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 respecting 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 amongst various nations of the ancient world, both civilized and barbarous, from the earliest times¹ 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 ail times inflicted upon criminals, particularly slaves. He would not suffer the instrument of our salvation to be dishonoured 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, whilst 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."² — Crucifixion having in consequence scarcely been witnessed in Europe during the last fifteen hundred years, has often been erroneously 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 Irenaeus, — "has five ends or summits, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which the crucified person rests." — Justin 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."³ — The criminal condemned to this dreadful mode of death, having first been scourged, was compelled to carry the cross on his shoulders to the place of execution, a circumstance which implies that the scourging was not excessively severe, and that the dimensions of the gibbet did not in general much exceed those of the human body. On arriving at the spot he was stripped of his clothes; and after receiving a cup of wine, sometimes medicated with a view to impart firmness or alleviate pain, was speedily nailed to the cross, either before or after its erection. In either case he was made to sit astride on the middle bar; and his limbs having been extended and bound with cords, were finally secured by large iron spikes driven through their extremities, the hands to the transverse beam, and the feet to the upright post. The crucifixion of Christ is thus accurately described by Bishop Pearson. — "The form of the cross on which our Saviour suffered was not a simple but a compounded figure, according to the custom of the Romans by whose procurator he was condemned to die. In which there was not only a straight and erected piece of wood fixed in the earth, but also a transverse beam fastened unto that towards the top thereof; and besides these two, cutting each other transversely at right angles, so that the erected part extended itself above the transverse, there was also another piece of wood infixed into, and standing out from that which was erected and straight up. To that erected piece was his body being lifted up applied, as Moses's serpent to the pole, and to the transverse beam his hands were nailed. Upon the lower part coming out from the erected piece his sacred body rested, and his feet were transfixed and fastened with nails. His head, being pressed with a crown of thorns, was applied to that part of the erect which stood above the transverse beam; and above his head to that was fastened the table on which was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin characters the accusation, according to the Roman custom, and the writing was, — Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews."⁴ — The bodily sufferings attending this punishment were doubtless great, but either through ignorance or design, have been much exaggerated. The insertion of the cross into its hole or socket, when the criminal was previously attached to it, did not necessarily produce the violent concussion which has been supposed; and as the body rested on a bar, it did not bear with its whole weight on the perforated extremities. At all events, there have been many examples of persons enduring these sufferings with the utmost fortitude, and almost without a complaint, until relieved from them by death. A fact of importance to be known, but which has not been sufficiently regarded, is that crucifixion was a very lingering punishment, and proved fatal not so much by loss of blood, since the wounds in the hands and feet did not lacerate any large vessel, and were nearly closed by the nails which produced them, as by the slow process of nervous irritation and exhaustion. This would of course be liable to variety, depending on differences of age, sex, constitution, and other circumstances; but for persons to live two "or more days on the cross was a common occurrence, and there are even instances of some who, having been taken down in time and carefully treated, recovered and survived. In many cases death was partly induced by hunger and thirst, the vicissitudes of heat and cold, or the attacks of ravenous birds and beasts; and in others was designedly accelerated by burning, stoning, suffocation, breaking the bones, or piercing the vital organs.⁵

In proof of the lingering nature of crucifixion, and of the courage with which it was often endured, a few instances will be adduced from ancient and modern authors; but it is difficult to find many examples of this kind at once sufficiently detailed, and fully deserving of credit. In his elaborate work entitled "The Cross Triumphant," &c., Bosius recites from the Roman Martyrology the crucifixion of the apostle Andrew, who is said to have lived on the cross two days, which he spent in preaching and instructing the people; also that of Victor, bishop of Amiterna, who although crucified with his head downwards, a posture unfavourable to the continuance of life, survived in like manner two days; which, according to Origen and other early fathers, seems to have been the usual period during which crucified persons survived, when their death was not hastened by additional means. He likewise repeats the marvellous story of Timotheus and Maura, a married pair who suffered in the Thebaid about the year 286, under the Diocletian persecution. After enduring many horrible tortures with invincible constancy, these pious persons were, it is said, crucified together; and having hung alive on the cross nine days and nights, mutually exhorting and confirming each other in the faith, expired on the tenth day.⁶ Although this last narrative may justly be suspected of exaggeration, it serves to show that in ancient times, when the punishment of crucifixion was common, it was well known to be a tedious mode of death. The following examples, extracted from the same Martyrology by the Rev. Alban Butler, seem to be more authentic. The same year 286 proved fatal to Marcus and Marcellianus, — "twin brothers of an illustrious family in Rome . . . . . . . who were condemned to be bound to two pillars, with their feet nailed to the same. In this posture they remained a day and a night, and on the following day were stabbed with lances, and buried in the Arenarium, since called their cemetery, two miles out of Rome, between the Appian and Ardeatine roads." — In the year 297, by order of the emperor Maximian, seven Christians at Samosata were subjected to long and various tortures, and ultimately crucified. — "Hipparchus," — a venerable old man, — "died on the cross in a short time. James, Romanus, and Lollianus expired the next day, being stabbed by the soldiers whilst they hung on their crosses. Philotheus, Habibus, and Paragrus were taken down from their crosses whilst they were still living. The emperor being informed that they were yet alive, commanded huge nails to be driven into their heads," — by which they were at length despatched. Under the reign of the same execrable tyrant, Calliopius, a handsome youth bom at Perga in Pamphilia, was put to death in the year 304, at the city of Pompeiopolis in Cilicia. After suffering the most cruel tortures by being scourged, broken on the wheel, and partially burnt, he was crucified with his head downwards on the fifth day of the passion-week, and expired on the following or preparation-day, at the same hour.⁷ — The fortitude displayed under crucifixion by Bomilcar is thus described by the pagan historian Justin. After a severe defeat of the Carthaginian army by Agathocles king of Sicily, this African chief had shown a disposition to desert to the enemy; — '' for which offence," — says Justin, — "he was nailed by the Carthaginians to a gibbet in the middle of the forum, that the same place which had been the scene of his honours might now witness his punishment. But Bomilcar bore the cruelty of the citizens with magnanimity, and from the height of the cross, as from a tribunal, declaimed against their crimes, &;c . . . . . . Having thus spoken with a loud voice amidst an immense concourse of the people, he expired."

