time unknown and unsuspected as the Messiah: so absolutely unknown, that JOHN the Baptist, his kinsman, who knew himself to be the forerunner of the Messiah, and who knew that the Messiah was actually come, assured the Jews, at his baptism, that until he saw the Holy Ghost descend in a bodily shape like a dove, and rest upon him, he did not know what individual was the Messiah. Then, for the first time, was it said to the Jews-"Behold THE LAMB OF GOD, who taketh away the sin of the world!" So unsuspected had his character as the Messiah been, that his acquaintance in Nazareth, when they saw him after his baptism stand up in the synagogue and read the Scriptures, asked instinctively, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ?" His public ministry continued but three years and a half, or at most but four years. His death occurred at the most important and eventful period of his life. He had all the activity and ardour of youth, combined with the full vigour of manhood. He had become extensively known, and had gained a high character as holy man, as an eminent prophet, and worker of miracles. His fame and influence was continually extending, and the number of his disciples regularly increasing. The apostles were wholly unprepared for his death. When he was apprehended they all forsook him and fled; and, when he was crucified, their faith in him as the Messiah entirely failed. When he died not a word of the NewTestament was written, and but a small part of the instructions necessary to compose it were given. The church too was not yet organized, and no permanent order of ministers appointed. His followers were very few, feeble, and timid, and they were so fully convinced that he was to be a reigning temporal Messiah, that when reigning temporal Messiah, that when they saw him crucified, they were utterly confounded and disheartened." 13. The sacramental supper was instituted in commemoration of his death. This is illustrated briefly, from Scripture; and the remark is made, that no other event in the life of Jesus is commemorated with the same solemnity; and consequently is not regarded as equally important. Our author avers that neither the day, week, nor month of the Saviour's birth is even mentioned by the sacred writers; and in this he is correct. But when he says that the allusion to the year of his birth is so indistinct as not only to have occasioned a long and yet unsettled controversy, but to have led those who fixed the Christian era [he means, we suppose, our vulgar era] into a mistake as to the of the nativity," does he not, in declaring this vulgar era to be a mistake, of course assume the fact that the controversy is (at least so far) settled, rather than " yet unsettled," as he had just averred? year 14. The death of Jesus was violent and ignominious. This is briefly and amply illustrated, without the disgusting pomp of "funereal words," which writers of a false taste so often exhibit, when they fall upon this interesting and awful topic. How long will it be, before "eloquent" declaimers will learn, that the simple and touching distress of such an occurrence, and that its high and holy sublimity, are put to shame by the unmeaning pomp of declamation, and of 'gilded and gorgeous epithets," which they heap upon it! How distant is such "eloquence" from that of the Evangelists, whose narration no critic can mend, and to whose eloquence no orator can make addition! Mr. Dwight has, with much good taste here, merely followed in their steps. 15. His sufferings were exceedingly intense and distressing. The latter epithet should be spared, as it is involved, of course in the idea of suffering. Here again Mr. Dwight is altogether in accordance with our taste; merely presenting to us the simple and touching narrative of the evangelists, which none can alter for the better. are glad to see that he has followed the statement of the evangelist, respecting the agony in the garden, We viz. that Jesus sweat as it were great drops of blood. Often have we heard the statement made from the pulpit, that he sweat blood; a mistake which, to say the least, no preacher of the gospel ought ever to make. 16. He endured sufferings of mind inflicted by God. Of the fact we doubt not; nor, in general, of Mr. Dwight's argument to establish it. But when he quotes the pas"Thou shalt make his soul sage, an offering for sin," and insists that the intention of the prophet was here to distinguish between soul and body, we must dissent from his opinion. The Hebrew word w does indeed, sometimes mean, like the Latin animus, the intelligent principle within, the man, or the man's self, by way of eminence. But the predominant use of it, in all the poetic parts of the Old Testament, is, to designate the idea of person, or self. Thus, "Jehovah hath sworn, in by his soul, that is, by himself; for surely no distinction between body and soul can be intended here. We understand the prophet merely to say, in the passage quoted, "When thou shalt make him an offering for sin.". Thus is employed, in innumerable cases, not only in the Hebrew but in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. Mr. Dwight has no need to lean upon such a questionable interpretation, when he has so many better arguments at his command. Our author proceeds, under this head, to remark, that the scene in the garden of Gethsemane is altogether inexplicable, unless we admit that peculiar mental suffering was endured by Christ. His illustration of this idea is one of those happy paragraphs which every now and then occur in his work. We beg the liberty to quote it entire ; inasmuch as the subject is intimately connected with the nature and object of the Saviour's death. "PAUL knew that himself was to be crucified, and that his time was drawing near. Yet he said, in the full and solemn anticipation of that event,-"I am ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand;”—and PɛTER, when the hour of his crucifixion had arrived, requested that he might be crucified with his head downward, as unworthy to suffer in the same attitude with his Master. They felt no shrinking, no withdrawing from the dreadful conflict; and thousands of martyrs,them nearly exhausted by previous many of them in feeble health, many of tortures, many of them youths, and many of them females, have approached the cross or the faggot, not only without agony or extreme agitation, but with alacrity, and even with triumph. Yet CHRIST, under the bare expectation of his sufferings on the following day being" in great dejection, amazement, and anguish of mind," thrice prostrated himself to the ground, offering that most earnest prayer—“ O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!" and then he prayed still more earnestly, and being in an agony, "his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground." Why then this amazing difference?If CHRIST was a Super-angelic being; this conduct of his, on the supposition that he anticipated no sufferings but those of the body, indicates a want of fortitude, a weakness of nerve and of resolution, utterly inconsistent with his exalted character, and lowering him down below the level of PAUL, and PETER, and multitudes of others, even of youths and helpless females. If you doubt on this point, read any history of Martyrdom, and you will doubt no more. And if PETER or PAUL had discovered similar terror on the near approach of crucifixion, we should have regarded it as decisive evidence of the want of resolution.