The Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript / Passion Week

THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE SPAULD- ING MANUSCRIPT, BY SEYMOUR B. YOUNG, OF THE FIRST COUNCIL OF THE SEVENTY The following article appeared in the Boston Herald of July 18th, 1897: The appearance of the Book of Mormon awakens in the memory of certain persons, who heard chapters read by the author of a work called the Manuscript Found, and detected an extraordinary resemblance between the two. The well attested fact was revealed that about 20 years before Smith made his discovery, an highly educated clergyman of Cherry Valley, New York, married and with his wife settled at Salem, Ohio, where, his health giving way, he was obliged to leave work as a preacher. He was deeply interested in the theory then much discussed that the North American Indians were descendents of the lost tribes of Israel, es- pecially as in the vicinity of New Salem were many mounds erected by the early settlers of the country, and he conceived the idea of writing a kind of a religious novel, having that theory as its basis. He therefore devoted the leisure of three years to the preparation of the work, which was written in the quaint style of language to be found in King James' authorized version of the English scriptures. In order to give it the antique character claimed for it, it was entitled the Manuscript Found, and in the preface, was said to have been made from a record made by one of the lost nations and recovered from the earth where ages before it had been deposited by Moroni, the son of Mormon, the prophet in the manuscript, and in it was given most of the pretended history found in the Book of Mormon, and there is unquestionable testimony that the author read many chapters of it to his wife and neighbors as early as 1813. The possession of the manuscript by Smith and Rigdon is as clearly proved as the strongest circumstantial evidence can establish a fact. During the early years following the organization of the

BOOK OF MORMON AND SPAULDING STORY. 649 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 6th, 1830, there was one man who received some notoriety. That man was Solomon Spaulding. Although several years dead, his writings known as "The Manuscript Story" brought him, for the time, some local fame. Solomon Spaulding, the gentle- man above referred to, lived during the latter part of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. His death occurred about the year 1816. A few years prior to his death his mind seemed to run on ancient and archaic subjects, and un- der the influence of these thoughts he wrote what he himself designated, "Manuscript Story;"—as a short history of the ancestors of the American Indians, which in his romance he represents as having deciphered from ancient characters, found on rolls of parchment which he had discovered in a stone cave, in an excavation near his home on Coneaugh Creek, Ashtabula County, Penn. With the parchment were Indian bows and arrows and other relics. At his death he left this romantic, or historic production, in possession of his widow. In 1834, nearly five years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, an apostate, by the name of D. P. Hurl- burt, learned of the existence of this "Manuscript Story" by Mr. Spaulding, and conceived the idea of publishing it in connection with a book that he was about to issue as an ex- pose of Mormonism, under the title, "Mormonism Unveiled." The contents of this volume were to be dedicated entirely to statements in opposition to the divinity of the mission of the Prophet Joseph, and also against the truth of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Hurlburt, therefore, visited the widow Spauld- ing and requested the loan of her husband's manuscript, stating to her that he wished to make it a part of the book he was about to publish in opposition to the Mormon Church; and as he expected to make it appear that the "Manuscript Story," written by her husband, was the origin of the Book of Mormon, he was convinced that a ready sale would be found for the book, and that the manuscript would contribute to that ready sale, and he would share with her the profits eme- nating therefrom. Mr. Hurlburt obtained possession of the manuscript, and in connection with E. D. Howe & Co., with whom he had contracted for the publication of -'Mormonism