The following testimonies on the same subject are derived from more modern times. — "The capital punishments inflicted in Soudan" — observes Captain Clapperton, writing in 1824, — "are beheading, impaling, and crucifixion; the first being reserved for Mahometans, and the other two practised on Pagans. I was told, as a matter of curiosity, that wretches on the cross generally linger three days before death puts an end to their sufferings."⁸ — When describing the punishments used in Madagascar, the Rev. Mr. Ellis remarks, — "In a few cases of great enormity a sort of crucifixion has been resorted to; and in addition to this, burning or roasting at a slow fire, kept at some distance from the sufferer, has completed the horrors of this miserable death . . . . . . In the year 1825 a man was condemned to crucifixion, who had murdered a female for the sake of stealing her child. He carried the child for sale to the public market, where the infant was recognised, and the murderer detected. He bore his punishment in the most hardened manner, avenging himself by all the violence he was capable of exercising upon those who dragged him to the place of execution. Not a single groan escaped him during the period he was nailed to the wood, nor whilst the cross was fixed upright in the earth. The wooden frame used in the place of a cross resembles a gallows. To this the malefactor is nailed whilst it remains flat upon the earth, after which it is lifted up with its miserable burden, and fixed in two holes made in the ground for the purpose. Here the sufferer is kept until he dies of cold, hunger, or agony. Some criminals after being nailed to the frame, have remained for hours for the gaze of the multitude. A fire has oftentimes been placed to windward of them, by which they and the cross have been consumed together."— Even the still more horrible punishments of impalement, and suspension on a hook, whereby the vital organs are severely bruised or lacerated, are longer protracted and better supported than might be imagined. After describing the manner in which the former is executed amongst the Turks, the Rev. Mr. Maundrell continues as follows: — "The criminal sitting [on the stake] remains not only still alive, but also drinks, smokes, and talks as one perfectly sensible, and thus some have continued for twenty-four hours: but generally, after the tortured wretch has remained in this deplorable and ignominious posture an hour or two, some one of the standers-by is permitted to give him a gracious stab to the heart, so putting an end to his inexpressible misery."⁹ — Of the same punishment Dr. Russell states, — '* It is seldom seen at Aleppo, though a certain Hussein Bashaw is well remembered there who some years before impaled twenty Kurds at one time close to the city. Several of them remained many hours alive on the stake, nor is it known how long they might have survived, liberty having been obtained to put an end to their torture by shooting them." — Referring to numerous executions which took place at Constantinople in 1829, Mr. Slade says, — "In many shapes death triumphed during this terrible fortnight. Two wretches, convicted of attempting to fire the new seraglio at Beglerbey on the Bosphorus, were impaled; one still breathed on the following day." — The same author thus reports the execution at Salonica in the ensuing year of Chaban, a captain of banditti, — "described by those who saw him as a very fine-looking man, about thirty-five . . . . . . As a preparatory exercise, he was suspended by his arms for twelve hours . . . . . The following day a hook was thrust into his side, by which he was suspended to a tree, and there hung enduring the agony of thirst till the third evening, when death closed the scene; but before that about an hour the birds, already considering him their own, had alighted on his brow to peck his eyes. During this frightful period he uttered no unmanly complaints, only repeated several times, — "Had I known that I was to suffer this infernal death, I would never have done what I have. From the moment I led the klephte's life I had death before my eyes, and was prepared to meet it, but I expected to die as my predecessors, by decapitation."¹⁰ — A similar account is given by Mr. Morgan of the execution at Algiers, in 1556, of Hassan Corso, who was of moderate stature, and in his thirty-eighth year. Having been cast from a considerable height on the chingan, or hook, . . . . . "he remained in that torture three whole days and two nights, with the hook through his right-side ribs At the third day's end he expired." — From the "Chrestomathia Arabica" of Kosegarten, published in 1828, Bishop Wiseman borrows an interesting narrative originally written in Arabic, and remarkably apposite to the present purpose, of the execution of a Mameluke, who was crucified under the walls of Damascus for the murder of his master, and although quite a youth, was possessed of great strength and prowess. His hands, arms, and feet having been nailed to the cross, he remained alive from mid- day on Friday to the same hour on Sunday, when he died. He bore his punishment with great firmness, without uttering a groan or changing his countenance, complaining only of thirst during the whole of the first day, after which he was patient and silent till he died.¹¹ — Of persons recovering from the effects of crucifixion when taken in time from the cross, besides a few instances which may be found amongst the records of insanity, one example is mentioned by Herodotus, and another by Josephus. In describing a singular incident which occurred during the naval warfare between the Greeks and the Persians, the former author states as follows: — "Here also it was that the fleet of Xerxes came to anchor, [namely, in the gulph of Magnesia.] Fifteen of these being at a considerable distance from their companions, discovered the vessels of the Greeks at Artemisium, and mistaking them for friends, sailed into the midst of them. The leader of these ships was Sandoces, son of Thamasias, the governor of Cyma in Æolia. This man Darius had formerly condemned to the punishment of the cross: he had been one of the royal judges, and convicted of corruption in his office. He was already on the cross when the king, reflecting that his services to the royal family exceeded his offences, commanded him to be taken down: thus he escaped the punishment to which Darius had condemned him. His escape now from the Greeks was altogether impossible: they saw him sailing towards them,' and perceiving his error, attacked and took him and his vessels." — In enumerating his various claims to the gratitude of his countrymen, the Jewish historian relates, — "When I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealius and a thousand horsemen to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it was a place fit for a camp, as I came back I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them. So he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physicians' hands, whilst the third recovered."¹²

In Palestine, under the Roman government, crucifixion during life was a punishment peculiar to the conquerors. Amongst the Hebrew people, in whose institutions owing to their divine origin justice was tempered with mercy, it was either not practised at all, or only on dead bodies; and in such cases the Mosaic law strictly commanded that the body of a person suspended on a tree should be taken down and buried before sunset.¹³ In the crucifixion of Jesus by their Roman masters the Jewish authorities acquiesced the more willingly because, like their own national punishment for blasphemy, namely stoning followed by suspension, it involved the stigma of divine malediction which they were anxious to attach to him. Knowing that the former mode of death was generally protracted, and obliged to comply with the requisitions of their law, more especially as the sabbath, which began at sunset, was rapidly approaching, they applied to Pilate soon after the ninth hour of the day, and obtained the usual order that the crucified persons should be despatched and removed. The soldiers appointed to this duty accordingly came, and broke the legs of the two malefactors executed with Jesus. Observing however that he was already dead, they did not break his legs; but to prevent all doubt on the subject, one of them pierced his side with a spear, when the result confirmed their previous decision. The circumstances above stated fully demonstrate that, in whatever degree the ordinary sufferings of crucifixion contributed to his death, they were not its immediate cause. Without the concurrence of other causes they rarely proved fatal in less than two days, whereas Jesus died suddenly after enduring them only six hours. The remarks made on the occasion by the Roman centurion and his soldiers, as well as by Pontius Pilate, all of them competent judges of the fact, and interested in ascertaining its reality, plainly show that they regarded the death of Christ as having happened much earlier than might have been expected, and coincide with the conclusion deducible from other considerations, that it was not the result of crucifixion alone.

