newed, while at the same time his energy of mind and body was displayed by characteristic actions and discourses, and by several loud and pious exclamations uttered immediately before his death, which took place very suddenly, and much earlier than might naturally have been expected. Its speedy and abrupt occurrence accordingly excited the surprise of the centurion who superintended the execution, and of the Roman governor who commanded it. Thus, when Joseph of Arimathea asked permission to remove the body of Jesus for the purpose of interment, Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and it was not until he had ascertained the fact from the centurion, that he granted the request. The two malefactors, crucified at the same time and place, were still living, and, in compliance with the customs of the country, were dispatched and buried before sunset. When, however, the soldiers came for a similar purpose to Jesus, as they found him already dead, they did not break his bones; but, as if to remove all possibility of doubt on the subject, one of them pierced his side with a spear, whereupon, as recorded by the apostle John, an eye-witness of the scene from its commencement to its close,-" immediately there came forth blood and water."-In opposition to various misrepresentations of this momentous fact, originating either from inadvertence or design, the Scriptures plainly state that Christ died the death of the cross, appointed by the Father, accepted by himself, demanded by the Jewish people, and executed by the Gentile government to which they were then subject. In proof of this assertion many passages might be cited, but two will suffice. When addressing the immense multitude of Israelites assembled at Jerusalem from all parts of the world on the ensuing day of Pentecost, Peter distinctly charged the nation with the murder of Jesus:-"Him, having been delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye took, and,

by the hands of wicked men, crucified and slew;”—and Paul, writing to the Greek Church at Philippi, says of the Saviour that," although in the form of God, and deeming it no robbery to be equal to God, he stripped himself of his glory, assumed the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men, and having been found in aspect as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. ."*-No explanation of the fact can therefore be admitted, in which this condition is not fully acknowledged.

* Acts, chap. 2, v. 22, 23; chap. 3, v. 13–15; chap. 5, v. 29, 30; chap. 7, v. 51, 52;-Philipp. chap. 2, v. 5-8, etc.

CHAPTER III.

REJECTION OF ERRONEOUS EXPLANATIONS OF THE DEATH

OF CHRIST.

By a certain class of German theologians who arrogate to themselves the title of Rationalists, the reality of Christ's death on the cross has been questioned, or denied. In the course of this treatise the fact will be incidentally established by new and conclusive evidence, but, for the present, will be simply assumed on the testimony of Scripture, the statements of which concerning this point are so numerous and positive that, could they be disproved, its claims not merely to inspiration, but even to ordinary credibility, would be destroyed, and any further inquiry on the subject would be irrational. The fact being therefore assumed, its explanation will now be attempted, and, in order to exclude mere conjecture, and aim at demonstration, the common rules respecting the assignment of causes will be strictly observed; namely, those causes only will be deemed admissible which actually preceded the effect, were adequate to its production, and perfectly accord with all the circumstances of the case, and the cause in which these conditions are found most completely to concur, will be regarded as the true one. By a majority of those whose knowledge of the subject is chiefly derived from the evangelical narrative, the death of Christ is not unreasonably ascribed to the ordinary sufferings of crucifixion; but as the nature of this punishment is at present very little understood, and no conclusion respect

ing it can be satisfactory which does not rest on competent information, a short account of it will here be introduced.

The cruel mode of putting condemned persons to death by nailing them to a cross prevailed among various nations of the ancient world, both civilized and barbarous, from the earliest times * till the reign of the Emperor Constantine, by whom, partly from motives of humanity, but chiefly from reverence to Christ, it was finally abrogated throughout the Roman empire.-"His respect for the cross of our Saviour "-says Crevier,-" made him abolish crucifixion, a death which the Greeks and Romans had at all times inflicted upon criminals, particularly slaves. He would not suffer the instrument of our salvation to be dishonored by any use, not only profane, but capable of making men look upon it with horror. He thought it indecent and irreligious that the cross should be used for the punishment of the vilest offenders, while he himself erected it as a trophy, and esteemed it the noblest ornament of his diadem, and military standards. The text of this law, so worthy of the piety of the first Christian emperor, has not been preserved; but the fact is asserted by a pagan writer, and the practice of all the princes and nations who profess Christianity is agreeable to it. The same religious sentiment induced Constantine likewise to forbid breaking the legs of criminals, a punishment often annexed to that of the cross, as appears from the example of the two thieves crucified with Christ."+-Crucifixion, having in consequence scarcely been witnessed in Europe during the last fifteen hundred years, has often been erroneously

*The earliest example of crucifixion on record is probably that of Pharaoh's chief baker, said in the authorized English version to have been hanged, but by Josephus to have been crucified.-Gen., chap. 40, v. 16-22;-Whiston's Josephus, vol. i. pp. 65, 66.

+ Crevier's History of the Roman Emperors, vol. x. p. 132.

represented by painters, poets, and devotional writers, who have followed the dictates of their imagination, or the guidance of vague tradition, rather than the evidence. of facts. In order to obtain correct notions on this subject, it is therefore necessary to consult the records of antiquity, the testimony of which has long since been collected and reported in a very satisfactory manner by two eminent scholars of the seventeenth century, Salmasius and Lipsius. From these and similar authorities it is clearly ascertained that the punishment of crucifixion was peculiarly painful, lingering, and ignominious.. The cross consisted of a strong upright post, sharpened at the lower end by which it was fixed in the ground, having a short bar or stake projecting from its middle, and a longer transverse beam firmly joined near its top. As the middle bar, although an important appendage, has been almost universally overlooked by modern authors, it will be proper here to insert the account given of it by some of the early fathers of the Church, and founded on personal observation.-" The structure of the cross," says Irenæus,—“ has five ends or summits, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which the crucified person rests."-Justyn Martyr, in like manner, speaks of— "that end projecting from the middle [of the upright post] like a horn, on which crucified persons are seated;"—and the language of Tertullian, who wrote a little later, exactly corresponds,-" A part, and indeed a principal part of the cross, is any post which is fixed in an upright position; but to us the entire cross is imputed, including its transverse beam, and the projecting bar which serves as a seat."* The criminal condemned to this dreadful mode of death, having first been scourged, was compelled to

*Irenæus, Opera, p. 166;-Justinus Martyr, Cum Tryphone Judæo Dialogus, pp. 271, 272;-Tertullianus, Ad Nationes, p. 49 ;—Adversus Judæos, p. 195.