-If CHRIST was a mere Man; yet he was a perfect man, and fully conscious of the entire approbation and love of God, and knew that he did not die for his own sins. What unspeakable supports are these uncer sufferings and death! Why then this amazement, this agony, this sweat of blood flowing to the ground! Will it be said-pardon me the question, it has been said that this was owing to the peculiar tenderness of his feelings, and to the delicate susceptibility of his ner vous system? If by this phraseology is intended his lively sympathy for the distresses of others that indeed is a virtue; but it has nothing to do with the case. If by it be intended a peculiar susceptibility of pain, and a peculiar dread of enduring it; it is a mere imperfection, a weakness, for which in every other case we have no respect a want of that fortitude and tranquility of mind, which great multitudes of women, and they too imperfect and sinful, have exhibited in full view of the faggot and the cross. Will it be said that his apprehensions of the approaching scene were peculiarly clear and distinct? They could not be more so than the apprehensions of those, who are brought to the very edge of that fire in which they are to be burned, or to the very foot of that cross to which they are about to be nailed. Will it be said that his anticipations of suffering were peculiarly realizing? Yet Paul had been in deaths often, and thrice stoned, and once left for dead; but he said, "None of these things move me neither count I my life dear unto me. I am ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand." The anticipations surely were not more realizing than the reality; he was not falsely alarmed, and in that way deceived with regard to the magnitude of his sufferings; yet the two malefactors, under the actual endurance of these sufferings, and with nothing from within or from above to sustain their minds, appear to have undergone them, and for a longer period, without a complaint. "The bodily sufferings of many of the martyrs appear to have been far greater than the sufferings of the cross. Many of them were roasted by a slow fire; many were broken on the wheel, and left to expire under long protracted agonies; while others had their flesh torn off by red-hot pincers. Any one compelled to make his choice, would prefer the death of the cross to either of these, or to many other modes of destroying life under long-continued tortures. Many also endured the cross itself. Multitudes of those martyrs did not merely endure their sufferings without a groan, they sang Hosannas to a crucified Redeemer, while in the very agonies of death. "The scene witnessed on Calvary establishes the same point. CHRIST certainly knew what his chief sufferings were; yet he does not allude to his bodily sufferings, when his agony on the cross became overwhelming. He makes no mention of the wounds in his hands or his feet, or of the racking of his frame. His only cry was, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!"--and this most bitter cry announced that, when JEHOVAH withdrew his face, his soul was in a far deeper darkness than that in which the veiling of the sun involved the outward world. "On no supposition therefore, which does not bring on Christ the charge of a weakness and irresolution passing that of multitudes of women, can we explain the phenomena of Gethsemane and Calvary, except on the single supposition that ISAIAH was in the right, when he said that he was "smitten of God," that "it pleased JEHOVAH to bruise him," that the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all," that he suffered "the travail of his soul" and "made his soul an offering for sin ;" and that he himself was right in supposing that his great sufferings, those in comparison with which the sufferings of his body were forgotten, arose from the fact that he was forsaken of God." 17. Very remarkable events preceded, attended, and followed his death. To illustrate this, the occurrences at the transfiguration of Christ, and at the time of his crucifixion, are mentioned. 18. The sufferings of Christ, in themselves considered, and separately from their consequences, were a great evil. The author means, that if these sufferings did not accomplish or effect something very important, the evil of them was a great one, deeply to be deplored. Not only must this be so, in regard to sufferings endured, but in regard to his so early leaving the stage of benevolent action. 19. The death of Christ, in itself considered, was calculated [adapted] to prevent the progress of his religion. Under this head, the disappointment of his followers, the ignominy brought upon the cause of Christianity, and the for bidding nature of these facts, when presented to the natural feelings of men, are briefly stated. 