Although the matter has never yet been thoroughly investigated, it is interesting to observe that the principal commentators on Scripture, both ancient and modern, have either openly or tacitly adopted the negative conclusion here taken, and that many of them have even suggested additional causes by which, in conjunction with crucifixion, the Saviour's death might in their opinion have been induced. These causes have been proposed under various modifications, which are all reducible to three; namely — supernatural agency, — the wound inflicted by the soldier's spear, — or an unusual degree of weakness, original or acquired. It will be the object of the following remarks to show that neither of these explanations is admissible, all of them being at variance with well-known facts, and that another is therefore absolutely requisite. In the early times of Christianity, not long after its apostolical period, and when pretensions to miraculous power were still made and credited, it is by no means wonderful that the death of Christ should have been ascribed to supernatural influence, which is accordingly the solution adopted by almost all the ancient Christian writers who have considered the subject. The opinion of Tertullian is thus briefly stated: [Christ] — "when crucified spontaneously dismissed his spirit with a word, thus preventing the office of the executioner." — That of Origen is more full. — "Since" — says he, — "those crucified persons who are not stabbed suffer greater torment, and survive in great pain, sometimes the whole of the following night, and even the whole of the next day; and since Jesus was not stabbed, and his enemies hoped that by his hanging long on the cross he would suffer the greater torment, he prayed to the Father and was heard, and as soon as he had called was taken to the Father; or else, as one who had the power of laying down his life, he laid it down when he chose. This prodigy astonished the centurion, who said — 'Truly this man was a son of God.' — For it was a miracle that he who would otherwise perhaps have survived two days on the cross, according to the custom of those who are crucified but not stabbed, should have been taken up after three hours, so that his death seems to have happened by the favour of God, and rather through the merit of his own prayer than through the violence of the cross."¹⁴ — Origen proceeds to observe that the marvellousness of the occurrence was further proved by the surprise of Pilate on hearing that Christ was dead so early, and by his caution in ascertaining the fact from the centurion before he granted the body to Joseph. In commenting on Matt. chap. 27. v. 50, Jerome similarly remarks, — "In the first place, it must be declared that for Jesus to lay down his life when he chose, and to take it again, was an act of divine power. Then the centurion hearing him say to the Father, — 'Into thy hands I commit my spirit,' — and perceiving that he immediately dismissed his spirit of his own accord, was struck with the greatness of the miracle, and said, — 'Truly this man was a son of God.'" — Cyprian follows in the same track. — "That the Jewish rulers would deliver Christ to Pontius Pilate to be crucified, he had himself predicted, and the testimony of all the prophets had also previously declared that it was necessary for him to suffer, not that he might feel, but conquer death, and after he had suffered to return to heaven, that he might display the power of the divine majesty. The course of events corresponded to expectation; for when he was crucified he dismissed his spirit of his own accord, preventing the office of the executioner, and also of his own accord rose from the dead on the third day."¹⁵ — Theophylact, metropolitan of Bulgaria, who stands as it were midway between the ancients and the moderns, exhibits similar views in expounding Luke, chap. 23, v. 46. — "When [Jesus] had exclaimed with a loud voice he expired, for he had power to lay down his life, and to take it again. That exclamation, and other miracles furnished to the centurion grounds of faith: for [Christ] did not die like an ordinary man, but with great power, and called death a deposit, like one who was about to take his life again." — So likewise in commenting on Matt. chap. 27, v. 50. — "He lays down his life by his own power. But what was the exclamation?— 'Father! into thy hands I commit my spirit:' — for he expired not by compulsion, but voluntarily, this being the signification of, — 'I commit my spirit,' &c., — and therefore with a loud voice he called on death, which dared not to come to him without being called."¹⁶