650 IMPROVEMENT ERA. Unveiled," examined the Spaulding production, but not find- ing it to resemble, in any particular, the Book of Mormon, they suppressed it, and Mr. Hurlburt informed Mrs. Spauld- ing that her husband's manuscript had been destroyed in a fire which had recently occurred in the Painesville printing office, where the document was deposited, awaiting publica- tion.* Although an agreement of copartnership was entered into between D. P. Hurlburt and the Howe Publishing Co., of Painesville, Ohio, the Messrs. Howe soon learned of the unreliable character of Mr. Hurlburt, and shook him off en- tirely, and they themselves continued in the disreputable labor of manufacturing falsehoods concerning the Mormon Church and the Book of Mormon in particular, and finally published the volume, "Mormonism Unveiled," retaining all the falsehoods that Hurlburt had been the author of, but dis- carding the author. In this volume Mr. Howe tried to make it appear that the Spaulding story or "Manuscript Found" was indeed the original from which the Book of Mormon was written; but instead of publishing "Manuscript Found," thus enabling the public to judge regarding its similarity to the Book of Mormon, Mr. Howe procured affidavits from apos- tates and bitter enemies of the Mormon Church, who stated that they were witnesses to the fact that the two books were identical. Among the statements sent forth by the authors of "Mormonism Unveiled" were the following: Sidney Rig- don, who had formerly resided at Pittsburg where Mrs. Spaulding had lived for a short time, had procured the dead clergyman's production from Lambdin and Patterson, print- ers of that city, and had enlarged and amplified the original, and with the help and cunning of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, added the religious portions, and palmed it off on the public as an ancient and inspired record. This false and insinuating statement found many believers, and even to this day among non-Mormons generally, is accepted as authentic and reliable. *The manuscript was not destroyed at that time, however, nor at any time subsequent, but was providentially preserved until fifty years later, when it was brought forth through the efforts of President Joseph F. Smith, after its long seclusion, and published by the Deseret Nexus Company, in 1886. It is a pamphlet of 113 pages.

BOOK OF MORMON AND SPAULDING STORY. 651 Now, let me here state, in regard to the associations of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, that these two men never met until some time after the translation of the Book of Mor- mon, and not until 3,000 copies of the same had been pub- lished, and distributed. Sidney Rigdon himself states that he was converted to the principles of Mormonism by reading the Book of Mormon, and at the same time he became con- vinced of the divinity of the record and of the divine mission of its translator. In the year 1884, fifty years after the alleged destruction of the Spaulding manuscript, Mr. Jas. H. Fairchild, president of the Oberlin College—one of the most prominent institu- tions of learning in the state of Ohio—spent his summer va- cation at Honolulu, in the Sandwich Islands. Here he met an old friend, formerly the publisher of the Painesville Tele- graph—Mr. L. L. Rice, who had taken up his abode in Hono- lulu, with his daughter and son-in-law, Mrs. and Mr. Whit- ney. On the occasion of a visit to Mr. Rice, President Fair- child suggested to him that he look through his numerous papers, thinking that he might find some anti-slavery docu- ments that might be of some historic value. The search began and ere long their attention was at- tracted to a good sized squarely folded package of papers tied securely together with an old-fashioned tow string. The following descriptive sentence was written on the outside covering of the package: "Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek."* The title of the paper struck these gentlemen with amazement, and they finally concluded that this was the very manuscript which was supposed to be the origin of the Book of Mormon; and with this belief, though Mr. Fair- child and Mr. Rice, being more honest than others who had come to the same conclusion, sent to the Mormon missionary headquarters for a Book of Mormon, and with the help of Mr. Whitney and also of a Mr. Bishop, a very influential gentleman residing at Honolulu at that time, began the read- ing of the Book of Mormon on the "Manuscript Story" of *The following was also endorsed on the wrapping: The writings of Solomon Spaulding, Proved by Aron Wright, Oli- ver Smith, John Miller, and others. The testimonies of the above gentlemen are now in my possession. d. p. hurlburt. editors.

