great nation, extending, by a series of purchases and conquests, over a large part of the continent. But what advantage is Virginia to reap by expatriating the laboring class of her population, or any part of them? Would she be made by the measure either richer or stronger? Would her income be greater, or her taxes less? The very reverse. Her colored population, by whose labor she lives, would still, if free, be the producers of her wealth; and as they would all be subject to a poll tax, for the support of government, and to taxes upon any property which they might accumulate, the present rate of taxation would be diminish ed. Virginia would therefore inflict an injury upon herself, if she were to carry out this part of Dr. Ruffner's scheme. She would thereby incur the expense of exporting to Liberia a population which she would afterwards be glad to import. The abolition of slavery would create a demand for labor, which could not be easily supplied; and instead of wishing to expatriate her colored people, the South would offer high wages to tempt emigration from the north. This demand would increase as the emancipated became landholders or mechanics, and withdrew from the service of their masters to attend to their private business. This has been precisely the course of things in the British West Indies, into which the planters have sought to introduce laborers from abroad. Every good, trustworthy and ablebodied man whom Virginia may send off, she will, after slavery is no more, wish to recover. We think we can promise Dr. R., that in the event of the abolition of slavery in his state, the demand for labor in East Virginia will empty West Virginia of the mass of her colored people, who, attracted by high wages, and by a natural desire to congregate with their own color, will voluntarily emigrate. The same effect will be felt in the northern states, VOL. VI.

48

upon the general abolition of slavery. Many will emigrate to the south for the reasons just given; and not a few, to be school-teachers and preachers of the Gospel.

We predict that in that day which succeeds the abolition of slavery, there will be no constitutional or legislative prohibitions of immigration from any country or race. Every new laborer will be regarded, not as a nuisance, but as an addition to the productive power of the state. Population will be allowed to regulate itself, like articles of commerce, by the wants of the market, increasing or diminishing with the demand for labor and the means of subsistence. The surplus population of a state will pass without force or fric tion, to supply the deficiency of labor in other quarters. We need not say, that the true and established policy of that day, ought now to be admitted as a matter of principle. This country is manifestly designed by Providence to be the refuge of the oppressed of all lands. We who first occupy it, would be guilty of barbarity, were we to throw any barriers in the way of fugitives to our shores. This land is God's city of refuge for the world, and wo be to him who closes the gate against any of the unfortunate who would flee into it. Equally barbarous are the laws which would prohibit the people of color from passing from one state into another. These laws are also in open conflict with that article of the federal constitution, which secures to the citizens of each state the rights of a citizen in all the states. The colored citizens of New England have a constitutional right to emigrate to Illinois, and make their home there, in spite of the constitution of that state. But if this right were not secured to them, it would still be theirs, on the broad principle, that no man shall be hindered in the pursuit of happiness so long as he respects the rights of others. This principle en

titles the foreigner to a refuge and home among us; much more are they entitled to a part in the country, who are native Americans. We can therefore concede neither the

policy nor the right of Virginia, or of any other state, to remove her free colored population from their native soil, either by actual or constructive force.

WE had hoped that any notice, which Dr. Jarvis might take of our article on chronology in the New Englander for October last, would be of such a character, as to make it unnecessary to proceed further in exposing his errors. Controversy is so little to our liking, that we should willingly have rested under no common load of misapprehension and even of misrepresentation, rather than have renewed a discussion which we are aware with some of our readers, perhaps with many, can have little or no interest. It was supposed, that what we had already said, would furnish abundant materials to repel any ordinary or even extraordinary attack, which might be made on our positions; and that if any one should find himself perplexed in consequence of what should be subsequently written on any topic which had come under review, a recurrence to what we had already published would remove his doubts. But the course which the displeasure of an author will lead him to take, can not be easily fore seen; and the event, in the present instance, has proved our anticipations to be groundless. In the first number of the Church Review, a periodical which began its literary life in April of the present year, Dr. Jarvis has commented on our second article in a manner which we never imagined possible; and has pursued a course of reasoning, to meet which, it is acknowledged,

* Dr. Jarvis's Vindication. Church Review for April, 1848.

Rinesley

we had made for our readers no adequate provision. That a production like that to which we refer, should have been sent from the press, we consider a remarkable phenomenon in the republic of letters; and our readers, we hope, will excuse us for attempting to bring into full light its errors and its fallacies. In doing this, however, we shall study brevity; but aim at the same time to be so full and explicit, as to make what we have to say, in the language of some of the old books of instruction, "plain to the meanest capacities.'

Without further preface we come directly to Dr. Jarvis's strictures. These are addressed to the reviewer personally. On page 94 we find the following passage:

"Elated by what you supposed to be an irreconcilable difference between Victorius and Bianchini, you have triumphantly uttered the following truism:

Now as we see no good reason to doubt that the interval between the new and full moon in A. D. 28 was the same as in other

years, (!) and are fully convinced that 14 added to 14 is 28 and not 26, the two computations can not stand together.' (N. E. p. 538.) This may be the arithmetic of if 14 was the first, we should have added Yale College now; but in my days there, 13 to find the fourteenth day of the moon; and if 13 was the first, then 13 added to 13 is 26 and not 28.”—Review, p. 94.