Amongst the more modern commentators the earlier generally adopt the miraculous hypothesis of their predecessors, but the superior judgment of a few is evinced by their expressing themselves with becoming reserve on a subject which they felt they did not perfectly understand, and some are absolutely silent. Thus Calvin remarks, — "The circumstance that after breaking the legs of the two malefactors the soldiers found Christ dead, and therefore did not assail his body, shows an extraordinary operation of divine providence. Profane persons may indeed say that it is natural for one man to die sooner than another; but whoever carefully examines the whole series of the narrative will be compelled to ascribe the exemption of Christ from the breaking of his legs, by a death beyond all expectation rapid, to the secret counsel of God."¹⁷ — In commenting on Matt. chap. 27, v. 50. — "Jesus, having again cried with a loud voice, resigned [his] spirit," — Grotius subjoins, — "in the very act of exclamation, as we have found Tertullian saying,— 'He spontaneously dismissed his spirit with a word.' — This exclamation was, — '[All] is accomplished,' — as mentioned by John, and  — 'Father! into thy hands I commit my spirit.' — This very circumstance, — 'that he expired with such a cry,' — was regarded by the centurion as miraculous; for the event itself, immediately responding to the words of Christ, showed that his soul had really been taken by God. His death was in fact accelerated by divine counsel before the failure of his natural strength, otherwise it could not have been expected to occur so soon; (Mark, chap. 15, v. 44.) and therefore the malefactors were despatched by breaking their legs."¹⁸ — In his discourse on the fourth article of the Apostles' Creed, Lightfoot observes, — "Christ could not die, nay I may say he would not die, till all things were fulfilled that were written concerning his death. Therefore, when he had hung above three hours, and knowing it was written, — 'They gave me vinegar,' &c., — he said — 'I thirst.' — He tastes and finds it vinegar, and says — 'It is finished.' — Now all is accomplished, so he bows his head, and composeth himself to die, and cries, — 'Father! into thy hands,' &c.; — and having so said he let go his soul, and delivered it up into the hands of God. Remember that, John, chap. 10, v. 17, 18. and you see the sense of these expressions; — 'I lay down my life that I may take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.' — He had life in his own hand, and the Jews could not take it from him, but he let it go himself, and delivered it up. — 'When the centurion saw that he thus cried out and gave up the ghost, he said, — Surely this man was the Son of God.'— Doubtless this man hath the disposal of his own life. So strong a cry is not the cry of one that is spent and dying through weakness and fainting, but it argues life strong and vigorous to be still in him, and therefore he dies not of weakness, but gives up his life at his own pleasure." — "Jesus" — says the celebrated Bishop Taylor, — "took all his passion with a voluntary susception, God heightening it to great degrees of torment supernaturally, and he laid down his life voluntarily, when his Father's wrath was totally appeased towards mankind."¹⁹ — Matthew Henry makes the following observations on Matt. chap. 27, v. 50. — "Two things are here noted concerning the manner of Christ's dying; 1st, that he cried with a loud voice, as before, v. 46. Now this was a sign that after all his pains and fatigues his life was whole in him, and nature strong. The voice of dying men is one of the first things that fails. With a panting breath and a faltering tongue a few broken words are hardly spoken, and more hardly heard; but Christ just before he expired spoke like a man in his full strength, to show that his life was not forced from him, but was freely delivered by him into his Father's hands, as his own act and deed. He that had strength 'to cry thus when he died could have got loose from the arrest he was under, and have bid defiance to the power of death; but, to show that by the eternal Spirit he offered himself, being the priest as well as the sacrifice, he cried with a loud voice" — In his annotations on John, chap. 19, v. 30, the same author remarks, — "'He gave up the ghost.' — His life was not forcibly extorted from him, but freely resigned;" — and on v. 33. — "They supposed him to be dead, and therefore did not break his legs,' — Observe here that Jesus died in less time than persons crucified usually did. The structure of his body, perhaps being extraordinarily fine and tender, was the sooner broke by pain; or rather, it was to show that he laid down his life of himself, and could die when he pleased, though his hands were nailed. Though he yielded to death, he was not conquered."²⁰ — Christ's — "being able to express himself in such a manner," — says Dr. Gill, — "declared him to be more than a mere man; for after such agonies in the garden, and so much fatigue in being hurried from place to place, and such loss of blood from being buffeted, scourged, crowned with thorns, and nailed to the accursed tree, where being stretched he had hung for some hours, to speak with so loud a voice was more than human, and was a conviction to the centurion that he was a divine person; for — 'when he saw that he so cried out and gave up the ghost, he said, — Truly this man was the Son of God;' — (Mark, chap. 15, v. 39.) and likewise it shows that he died freely and voluntarily, and not through force and necessity. It was not all that men had done, or could do to him that could have forced his life from him. He died willingly, and when nature was in its full strength, and, which is signified in the next phrase, — 'yielded up the ghost,' — or — 'dismissed the spirit,' — as the Syriac version truly renders it,— he sent it away. It was not taken from him, he laid down his life of himself as the lord of it, and gave himself freely to be an offering and sacrifice in the room of his people, which is a proof of his great love and amazing grace unto them." — Dr. Doddridge also contends that the phrase — "ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα,'' — in Matt. chap. 27, v. 50. should be rendered, — '' he dismissed his spirit;" — and observes, — *' Now this expression seems admirably to suit our Lord's words, John, chap. 10, v. 18. — 'No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself,' &c. — showing, as the strong cry which so much impressed the centurion did, that he died by the voluntary act of his own mind, according to the power received from the Father, and in a way peculiar to himself, by which he alone of all men that ever existed could have continued alive, even in the greatest tortures, as long as he pleased, or have retired from the body whenever he thought fit. Which view of the case, by the way, suggests an illustration of the love of Christ manifested in his death beyond what is commonly observed; inasmuch as he did not use this power to quit his body as soon as ever it was fastened to the cross, leaving only an insensible corpse to the cruelty of his murderers, but continued his abode in it with a steady resolution as long as it was proper, and then retired from it with a majesty and dignity never known, or to be known in any other death; dying, if I may so express it, like the prince of life."²¹

Lastly, Dr. Adam Clarke, taking the same view of the phrase, remarks, — "He himself willingly gave up that life which it was impossible for man to take away. It is not said that he hung on the cross till he died through pain and agony, nor is it said that his bones were broken the sooner to put him out of pain, and to hasten his death, but that himself dismissed the soul, that he might thus become not a forced sacrifice, but a free-will offering for sin."²²