852 IMPROVEMENT ERA. Solomon Spaulding, and continued the same until they had read and carefully compared them from beginning to end; and they then and there came to the conclusion, and so stated, that the two productions were entirely unlike. Mr. Rice, although loathe to part with the old manuscript, gave it to President Fairchild, only reserving the original long enough to have it copied word for word, and line for line, bad spelling and bad grammar included. President Fairchild brought the manuscript of Solomon Spaulding home with him, and deposited it among the relics of Oberlin College, Ohio—where it now is—and with it the following statement: "The Story of the Origin of the Book of Mormon in the Traditional Manuscript of Solomon Spaulding, will probably have to be relinquished. Mr. Rice, myself and others, compared it (the Spaulding manuscript) with the Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblance between the two, either in general or detail. There seems to be no name nor incident com- mon to the two. The solemn style of the Book of Mormon, in imita- tion of the English Scriptures, does not appear in the manuscript Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon will have to be found if any explanation of its origin is necessary." Mr. Rice could only account for his having come into possession of the Spaulding Manuscript in that it was among the old papers and other property which he had pur- chased with the Painesville printing office. The manuscript had evidently lain in this office since D. P. Hurlburt deposited it there in the year 1834. President Fairchild, evidently de- sirous that the truth should be widely known in regard to his conclusions concerning the two productions, published in the New York Observer, of February 5th, 1885, a facsimile of his statement above given. This statement in the New York Observer attracted the attention of President George Reynolds, soon after its publication, and he clipped it from the paper and mailed it in a letter to President Joseph F. Smith, at Honolulu, who was at that time on his third mis- sion to the Sandwich Islands. President Joseph F. called upon Mr. Rice, and after much persuasion, won the consent of that gentleman to a loan of the copy which Mr. Rice had made of the Manuscript Story, with the promise from Presi- dent Smith that he would publish the same in book form,

BOOK OF MORMON AND SPAULDING STORY. 653 and would return the copy to Mr. Rice after the publication, and with it, twenty-five copies of the book This contract was sacredly kept by President Smith; for he immediately forwarded the manuscript to the Deseret News Publishing Co., and they at his request, published a small edition of it. This pamphlet, the exact wording of the Spaulding Manu- script Story, is now on sale at the Deseret News office at Salt Lake City. The testimony of Mr. Fairchild and his confreres, com- ing as it does from men who are not believers in anything pertaining to Mormonism, is the kind of evidence the world is bound to accept. Their testimony on this matter, they be- ing unbelievers in the sacredness of the Book of Mormon, cannot be controverted; and stands as a complete refutation of the slanderous reports of Hurlburt, Howe and others, that the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript was the source from whence came the Book of Mormon. In addition to this we have the testimony ot tens of thousands of believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, devout followers of the Prophet Joseph, all uniting in testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. And now I will close this writing by adding my humble testimony to the divinity of that book; and I testify to all the world that I know of its truth, and proclaim to all the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

PASSION WEEK. FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH OF NISAN. {Afril 7th.) INCLUDING PART OF THE EVE OF IT. "When they had sung a hymn," which perhaps means they had sung the second part of the hallel, or song of praise, which consisted of Psalms CXV.-CXVIIL, the former part (Psalms CXIIL, CXIV) having been sung at an earlier part of the supper, they went out into the Mount of Olives. They came to a place called Gethsemane, (oil press), and it is prob- able that the place now pointed out to travelers is the real scene of that which followed, and even that its huge olive trees are the legitimate successors of those which were there when Jesus visited it. A moment of terrible agony is ap- proaching, of which all the Apostles need not be spectators, for he thinks of them and wishes to spare them this addition to their sorrows. So he takes only his three proved com- panions, Peter, James and John, and passes with them far- ther into the garden, leaving the rest seated, probably near the entrance. No pen can attempt to describe what passed that night in that secluded spot He tells them, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; tarry ye here and watch with me," and then leaving even the three he goes even further, and in solitude wrestles with an inconceivable trial. The words of Mark are still more expressive, "he be- gan to be sore amazed and to be very heavy" (Mark XIV: 33). The former word means that he was struck with a great dread; not from the fear of physical suffering, however ex-