Here, with all proper deference to the learned chronologer, we shall make an attempt to correct his Exercise. The proposition" that the interval between the new and fullmoon in March, A. D. 28, was the same as in other years," is not a logical truism; nor is this one, "that 14 added to 14 is 28 and not

26;" unless the multiplication table is a tissue of truisms, and unless every dictionary is made up of nothing better. Dr. Jarvis has here mistaken equality for identity. But, be it so, that "14 added to 14 is 28 and not 26," is a truism; yet Dr. Jarvis maintains, if we understand him, that, in the case under consideration, it is not true. He says, that at Yale College "in my days there, if 14 was the first, we should have added 13 to find the 14th day of the moon." Here we say without hesitation, that if at Yale College he had added numbers in this way to find the "day of the moon," he would have been checked immediately by his instructor, and his mis take would have been pointed out. To see how utterly nonsensical this method of calculation is, the reader is requested to look at it for a moment. What, then, is meant by the "day of the moon?" If these words mean anything, it must be the age of the moon; and this is the sense in which they are employed by astronomers. The 3d day of the moon" is the 3d day after the moon has passed its conjunction with the sun, and the 10th "day of the moon" is the 10th day after it has passed the same point; and similar language is used for any day till the moon reaches its conjunction again. Dr. Jarvis himself uses the phrase, "day of the moon," in the same sense. In his Introduction, (p. 432,) we read, "the 14th day of the moon-would fall-on the 25th of March." Here he must mean the 14th day after the change of the moon. But he says, in the passage just quoted, "if 14 was the first, we should have added 13 to find the 14th day of the moon." If by the expression "14 was the first," he means, what he should seem to mean, that the 14th day of the month is the day on which the new moon occurs, then why add 13 to find the "day of the moon?" If by 13, he means that the moon is

13 days old, then why any addition whatever? He has the "day of the moon" already. If he does, or does not, mean this, adding 13 or any other number to 14 as above, is making not the least approximation towards ascertaining the "day of the moon." If the 14th day of the month is the day of new moon, and the moon is afterwards 13 days old, then 13 added to 14 will give 27, the day of the month, when the moon is 13 days old. If the moon is 14 days old, then 14 added to 14 as before, will give 28, the day of the month when the moon is 14 days old; nor can it possibly be otherwise. As to adding 13, when the moon is 14 days old, to find the day of the month when it is of this age, which possibly is what Dr. Jarvis is aiming at,-it is an absurdity;-for when the moon is 14 days old, it is 14 days old-a truism and true; and 14 days should be added. Dr. Jarvis seems to be laboring under a strange hallucination respecting the distinction between cardinal and ordinal numbers. Our recommendation, therefore, is, that he take back as incorrigible the whole of the passage under examination; that he rewrite it, and express his meaning in more intelligible language. We feel that it is here necessary to apologize to our readers for dwelling so particularly on what they may justly think obvious at a glance; but it should be recollected by those disposed to complain, that Dr. Jarvis appears to have unaccountably lost the mathematical and astronomical knowledge acquired by him in his collegiate days. For his special benefit, therefore, we are obliged to be extremely elementary in our

statements.

We now come to the consideration of the time of new and full moon in March, A. D. 28. It will be recollected by our readers that Dr. Jarvis supposes the Crucifixion to have taken place in this year; which opinion he undertakes to confirm

from two sources, historical and astronomical. It is the testimony of antiquity, he says, that Christ suffered on the cross in the consulship of the two Gemini; which consulship he places in A. D. 28, one year, however, earlier than it has been placed by most, if not by all, of the older writers, who have been looked to as standards in chronological science. In this same year, according to the Canon of Victorius, an authority to which he pays great deference, the new-moon in March was the 11th day, and the mean full-moon on the 25th, and the true full-moon on the 26th of the same month. The 26th day was Friday, the day before the Jewish sabbath, and the day of the week on which, according to the evangelical history, Christ was crucified. This time of new and full-moon he supposes to be in some way confirmed by the calculations of Bianchini, an Italian astronomer. From these considerations he maintains, that the true time of the Crucifixion is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Here we would premise, that in questioning this conclusion, we have no object but to ascertain historical truth. The point of inquiry is purely literary, and has nothing about it of a theological character. Whichever way it should be decided, the story of the Crucifixion as told in the four Gospels remains the same; and the mode of determining the time of Easter, and of the other movable feasts, is undisturbed. It can interfere not at all, as we believe, with any man's religious faith or practice. It would have been to us a literary gratification, to be satisfied of the soundness of Dr. Jarvis's reasoning; but as we are not satisfied, it has seemed neither unkind, uncivil, nor inexpedient to point out, what we think its fallacy.