The quotations above collected plainly show that from an early period of Christianity down to the present day many learned and pious men have agreed in ascribing the death of Christ to supernatural agency. Had not the later writers of this class been guided by an undue deference to the opinions of their predecessors rather than by independent inquiry, it is difficult to understand how so many able divines should have concurred in a view decidedly contradicted by several passages of the New Testament, which positively declare that Christ was slain by his enemies, and died the death of the cross. Thus, when anticipating his crucifixion a few days before its occurrence, the Saviour himself predicted, — "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me:" — on which the apostle John remarks, — "In thus speaking, he signified the kind of death which he was about to die." — Paul, in like manner, affirms that Christ — "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." — In his defence before the Sanhedrim, Stephen indignantly asked, — "Which of the prophets did your fathers forbear to persecute? Yea, they slew those who foretold the coming of that righteous person, of whom ye have now been the betrayers and murderers." — Similar statements were on various occasions made by Peter; as for example, when replying to the Sanhedrim, — "The God of our fathers raised from the dead Jesus, whom ye slew by crucifixion;"— when addressing the vast multitude assembled at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, — "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 in a second address to the same multitude shortly afterwards, — "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and rejected before Pilate, when he had decided on releasing him; but ye rejected that holy and righteous person, and [in his stead] begged for the release of a murderer, and slew the prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses . . . . . . And now, brethren, I know that ye did [this] through ignorance, as likewise did your rulers; but those sufferings of Christ which God foretold by the mouth of all his prophets, he hath thus accomplished."²³ — In his "Exposition of the Creed," Bishop Pearson discusses the subject with much ability; and, although his own explanation is equally objectionable, deserves credit for the soundness of his judgment, in rejecting that which is now under consideration. Christ, he observes, — "died not by, but with a miracle. Should we imagine Christ to anticipate the time of death, and to subtract his soul from future torments necessary to cause an expiration, we might rationally say the Jews and Gentiles were guilty of his death, but we could not properly say they slew him. Guilty they must be, because they inflicted those torments which in time death must necessarily follow; but slay him actually they did not, if his death proceeded from any other cause, and not from the wounds which they inflicted."²⁴ — After a careful perusal of the passages above cited, it does not require any long or elaborate reasoning to prove that, if the Saviour humbled himself to death, even the death of the cross, if the Father accomplished his designs in this respect through the instrumentality of Christ's enemies, and if in the midst of their fancied triumph over him they were in reality blindly executing the divine purposes, whatever may be the true explanation of his death, it cannot be attributed to supernatural agency. The opposite opinion has been chiefly deduced from the declaration of Jesus that no man took his life from him, but that he laid it down of himself, and from the expressions of some of the evangelists, that at his death he resigned or dismissed his spirit; but the foregoing passages, in conjunction with several others which might be added, prove the meaning of these expressions to be simply this; that, in fulfilment of the divine plan of human redemption, Christ voluntarily submitted to a violent death which he had it in his power to avoid. That he actually suffered such a death is indeed repeatedly stated, both before and after the event. Thus, in his last journey to Jerusalem, — "he took the twelve aside, and began to apprize them of what was about to befall him, [saying] — Behold! we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests, and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles, who will mock him, and scourge him, and spit on him, and kill him, but on the third day he will rise from the dead." — That it was in the power of Christ to avoid such a death, had he chosen to renounce the object of his mission, is evident amongst other reasons from his miraculous overthrow of the hostile band in the garden of Gethsemane; from his question to Peter, — "Thinkest thou that I cannot even now request my Father, and he would send to my aid more than twelve legions of angels? [but] how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, [which declare] that thus it must be?" — and from his remark to Pilate, — "Thou wouldst not have had any authority at all against me, had it not been given thee from above."²⁵ — In all the scriptural allusions to this subject,  the death intimated, although voluntary, is moreover represented not as self-inflicted, but as penal and vicarious. In the very passage which has been thus misinterpreted, the death encountered by the good shepherd for the safety of his flock is ascribed to the wolf from whom the hireling flees. So, when Peter promised to lay down his life for Christ's sake, his meaning is explained to be, that he would follow him both to prison and to death. The true interpretation of this passage is however ascertained beyond all doubt by the same apostle who records it; for he declares that, as — "Christ laid down his life for us, we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren;" — not of course by suicide, but by cheerfully submitting to death from persecution, whenever it may appear necessary for the welfare of the church; an act of self-devotion which the apostle Paul repeatedly professed himself ready to perform, and at last actually accomplished. On such occasions it was usual for Christian martyrs to resign, or commend their spirits to God, in token of their perfect acquiescence in his will, and confidence in his fidelity; and, with the exception of his having been a victim of an infinitely higher order, this was all that was done by Christ himself when he died on the cross. Accordingly, whilst Matthew and John state that he dismissed or resigned his spirit, Mark and Luke say simply, that he expired.²⁶