PASSION WEEK. 655 cruciating, we may well believe, but from the contact with the sins of the world, of which, in some inconceivable way, he here felt the bitterness and the weight. He did not merely contemplate them, but bear and feel them. It is impossible to explain this scene in Gethsemane in any other way. If it were merely the fear of the terrors of death that overcame him, then the martyr Stephen and many others would sur- pass him in constancy. But when he says, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what I will but what thou wilt" (Mark), the cup was filled with a far bitterer portion than death: it was flavored with the poison of the sins of all mankind against its God. Whilst the sinless Son is thus carried two ways by the present horror and the strong determination to do the Father's will, the disciples have sunk to sleep. It was in search of consolation that he came back to them. The dis- ciple who had been so ready to ask, "Why can not I follow thee now?" must hear another question that rebukes his for- mer confidence—"Couldst thou not watch one hour?" A second time he departs and wrestles in prayer with the Father; but although the words he utters are almost the same (Mark says "the same"), he no longer asks that the "cup may not pass away from me except I drink it. Thy will be done" (Matt). A second time he returns and finds them sleeping. The same scene is repeated yet a third time; and then all is concluded. Henceforth they may sleep and take their rest; never more shall they be asked to watch one hour with Jesus, for his ministry in the flesh is at an end. "The hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sin- ners" (Matt). The prayer of Jesus in this place has always been regarded, and with great reason, as of great weight against the monothelite heresy. It expresses the natural shrinking of the human will from a horror which the divine nature has admitted into it, yet without sin. Never does he say, "I will flee;" he says, "If it be possible;" and leaves that to the decision of the Father. That horror and dread arose from the spectacle of human sin; from the bearing the weight and guilt of human sin as about to make atonement for it; and from a conflict with the powers of darkness. Thus

656 IMPROVEMENT ERA. this scene is in complete contrast to the Transfiguration. The same companions witnessed both, but there there was peace and glory and honor, for the sinless Son of God; here fear and conflict; there God bore testimony to him; here Satan for the last time tempted him. Judas now appeared to complete his work. In the doubt- ful light of torches, a kiss from him was the sign to the officers whom they should take. Peter, whose name is first given in John's gospel, drew a sword and smote a servant of the high priest and cut off his ear; but the Lord refused such succor, and healed the wounded man (Malchus). He treated the seizure as a step in the fulfillment of the prophecies about him and resisted it not. All the disciples forsook him and fled (Matt. XXVI: 47-56; Mark XIV: 43-52; Luke XXII: 47- 53; John XVIII: 2-12). There is some difficulty in arranging the events that im- mediately follow, so as to embrace all the four accounts. On the capture of Jesus he was first taken to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest. It has been argued that Annas has been called, conjointly with Caiaphas, the high priest, he must have held some actual office in con- nection with the priesthood, and Lightfoot holds that he was the vicar or deputy of the high priest, and Selden that he was president of the Sanhedrim, but this is uncertain. It might appear from the course of John's narrative that the examin- ation of our Lord, and the first denial of Peter took place in the house of Annas (John XVIII: 13-14), but the twenty- fourth verse is retrospective. —"Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest; and probably all that occurred after verse fourteen took place not at the house of Annas, but at that of Caiaphas. It is not likely that Peter gained admittance to two houses in which two separate judicial examinations took place with which he had nothing ostensibly to do, and this would be forced on us if we as- sumed that John described what took place before Annas, and the other evangelists what took place before Caiaphas. The house of the high priest consisted, probably, like other eastern houses, of an open central court with chambers around it. Into this court a gate admitted them, at which a woman stood

PASSION WEEK. 657 to open. Peter, who had fled like the rest from the side of Jesus, followed afar off with another disciple, probably John, and the latter procured his admittance into the court of the high priest's house. As he passed in, the lamp of the port- ress threw its light on his face and she took note of him; and afterwards, at the fire which had been lighted, she put the question to him, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" (John). All the zeal and boldness of Peter seems to have deserted him. This was indeed a time of great spiritual weakness and depression, and the power of darkness had gained an influence over the apostle's mind. He had come as in secret; he is determined so to remain, and he denies his Master. Feeling now the danger of his position, he went out into the porch, and there someone, or taking all the ac- counts, probably several persons, asked him the question a second time, and he denied more strongly. About an hour after, when he had returned into the court, the same ques- tion was put to him a third time with the same result. Then the cock crew; and Jesus, who was in sight, probably in some open room communicating with the court, "turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, "Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice." And Peter went out and wept bitterly (Luke). Let no man who can not fathom the utter perplexity and distress of such a time presume to judge the zealous disciple hardly. He trusted too much to his strength; he did not enter into the full meaning of the words, "Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation." Self-confidence be- trayed him into a great sin; and the most merciful Lord re- stored him after it. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." (I Cor. X: 12; Matt. XXVI: 57, 58, 69-75; Mark XIV: 53, 54, 66-72; Luke XXII: 54-62; John XVIII: 13-18, 24-27). The first interrogatory to which our Lord was subject (John XVIII: 19-24) was addressed to him by Caiaphas, probably before the Sanhedrim had time to assemble. It was the question of an inquisitive person who had an important criminal in his presence, rather than a formal examination. The Lord's refusal to answer is thus explained and justified. 49

