صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

NOT SO MUCH OF WEAKNESS AS OF STRENGTH.

83

convinced that the composure, which, it cannot be denied after all, he did habitually exhibit to an astonishing degree, was not a matter of temperament, or of an excited imagination, but the offspring of the purest and most elevated spirituality. He saw his condition in all its horrors, nay, he felt them acutely, and in agony of spirit, and yet -and yet he went calmly forward, and did and suffered all that was necessary. He presented himself on that memorable night, with a demeanour so collected and so dignified before the persons who came to seize him, that they were for a moment overawed, and, like the soldier sent to assassinate Marius, they shrunk back unable for awhile to lay hands on him. Utter insensibility to pain is scarcely anything more than a physical quality. True fortitude is that virtue which a man exhibits amidst the consciousness of great suffering. He who shudders at death, and is overcome by the thought of pain, and yet for some generous purpose exposes himself to both, awakens in the mind a far deeper sentiment of power than he who shows himself wholly unaffected by these things.

Such, briefly, are some of the considerations which help to explain the agony of Jesus, and to put this part of his history in its true light-where it may be seen as a manifestation of the purest spiritual power, and not an exposure of weakness. I do not, of course, pretend to give a full account of the deadly anguish which he endured. No one can do this fully, until he has entered deeply into the mind and spirit of Jesus, and learned to appreciate the

84

THE CRY OF DISTRESS ON THE CROSS.

great spiritual purpose of his life. I cannot fathom the depths of that agony. Great as it was, his piety was greater still, and secured its perfect victory.

There remains only one particular to be noticed in this connexion, and the remarks already made render it un

cross, 66

necessary to dwell upon it. I allude to the language ascribed to Jesus on the My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!" The explanations usually given of this language, and by which it is attempted to avoid the impression that it was an exclamation of momentary agony and despair, seem to me forced and unnatural, altogether too refined for the physical condition in which Jesus was. I cannot but regard it as an ejaculation, wrung from him by the intense suffering of the moment. How does it enhance the beauty and pathos of the piety-the forgiveness, the filial affection which he manifested in that terrible hour, when we consider that these touching and noble qualities were evinced by one so acutely sensible of pain-of a temperament so susceptible, that, for a moment, he was overwhelmed by the frightful agonies of crucifixion!

But the circumstance that arrests my attention and impresses me most powerfully, is the artless and honest brevity with which the narrators have put this exclamation of pain and despair on record. Had they not been raised above every thought of embellishing the character of Christ, they never would have mentioned a circumstance of this kind, at least without some explanation.

As the narrators are thus free from any design to show

THE NARRATORS BETRAY NO ILL WILL.

85

off, and exaggerate the great subject of their narratives, so is it equally clear, on the other hand, that in the composition of these stories, they were unconscious of any angry or malignant feeling towards the opposers of Jesus. They betray no desire to excite the passions of the reader against those who persecuted him. This point has been happily illustrated by Dr. Campbell, in the Dissertations preliminary to his translation of the four Gospels. The absence of all bitterness, in the minds of these historians, is shown by their indifference about the names of the enemies and persecutors of Jesus. It is remarkable, as Dr. Campbell has observed,* that the names of the High Priest and his coadjutor, of the Roman Procurator, of the tetrarch of Galilee, and of the treacherous disciple, are all that are mentioned of the many who, no doubt, took an active part in the prosecution and death of Jesus. In regard to the first four, the omission of their names could have made no difference, for their offices were so public and eminent, that the official title was equivalent to the designation of the individual. And the part that Judas took was altogether too prominent and notorious, to admit the suppression of his name. "Whereas of those Scribes and Pharisees, who bargained with Judas, of the men who apprehended Jesus, of the officer who struck him, of those who afterwards spat upon him, buffeted, and mocked him, of those who were loudest in crying, 'Away

* The Four Gospels, &c. by G. Campbell, D. D., Diss. 3. Sec. 22.

[ocr errors]

86

THEY RECORD THE NAMES

with him, crucify him-not this man, but Barabbas;' of those who supplied the multitude with the implements of their mockery, of those who upbraided him on the Cross with his inability to save himself; or of the soldier who pierced his side with a spear, no name is given by any of the historians." It may be said, that the names of these individuals were not known to them. It is very probable they were not. But had the narrators been acting the part of partisans, in the accounts they have left us, had they been conscious of any angry or vindictive feeling, they would have sought the names of those who made themselves prominent in these cruel and disgraceful acts.

"This reserve, in regard to the names of those who were the chief instruments of the sufferings of Jesus, is the more observable, as the names of others, to whom no special part is attributed, are mentioned without hesitation. Thus Malchus, whose ear Peter wounded, and who was, immediately after, miraculously cured by Jesus, is named by John; but nothing further is told of him, than that he was present when our Lord was seized, and that he was a servant of the High Priest. Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the Cross, is named by no fewer than three of the Evangelists;* but we are also informed that in this service he did not act voluntarily, but by compul

* There appears to have been a particular reason for mentioning this individual. He was the father of Alexander and Rufus, the latter of whom appears at a subsequent period to have been a Christian of some eminence at Rome.-See Rom. xvi. 13.

OF FRIENDS, BUT NOT OF FOES.

87

sion. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the only members of the Sanhedrim, except the High Priest, who are mentioned by name; but they were the only persons of that body who did not concur in condemning the Son of God, and who, though once fearful and secret disciples, assumed the resolution to display their affection, at times when no one else ventured openly to acknowledge him.

"Of the Scribes and Pharisees who watched our Lord, and on different occasions, dissembling esteem, assailed him with captious and ensnaring questions-of those who openly ascribed his miracles to evil Spirits, called him a madman, a demoniac, and, what they esteemed worse than either, a Samaritan, who accused him of associating with the profligate-of Sabbath-breaking-of intemperance and blasphemy, and of many others who put themselves in attitudes of opposition to Jesus, no names are ever mentioned, nor is the young, but opulent magistrate named, who came to him with the question, 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life,' for, though there were some favourable symptoms in his case, yet as by going away sorrowful, he betrayed a heart wedded to the world, the application did not terminate to his honour. But of Simon the Pharisee, who invited our Lord to his house, of Jairus and Bartimeus and Zaccheus and Lazarus and his sisters Mary and Martha, and some others, of whose faith, repentance, gratitude, love and piety, the most honourable testimony is given, a very different account is made.

"As to the disciples of Jesus, in recording their faults,

« السابقةمتابعة »