From the concurrence of so many pious and learned authors in ascribing the death of Jesus to supernatural agency, one advantage however results, namely, the acknowledgment thereby made that in their opinion this solemn event cannot be satisfactorily explained by any other cause; — neither by the principal, nor the accessory sufferings of crucifixion, — ^by an extraordinary degree of weakness original or acquired, — nor by the wound inflicted with the soldier's spear; — and this acknowledgment is the more valuable in the case of several of the early writers, because they lived in times when all the circumstances attending crucifixion in general, and that of Christ in particular, must have been perfectly known. So much the more remarkable is the fact that certain manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, particularly the Vatican, and the Ephrem, with some others of minor note, contain a various reading which seems to affirm the cause last mentioned, namely, the wound with the soldier's spear; and that a recent and talented author, the late Mr. Granville Penn,²⁷ has zealously adopted this reading, which it will be the object of the following observations to show is spurious, and unworthy of regard. It occurs as an additional clause to Matt, chap. 27, v. 48, 49. after the statement that a little before his death Christ uttered the cry, — "Eloi! Eloi I lamma sabachthani?"— which some of the bystanders erroneously supposed to be an invocation of the prophet Elijah. In order to do justice to the subject, the original passage, as it stands in the Vatican manuscript, is here subjoined, together with Mr. Penn's translation.— "Matt. chap. 27, v. 48. Καὶ εὐθέως δραμὼν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν, καὶ λαβὼν σπόγγον, πλήσας τε ὄξους, καὶ περιθεὶς καλάμῳ, ἐπότιζεν αὐτόυ; 49. οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἔλεγον, Ἄφες, ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἠλίας σώσων αὐτόν: ἄλλος δὲ, λαβὼν λόγχην, ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα. 50. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλη, ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα 48. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it him to drink: 49. the rest said, Let him alone; let us see whether Elijah will come to save him: 50. but another, taking a spear, pierced his side; and there came forth water and blood: and Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, expired." — Mr. Penn supposes this clause to have been expunged from the ancient copies of Matthew's gospel through the influence of Origen. His principal, if not his only reasons for regarding it as an authentic portion of Scripture, are its insertion in the Vatican and Ephrem manuscripts, and its adoption by Chrysostom. The high value which he attaches to it is evinced by the ensuing remarks. — "The restoration of this verse to its due place in the Gospel is the most important circumstance of this Revision;" — and again, — "The recovery of this important record, possibly reserved with a view to rouse and quicken the languor of the Christian church in this its last age, and its restoration to the evangelical text, is well calculated to fan the embers of Christian devotion, and to cause them to revive with a name answering to that with which it shone at the first."²⁸ — Notwithstanding so high a eulogium, it will be easy to prove that this clause, excluded by almost all the ancient manuscripts, versions, and fathers, rejected by the principal critics and editors of the Greek New Testament, and stamped with internal marks of inconsistency and falsehood, is an unwarrantable interpolation in Matthew's gospel of words borrowed from that of John. In opposition to the weight of adverse evidence on this point, the authorities adduced by Mr. Penn are quite insufficient. That of Chrysostom he himself disregards, in reference to a closely connected passage, and in the present case it is scarcely available; for Chrysostom represents the spear-wound as having been inflicted on the body of Christ when dead, and declares that he laid down his life by his own power. The Ephrem manuscript is probably little more than a duplicate of the Vatican, and for the extraordinary and exclusive deference paid by Mr. Penn to the Roman document no just reason can be assigned. To ascertain the precise age of a manuscript is not a very easy task; but granting that the Vatican is one of the oldest now extant, it by no means follows that all junior manuscripts, some of Which must be of nearly equal antiquity, are either derived from it, or of inferior authority. Granting that this clause was known in the fourth century, there is no proof that it existed in the first copies of Matthew's gospel, or that it was expunged by Origen. That distinguished author testifies that in his time, and doubtless long before, the Scriptures of the New Testament presented many various readings, which he judiciously refers to three different sources; namely, the negligence of transcribers, the presumption of heretics, and the officiousness of critics.²⁹ To the last of these classes may reasonably be ascribed several of those families, as they have been termed, of manuscripts, which, whilst agreeing in all essential points, differ considerably with respect to style and diction, in consequence of the simple and oriental phraseology of the original writings having been, as it seems, variously modified and re-touched, to suit the taste of those for whose use they were successively transcribed. That the text of the Vatican manuscript was thus modified, at least in the New Testament, will plainly appear to any competent inquirer who will carefully and candidly examine its peculiar readings. Were such interference with Scripture ever admissible, many of these readings might, in reference to expression, be deemed improvements; but, as might naturally have been expected, when the editor had once engaged in this critical career, he was induced to proceed further than at first perhaps he intended; and not content with correcting the style of the sacred original, presumed in some instances to alter its matter. Thus, for example, he has expunged the clause in Luke, chap. 2S, v. 43, 44. which describes the agony and bloody sweat of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane; and has inserted after Matt. chap. 27, v. 49. the clause now under consideration, which attributes the death of Christ on the cross to the wound inflicted by the soldier's spear. In both these alterations, as well as in most other cases, he is implicitly followed by Mr. Penn, who gladly cites the authority of Chrysostom in support of the latter clause, but apparently forgets that the same authority confirms the former one which, in deference to the Vatican manuscript, he himself rejects; and on which this prince of interpreters, as he is styled by Dr. Isaac Barrow and Mr. Penn, makes the following apposite remark: — "Lest heretics should say that [Christ] pretended agony, his sweat was as clots of blood, and an angel appeared strengthening him, and [he showed] many other infallible signs of fear, lest any one should say that [his] words were feigned."³⁰ — After stating that this clause was acknowledged as authentic by Justin Martyr and Tatian, in the second century, as well as by other early authors, Dr. Lardner adds that it — "was wanting in some ancient copies, as we learn from Hilary?, Jerome, and Photius, which last intimates that the omission of this text was owing to some Syrians. Mill thinks they must have been of the sect of the Jacobites; and Dr. Assemann has particularly observed that this text is quoted by Ephrem the Syrian. Epiphanius likewise says that these two verses were in the ancient copies, before they were corrected and altered by some over-nice catholics who did not well understand them."³¹ — With the exception of the Alexandrian manuscript, which likewise omits it, this clause is accordingly retained by almost all the ancient editors, critics, and commentators of the New Testament, and is further supported by a well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 5, v. 7-10. where, although the sacred writer does not minutely describe the scene in the garden of Gethsemane, he evidently alludes to it in a manner exactly corresponding to the narrative of Luke, with which the statements of Paul generally present a very close and striking coincidence. Speaking of the sufferings of Christ, the apostle remarks that, — "having in the days of his flesh offered prayers and supplications, [accompanied] with tears and loud cries, to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard on account of his pious fear, although he was a son, he learned obedience from his sufferings; and when [at length] perfected, became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him." — This allusion, which intimates that previously to his crucifixion Christ piously endured a degree of mental agony which threatened his life, but from which he was for the time delivered by divine succour, in answer to his intense and urgent prayers, furnishes a powerful confirmation, were any wanting, of that important passage in Luke's gospel which the Vatican manuscript has improperly dropped, whilst with equal impropriety it has admitted into the gospel of Matthew a spurious passage, which disfigures and contradicts the scriptural narrative.³² The internal proof of its being spurious is, that the passage is inconsistent with the accounts given both by Matthew and John, as well as with other circumstances belonging to the event. Having stated that about the ninth hour of the day on which he was crucified Jesus uttered the cry, — "Eli! Eli! lama sabachthani, — that is, — My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?" — Matt. chap. 27, v. 46. the evangelist relates, — v. 47. — "On hearing [this,] some of the bystanders said, — This man calleth for Elijah. — 48. One of them immediately ran, and took a sponge, and having filled it with vinegar, and fixed it on a reed, gave him drink: 49. but the rest said, — Hold! let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. 50. Having again cried with a loud voice, Jesus expired." — It is between verses 49 and 50, that the Vatican manuscript inserts the clause, — "but another, taking a spear, pierced his side, and there came forth water and blood:" — which clause, short as it is, entirely disagrees both with the immediate context, and with the facts of the case. The bystanders were evidently the Roman soldiers on guard, who knew little of the Hebrew language, but could not have resided long in Palestine without learning something of the great prophet Elijah, and of the expected Messiah of the Jews. Now, after stating that one of these men, — εἶς ἐξ αὐτῶν, — on hearing Jesus complain of thirst, (John, chap. 19, v. 28, 29.) offered him vinegar, and that the rest — οἱ λοιποὶ· — desired their comrade not to interfere, but to await the event, what intelligent writer would have introduced another, — ἄλλος δὲ,- — and that to perform an act in opposition to the wish just before expressed? Besides, the soldiers were not at liberty thus to interfere with the execution at their pleasure, and had any of them presumed to do so, it would have been at the risk of his life. When the Jewish authorities were anxious to have the crucified persons despatched, and their bodies removed before the sabbath began, that is before six o'clock the same evening, they were under the necessity of applying to the Roman governor, who gave orders accordingly. That he did not issue any other order is manifest; since after giving this, and when he had reason to believe that it had been carried into effect, Pilate was astonished to hear that Jesus was already dead. By the apostle John, a deeply interested spectator of the whole scene, the sequel is thus described: — "Now in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross during the sabbathday, as it was [then] the preparation-day, for that sabbath-day was a high day, the Jews requested Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Jesus, but on coming to him, 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." — John, chap. 19, v. 28-34. Nothing can be plainer or more complete than this account. The death of Christ happened, not in consequence of his having been stabbed to the heart, but from some other cause, immediately after he had received the vinegar. His side was pierced, not whilst he was alive, but after he was dead, and as the alter native of breaking his legs, an act which the soldiers were otherwise about to perform; implying that until that moment they were not aware of his death, and even then thought it proper, by wounding him with a spear, to ascertain its reality. It is to be regretted that this very clear and unequivocal statement should have been misrepresented by Mr. Penn, no doubt unintentionally, and under the influence of an undue partiality for a favourite manuscript. The evangelist's words are as follows, — John, chap. 19, v. 32. — “Ἦλθον οὖν οἱ στρατιῶται, καὶ τοῦ μὲν πρώτου κατέαξαν τὰ σκέλη, καὶ τοῦ ἄλλου τοῦ συσταυρωθέντος αὐτῷ; 33. ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐλθόντες, ὡς εἶδον αὐτὸν ἤδη τεθνηκότα, οὐ κατέαξαν αὐτοῦ τὰ σκέληι 34. ἀλλ’ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἕνυξε, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ. — The following is Mr. Penn's translation: — "32. Then the soldiers came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him; S3, but, coming to Jesus, they brake not his legs, when they saw that he was already dead; 34. for, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately came forth blood and water." — Every competent and unprejudiced reader will perceive that the mental substitution in this version of the explanatory particle, — γᾶρ, for, — instead of the distinctive one, — ἀλλᾶ, but, — entirely perverts the meaning of the sentence, which is thereby tacitly acknowledged to be incompatible with the corresponding clause, interpolated in Matthew's gospel by the Vatican manuscript. Far however from seeing this, Mr. Penn supposes that in the following verses 35-37, John quotes, and thereby confirms the pretended statement of Matthew, as if it were credible that John, who during the whole scene of the crucifixion stood near the foot of the cross, should have suppressed his own testimony, and given in preference that of Matthew, who if present at all, must have been stationed at a distance, and consequently far less qualified to bear witness on the subject, Luke, chap. 28, v. 49. It must, on the contrary, be evident that John, who through modesty generally speaks of himself anonymously, and in the third person, is here placing on scriptural record that testimony, which as an eyewitness of these momentous events he had from the first orally delivered, and that previously to citing two remarkable prophecies of the Old Testament respecting them, he accurately describes the occurrences by which they were simultaneously fulfilled, — John, chap. 19, v. 35. "He that bears [this] testimony saw [the fact,] and his testimony is true, and he is sure that he relates what is true, that ye also may believe: 36, for these things happened in fulfilment of the Scripture, — Not one of his bones shall be broken: — 37. and again another Scripture saith, — They shall look on him whom they pierced."³³ — Other objections might be urged against the allegation that the spear-wound was inflicted on the body of Christ whilst he was yet alive, such as the immediate effusion of blood and water, and the loud and distinct exclamation, — "[All] is accomplished: Father! into thy hands I commit my spirit," — neither of which could on this supposition have taken place; but those already adduced will probably be deemed sufficient.