20. Christ effected little by his personal labours, after his resurrection. The various brief appearances of the Saviour to his disciples, after he left the sepulchre are here mentioned. The object, which the author had in view, is doubtless to show, that the death of Jesus terminated nearly all his useful personal labours; and therefore was a great evil, unless some very important end was accomplished by it. We have now followed Mr. Dwight through the first part of his Discourses, and shall stop for a moment, in order to look back and see what progress we have made in respect to the great subject before us. It is difficult to apply any exact rule to the measurement of the extent to which illustrations of such a nature as Mr. Dwight has exhibited may be appropriately carried. Many of the things, which our author calls facts, are different from what are usually termed so; and many other facts, (in the sense in which the term is employed by him) might easily be added to those already named. Indeed, one might go on, and give the whole history of the Christian church, and say (with truth too,) all these things are connected with the fact that Christ died. The field is perfectly boundless, and every man can expatiate in it ad infinitum. But what are the proper bounds, in relation to such a subject as Mr. Dwight has chosen? Why plainly such facts, and such only, as necessarily go to show, that the death of Christ differed from the death of any other prophet, priest, king, or man; and thus to deduce from his view, an argument that something peculiar, and something peculiarly important, was attached to it. With this view of the matter before us, we should recommend to Mr. Dwight, in a second edition, to omit the fourth, sixth, seventh, seventeenth, and twentieth heads, in that part of his treatise which we have now surveyed; to amalgamate some of the others, which are intimately connected; and to labour after brevity, in all the obvious matters of fact, about which there is no diversity of opinion among Christians in general. Indeed, half the number of facts presented would, in our view, make a much deeper impression than all of them. Several of them might be summed up in a single paragraph, and the rest urged with all the author's power; which, as we have shewn by the extracts above, is adequate to very vivid and forcible illustration and argument. We have followed Mr. Dwight through his statement of facts, relative to the death of Christ; we now come to the second part of his discourses which is devoted to the consideration of" the various forms of phraseology used by the sacred writers, in order to explain the great object of the Saviour's death."Mr. D. begins by stating what the Scriptures declare, 1. That Christ died for mankind. The scriptural usage of this phraseology is so well explained by our author, that we must let him speak for himself. To die for another, is phraseology susceptible in itself, of different meanings. This is owing to the fact that merely because of, and sometimes for the preposition for, sometimes denotes the sake of, i. e. for the benefit of. To die for, is once used in the Scriptures in the former sense. When Abimelech said to Isaac, "How saidst thou, she (Rebeckah) is my sister?" Isaac replied, "Because I said, lest I die for her;" which is precisely equivalent to Here, if, Abimelech had put Isaac to lest they kill me in order to obtain her. death, in order toobtain Rebeckah, the latter would have died-not for her sake, i. e. not to relieve her from any evil, or to do her any positive good; and of course in no sense for her benefit; but-for the sake of Abimelech himself, for the gratification of his passion.The exact version of the passage would have been therefore, Lest I die-not for her, but-because of her. But wherever to die for another, denotes to die for his sake; i. e. where the end to be accomplished by the death terminates in the individual for whom it takes place; as is the fact in every other case where this language is used in the Scriptures, there is not a solitary instance in which it denotes to die as an example to him, or to furnish him with evidence, or to promote his moral improvement. When David says, Would to God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!"-he plainly intends" that I had died in thy stead." So when it is said-" The fathers shall not die for the children, but every man shall die for his own sins;" -it clearly denotes either dying instead of the children, or, as a manifestation of anger for their sins. So when JOHN tells us, that Caiaphas said, "It is expedient that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not: and this spake he not of himself; but, being high-priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad :"-he not only informs us that the phrase, to die for the nation, means, instead of the nation, i e. in order to prevent them from perishing, but that for Jesus to die for the nation, is the same thing as for Jesus to die instead of the nation.-And when the Apostle declares," Scarcely for a righteous man, will one die; yet peradventure for a good man, some one would even dare to die :" by for, he obviously means, in both cases, instead of.—pp. 24, 25. This explanation is followed by various citations from the Scriptures, which illustrate and establish it. Mr. D. admits, (as indeed he ⚫ught,) that the phrase, to suffer or die for one, is susceptible in itself of various meanings, such as because of, on account of, by means of, for the sake of, instead of, for the VOL, I.--No. VI. 40 benefit of. In our own vernacular language it is employed in all these various senses. But the question is not how we employ it in common parlance, or in the style of writing. The question is merely how the Hebrews employed it; or rather, how the sacred writers have actually used it, in the Old Testament and in the New. This is the only question, which has any important bearing on the right interpretation of the Scriptures. Our author has taken a position, in regard to this, which he can support by appeal to the most established principles of philology. Our next head will exhibit a part of the phraseology in question, under a new relation. 2. Christ died for our sins. We must again let our author speak for himself, in respect to the sense which he puts upon this phraseolo gy. To die for sin, has but one meaning in the scriptures. In the case of the sinner himself, to die for his own sins, uniformly denotes, to suffer death as the punishment of his sins. "But every one," says Jeremiah, "shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grape his teeth shall be set on edge." To die for the sin of another, also in no solitary instance which I can find denotes, to suffer death as an example to him, or for his reformation, or moral improvement; but in every case, either to suffer death as a manifestation of the displeasure due to his sins, or to die instead of the sinner. Thus in Ezekiel, "The son hath walked in my statutes he shall not die for the iniquity of his father." So also in the enquiry of Balak," Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"-As these are all the passages in which these two phrases are found, except those which relate to Christ; it is certain that the phrase to die for the sin of another, nev er denotes to die for his reformation, but to suffer death as the manifestation of anger due to his sin.--p. 26. Here the nature of the relation |
