the circumstances, afford, if that were necessary, an additional confirmation of the fact itself; and the whole transaction demonstrates with irresistible evidence the special interposition and superintendence of the Deity."

The second part of this treatise is designed to exhibit the relation which the foregoing theory holds to the general doctrine of atonement, and also to the doctrines, precepts, and truths of Christianity. Its pages are instructive, and illustrate largely the piety of their author; but a review of them does not come within our present

purpose.

ART. III.-THE DUTY OF FASTING.

THAT Fasting is enjoined in the Bible as a religious duty, will scarcely be questioned by any who have carefully examined the subject. Still, there may be much difference of opinion among pious people as to what that duty is; by what authority it is made obligatory; how, and on what occasions, it should be observed; and what are its beneficial results. To arrive at safe conclusions on all these points, reference must be had to the law and to the testimony. In such questions, mere human authority is not sufficient: to settle them requires Scriptural precept and divine sanction. Whoever presumes to set up his own judgment in opposition to the sacred record, or to teach what it does not warrant, as essential to salvation, should not be regarded as a safe instructor of those who wish to find the path of life. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God."

The point of inquiry which requires attention first of all, is, What is fasting, in the sense of the inspired authors? On this subject various opinions have been, and still are, entertained and propagated; and among them is the singular one, that fasting is simply "refraining from sin." To refrain from sinning is in itself certainly right and commendable; but to insist on that as the sense of the term fasting, involves at least one serious difficulty. Fasting is not, and cannot be, practised daily and continuously; it is only occasional; and if to fast is to refrain from sin, then we are required to refrain from sin only on fast-days, which would imply that on all other days we may sin with impunity; whereas the Bible, which enjoins fasting, forbids sin at all times and in every place, and that under fearful penalty. "Awake to righteousness and sin not;"-" The wages of sin is death;" The soul that sins shall die." It is declared of the Lord Jesus Christ, on the occasion of his temptation in the wilderness, When he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered." Now will any one presume to say that He, after abstaining from sin forty days, hungered for it? We trust not; and yet, to be consistent, all who contend that fasting is simply refraining from sin, would have to admit the blasphemous conclusion.

Another view of the subject, and one entertained by many who regard themselves as the only true Church of Christ, is, that fasting is merely a change in the manner of living, from the use of certain articles of food to the use of others. While their conscience, acting in the light of their creed, or more properly in the darkness of it, will not allow them on any consideration to eat meat during certain FOURTH SERIES, VOL. 1.—14

days of the week, and certain weeks of the year, it does strangely allow them, on the same days and weeks, to eat fish, butter, eggs, vegetables, fruits, and most luxuries of the country. It is really amusing to read over a printed bill of sumptuous fare, made out by a prelate who assumes to have the consciences of the people in his own keeping, for a forty days' fast. Serious as the subject is, to read of a "fish-dinner" on fast-day is enough to excite a smile. To us this appears to be a singular kind of fasting,-one which requires but little sacrifice of taste or self-denial, and which need not diminish the strength or flesh of those who practise it, however long the fast may be protracted. Daniel and his fellow-captives, while receiving their court education, were sustained only on pulse and water; and yet, at the period of examination, "their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat" and drank of his "wine." And why should not any healthy individual gain both flesh and strength during "Lent," with all its various substantials and luxuries? Such feasting may justly be regarded as a burlesque on the Christian duty of fasting. How different was the case with the devoted Psalmist, when he said, "My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness!" Psa. cix, 24.

To fast in the proper sense of the term, is to abstain entirely from food and drink of every kind for a given time,-the period of such abstinence to be determined by the circumstances of the individual, and the nature of the occasion which moves him to observe it. The king of Nineveh, under just apprehension of the judgments of the Almighty, proclaimed a general fast, saying, "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water." Jonah iii, 7. Saul, afterward Paul, when stricken down by the power of God, and brought under sore conviction of sin, "was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." Acts ix, 9. Many other facts similar to these might be recited, going to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that fasting, in the Scriptural sense of the term, is neither refraining occasionally from sin, nor a mere change of diet, but entire abstinence from all temporal refreshments of every sort for a given time.

Having settled the meaning of the term fasting,-very briefly, it is true, but, as we trust, satisfactorily, at least to such as believe the Bible, the next point which claims attention is the authority for observing this duty as above explained.

This authority, to be satisfactory, must be clear and unequivocal, and from a source entitled to universal respect. Such authority, we maintain, is abundantly furnished in the Holy Scriptures, in the