The opinion that the death of Christ was accelerated by supernatural agency originated with some of the early Christian writers; that which ascribes its speedy occurrence to an extraordinary degree of debility, either constitutional or superinduced, is chiefly confined to a small number of modern theologians; and, as will now be shown, is equally untenable with the former, being not only destitute of proof, but positively contradicted by the well-known facts of the case. Both as a priest and as a victim, it was necessary that Christ should possess a human nature absolutely pure and perfect. This perfect nature was accordingly provided by a special interposition of the Holy Spirit, in the manner related by the evangelist Luke; and from such a source it is evident that nothing feeble, vitiated, or defective could have proceeded.³⁴ As a child, Jesus rapidly grew in wisdom, and in stature, and in favour with God and man; and at the early age of twelve years exhibited a degree of energy and intelligence, which astonished the doctors of the law with whom he conversed in the temple. The subsequent course of his life corresponded to its commencement. Until the age of thirty he chiefly resided in the country, where his occupations, although humble and laborious, were well adapted to promote health and strength. During the three or four years of his personal ministry nothing of a contrary kind occurred. He now took much mental as well as bodily exercise, mingled freely with all classes of society, was often engaged in public speaking, and made frequent journeys on foot; but, under the guardianship of a special providence, appears never to have suffered the slightest accident or indisposition. The notion of his having been weakened and emaciated by continual watchings and fastings is worthy of the monkish writers by whom it was first suggested, but utterly at variance with the evangelical narrative. Whatever might in this respect have been the practice of John the Baptist, who was sent to announce the divine judgments impending over a guilty nation, the Son of Man came, as he himself declares, eating and drinking; his first miracle was performed at a marriage-feast, for the purpose' of furnishing a liberal supply of excellent wine; and on all occasions, he readily accepted the hospitalities both of his friends and his enemies. Even his disciples could not fast whilst he was with them; and the malicious aspersion thrown against him of being a gluttonous man and a winebibber, false as it was, served to prove that he did not profess to lead a life of abstinence and mortification. His last sufferings befell him when in the flower of his age, at the period of his greatest vigour and maturity. Those in the garden of Gethsemane, although intense, were of short duration, and he was supernaturally strengthened for the very purpose of enabling him to support them. Those incidental to crucifixion were not more severe in his case than in that of others. His deportment throughout the whole scene, whether in the garden, before the tribunals of the Sanhedrim and of Pilate, or at Golgotha, evinced the utmost piety, fortitude, and self-possession. The circumstance of Simon the Cyrenian having been compelled to assist in bearing his cross, by no means proves that mere weakness disabled Christ from bearing it alone. The contrary appears from his immediately afterwards addressing the Jewish women who bewailed his fate, and bidding them weep not for him, but for themselves and their children. On arriving at the fatal spot he refused the cup of medicated wine, usually given as a cordial to crucified persons; and after praying for his executioners, assuring the penitent malefactor of eternal happiness, providing for the future support of his widowed mother, and actively concurring in the fulfilment of prophecy, he suddenly expired amidst loud and fervent ejaculations, which alone were sufi5cient to show that he retained all his faculties of mind and body to the last moment of his life. The opposite opinion is so manifestly unfounded and erroneous, that to illustrate it by quotations from the writings of authors who have taken that view of the subject, would be a mere loss of time and labour. Some of the principal expositions of this class will however be stated and refuted in the following chapter.