By the Canon of Victorius, as we learn from Dr. Jarvis,* the Pas

chal new-moon in March, A. D. 28, was on the 11th day. We learn from him likewise, that according to Bianchini, by the mean motions of the sun and moon, the Paschal new-moon took place at Jerusalem, "the 14th of March, 3h. 17m. 10sec. P.M.; and that the time of true conjunction was eleven hours later;" that is, at 2h. 17m. 10sec. A. M., March 15th. Dr. Jarvis, as we have before observed, seems to have brought forward this astronomical calculation of Bianchini to confirm the correctness of the Canon of Victorius; but as there is a difference of about three days between the two, we ventured, in our last article, to represent them as irreconcilable. He now says, that there is here a "typographical error;" and that the mean conjunction of the sun and moon was on the 13th day of March, and the true conjunction on the 14th.

This he undertakes to prove from other parts of Bianchini's statements. To us it appears a much more direct way of ascertaining whether there is here any error, to recalculate the time of the mean

and true. new-moon in question. Bianchini made use of the astronomical tables of De la Hire. By the modern tables the time of mean new-moon, March, A.D. 28, at Jerusalem, was the 14th day, 3h. 20m. 53sec. P. M., and the time of true new-moon, the 15th day, 1h. 47m. 41sec. A. M. The difference between the two sets of results is too small to be of any importance in the present discussion. The time, therefore, of mean and of true newmoon as stated by Bianchini, is sufficiently correct; and the supposition of a "typographical error" is groundless. From extracts, however, furnished by Dr. Jarvis from Bianchini, it would at first appear, that this astronomer has not been uniform in noting the time of this new-moon; but from an examina

Introduction, p. 433, note.

tion of these extracts, we strongly suspect, that if we could see his whole statement, we could show, that he is throughout consistent with himself. But it is not incumbent on us to defend Bianchini. Whether his meaning has been misapprehended or not, there can be no doubt, that in the time of mean and of true new-moon, as quoted above, he is near enough to the truth. If he has made anywhere else a very different representation, he is certainly in error. This is one of the cases, where a decision is arrived at by figures; and figures, when properly used, never deceive. We shall consider it, then, incontrovert ible, that in March, A. D. 28, the mean new-moon at Jerusalem was on the 14th day in the afternoon, and that the true new-moon was on the 15th day in the morning, civil time.

We now come to the consideration of the full-moon of the same year and month. Here very few words would be necessary, were it not for the novel and extraordinary method adopted by Dr. Jarvis of calculating a lunar opposition. According to the modern tables, the time of mean full-moon, March, A. D. 28, at Jerusalem, was the 29th day, 9h. 42m. 54sec. A. M., and the time of true full-moon, the same day, 4h. 48m. 56sec. A. M., civil time. This differs about three days from the time of full-moon as determined by the Canon of Victorius, where it is placed on the 26th. Dr. Jarvis undertakes to show, that the 26th was the day of March, on which this Paschal full-moon really took place; which by mere inspection, is seen to be an attempt to accomplish an impossibility. From the 14th, the time of mean new-moon, to the 26th, is but twelve days; and a full-moon can not take place after a new-moon, with so short an interval. If it should be allowed, contrary to fact, that the new-moon, as Dr. Jarvis supposes, was on the 13th of the

month, this would make the interval but thirteen days, which is still too small. Dr. Jarvis himself in his Introduction, (p. 432,) speaks of the "ordinary method of computing each lunation as 29 days, or two lunations as 59 days;" and again he furnishes a table (p. 431) "constructed on the data" of Victorius, in which fourteen days are allowed between new and full-moon. Yet in the face of all this, he proceeds boldly to his work; and it may af ford the reader some amusement to see the process by which he attains his object.

The mean time of the full-moon in question, is proved from the best sources, as we suppose, to have been the 29th day of the month in the morning. To bring this full-moon to the 26th day of the month, three days must be thrown out of the account. To effect this, Dr. Jarvis first assumes that there is a "typographical error" in Bianchini, and that the new-moon was on the 13th day. By this gratuitous supposition, one day is stricken from the list. This time of new-moon he sets down, according to astronomical notation, as 12d. 15h. 17m. 10sec.; that is, twelve complete days and a part of the thirteenth. To find the mean time of full-moon, he adds to the mean time of new-moon thus ascertained, half the mean time of the moon's "periodical" [sidereal] revolution round the earth; that is, 13d. 15h. 51m. 31 sec.; which has nothing to do with the subject. What he should have added is half of the moon's synodical revolution; that is, 14d. 18h. 22m. 2sec. Dr. Jarvis himself in his Introduction, (p. 459,) adopts "the common method of computing lunar months, as consisting alternately of twenty-nine and thirty days." But by taking the moon's sidereal revolution, which is just as obvious an error as it would be to add seventy-five cents to a dollar to make two dollars, he rids himself of a second day and