What has become of the instructive lesson which Christ imparted to his followers on the evening of the day of his resurrection? Has it not been insisted that that visit was made for the _especial purpose_ of teaching, them, by example, and by meeting with them, that the day on which it occurred was _holy time_? If we have rightly apprehended the logic of our opponent, this was the precise moral which our Lord designed to convey by his manifestation on that occasion. How clear it is that such a conviction has rested upon the mind of the writer, and how often he has repeated it. But how was it with the apostles? Now, certainly, they were not _more obtuse_ than _we_ are. Assuredly, they knew as much about the will and purpose of Christ in meeting with them the first time, as we do now. Did _they_ then infer that Christ met with them expressly for the purpose, not of honoring by positive precept, but by the fact of his assembling with them, the day on which that assembly occurred? If so, why should they, according to the view we are considering, have gathered themselves together every day for the whole subsequent week, expecting his presence? Would they not have discovered that _such presence_, under _such circumstances_, would have utterly _nullified_ the moral lesson of the _first visit_, since it would not afterwards be true that the first day of the week was the _only one_ which he had thus distinguished, thereby marking it out from the rest of the week? So much for the consequences which would necessarily follow, had that occurred which the writer says he “believes” took place. But, fortunately, or unfortunately for him, the whole thing is a myth from beginning to end. The only force which it posseses lies in the assumed fact that it brings together eight meetings on consecutive days, on two of which, and two only, the Lord met with his followers, those two being first days of the weeks to which they belonged. Therefore, before the statement can possess any argumentative power, we must first grant him the privilege of assuming that six of these meetings occurred when there is not a scintilla of evidence in the sacred narrative to favor his view.