1) 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. 6.5, 66.

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

3) Irenaeus, Opera, p. 166; — Justinus Martyr, Cum Tryphone Judæo Dialogus, pp. 271, 272; — Tertullianus, Ad Nationes, p. 49; Adversus Judæos, p. 195.

4) Bishop Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, pp. 203-205.

5) Claudius Salmasius, De Cruce, &c., pp. 229-340, &c., — Justus Lipsius, De Cruce, pp. 98-109, &c.; — Dr. Adam Clarke, The New Testament, with a Commentary, &c.; Comment on Matt. chap. 27, v. 35.

6) Jacobus Bosius, Crux Triuraphans et Gloriosa, pp. 8, 9, 43, 47,94, 112-115.

7) Rev. Alban Butler, Lives of the Fathers, &c., vol. vi. pp. 251, 252; vol. xii. pp. 175, 176; — Acta Sanctorum, cura Bollandi, vol. i. pp. 659-662.

8) Justinus, Historic Philippicæ, pp. 490, 491; — Denham and Clapperton, Travels in Africa, &c.; Clapperton's Narrative, p. 107.

9) Rev. W. Ellis, History of Madagascar, vol. i. pp. 371, 372; — Rev. H. Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, &c., pp. 189-191.

10) Dr. Russell, Natural History of Aleppo, vol. i. p. 332; — Slade's Records of Travels in Turkey, Greece, &c, vol. i. p. 447; vol. ii. p. 447, 448.

11) Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, pp. 391, 392; — Bishop Wiseman, On the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, vol. i. pp. 265—275.

12) Herodotus, History by Beloe, vol. iii. p. 292; vol. iv. pp. 125, 126; — Josephus, Works by Whiston, vol. iii. pp. 242, 243.

13) Levit. chap. 24, v. 10-16; — Deut. chap. 21, v. 22, 23.

14) Tertullianus, Apologeticus, p. 20; — Origenes, Opera, vol. ii. p. 237. By misunderstanding the statement concerning — "the sixth hour," — in John, chap. 19, v. 14, Origen seems to have concluded that the time during which Christ hung alive on the cross was only three hours.

15) Hieronymus, Opera, vol. iii. pp. 47, 48; — Cyprianus, Opera: — De idolorum vanitate, p. 223.

16) Theophylact, Opera; Comment on Matt. chap. 27, v. 50; Mark, chap. 15, v. 37; Luke, chap. 23, v. 46; and John, chap. 19, v. 30.

17) Joannes Calvinus, Comment; in quatuor Evangelistas; — John, chap. 19, v. 33.

18) Hugo Grotius, Opera Theologica, &c.; Comment on Matt, chap. 27, v. 50.

19) Dr. Lightfoot, Works, vol. i. p. 1354; — Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Works, vol. iii. p. 374.

20) Matthew Henry, Exposition on the New Testament; Comment on Matt. chap. 27, v. 50; John, chap. 19, v. 30, 33.

21) Dr. Gill, Exposition of the New Testament; Comment on 3Iatt. chap. 27, v. 50. — Dr. Doddridge, Family Expositor of the New Testament; Comment on Luke, chap. 23, v. 46.

22) Dr. Adam Clarke, Comment on Matt. chap. 27, v. 50.

23) John, chap. 12, v. 30-34; chap. 18, v. 31, 32; — Acts, chap. 2, v. 22, 23; chap. 3, v. 12-18; chap. 5, v. 29, 30; chap. 7, v. 51, 52; chap. 10, v. 38, 39; — Philipp. chap. 2, v. 5-8;— Heb. chap. 12, v. 1-3.

24) Bishop Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, pp. 212, 213.

25) Matt. chap. 16, v. 21; chap. 17, v. 22, 23; chap. 20, v. 17-19; chap. 26, v. 51—54; — Mark, chap. 8, v. 31; chap. 9, v. 30, 31; chap. 10, v. 32-34; — Luke, chap. 9, v. 21, 22; chap. 18, v. 31-33; — John, chap. 10, V. 17, 18; chap. 18, v. 1-6; chap. 19, v. 8-11; — 1 Thess. chap. 2, v. 14, 15; — Revel, chap. 5, v. 9, 12, &c.

26) Luke, chap. 22, v. 33; — John, chap. 10, v. 11-15; chap. 13, v. 36, 37; — Acts, chap. 7, v. 59, 60; — Rom. chap. 5, v. 6- 8; — Philipp. chap. 2, v. 17, 18;— Coloss. chap. 1, v. 23, 24; — 2 Tim. chap. 1, v. 12; chap. 4, v. 6-8; — 1 Peter, chap. 4, v. 12-19; — I John, chap. 3, v. 16.

27) Granville Penn, The Book of the New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; — Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant, with an Expository Pretace, &c.

28) Granville Perm, Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant, &c., pp. 176, 184.

29) Lardner (Dr. Nathaniel), Works, vol. ii. p. 522, 523.

30) Joannes Chrysostomus, Opera, vol. vii. p. 791.

31) Lardner, vol. ii. p. 425, 426.

32) In consequence of mistaking the golden censer,— θυμιατήριον, — for the golden altar, — θυσιαστήριον, — the same manuscript has transferred the clause respecting it in Heb. chap. 9, from the fourth to the second verse. This transposition, cited by Mr. Penn as a triumphant proof of the superiority of the Vatican manuscript, is in reality another example of its injudicious and unwarrantable interference with the original text. See Rev., chap. 8, v. 1-5. — Granville Penn, Annotations, &c., Preface, pp. 32, 33.

33) Granville Penn, Annotations, &c.; pp. 286, 287.

34) Levit. chap. 21, v. 16-24; chap. 22, v. 17-25; — John, chap. 1, v. 29, 36; — Heb. chap. 7, v. 23-28; chap. 9, v. 13. 14; chap. 10, v. 1-14; — 1 Peter, chap. 1, v. 18, 19, &c.