658 IMPROVEMENT ERA. When the regular proceedings begin he is ready to answer. A servant of the high-priest, knowing that he should there- by please his master, smote the cheek of the Son of God with the palm of his hand. But this was only the beginning of horrors. At the dawn of the day the Sanhedrim, sum- moned by the high-priest in the course of the night, assembled and brought their band of false witnesses, whom they must have had ready before. These gave their testimony (See Psalm XXVII: 12), but even before this unjust tribunal it could not stand, it was so full of contradictions. At last two false witnesses came, and their testimony was very much like the truth. They deposed that he had said, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark XIV: 58). The perversion is slight but important; for Jesus did not say that he would destroy (John II: 19), which was just the point that would irritate the Jews. Even these two fell into contradictions. The high-priest now, with a solemn adjur- ation, asks him whether he is Christ the Son of God. He answers that he is, and foretells his return in glory and power at the last day. This is enough for their purpose. They pronounce him guilty of a crime for which death should be the punishment. It appears that the council was now sus- pended or broken up; for Jesus is deliyered over to the brutal violence of the people, which could not have occurred while the supreme court of the Jews was sitting. The prophets had foretold this violence (Is. I: 6), and also the meekness with which it would be borne (Is. LIII: 7). And yet this "lamb led to the slaughter," knew that it was he that should judge the world, including every one of his persecutors. The Sanhedrim had been within the range of its duties in taking cognizance of all who claimed to be prophets. If the question put to Jesus had been merely, "Art thou the Messiah?" this council should have gone into the question of his right to the title and decided upon the evidence. But the question was really two fold, "Art thou the Christ, and in that name dost thou call thyself the Son of God?" There was no blasphemy in claiming the former name, but there was in assuming the latter. Hence the pro-

PASSION WEEK. 659 ceedings were cut short. They had closed their eyes to the evidence, accessible to all, of the miracles of Jesus, that he was indeed the Son of God, and without these they were not likely to believe that be could claim a title belonging to no other among the children of men (John XVIII: 19-24; Luke XXII: 63-71; Matt. XXVI: 59-68; Mark XIV: 55-65). Although they had pronounced Jesus to be guilty of death, the Sanhedrim possessed no power to carry out such a sentence (Josephus, Ant. XX: 6). So as soon as it was day they took him to Pilate, the Roman procurator. The hall of judgment, or praetorium, was probably a tower of Antonia near the temple, where the Roman garrison was. Pilate, hearing that Jesus was an offender under the law, was about to give them leave to treat him accordingly; and this would have made it quite safe to execute him. But the council, wishing to shift the responsibility from themselves, from a fear of some reaction amongst the people in favor of the Lord, such as they had seen on the first day of that week, said that it was not lawful to put any man to death; and having condemned Jesus for blasphemy, they now strove to have him condemned by Pilate for a political crime, for call- ing himself the King of the Jews. But the Jewish punish- ment was stoning; whilst crucifixion was a Roman punish- ment, inflicted occasionally on those who were not Roman citizens; and thus it came about that the Lord's saying about the mode of his death was fulfilled (Matt. 19, with John XII: 32, 33). From the first Jesus found favor in the eyes of Pilate; his answer that his kingdom was not of this world, and therefore could not menace the Roman rule, was accepted, and Pilate pronounced that he found no fault with him. Not so easily were the Jews to be cheated of their prey. They heaped up accusations against him as a disturber of the public peace (Luke XXIII: 25). Pilate was no match for their vehemence. Finding that Jesus was a Galilean, he sent him to Herod to be dealt with; but Herod, after cruel mockery and persecution, sent him back to Pilate. Now commenced the fearful struggle between the Roman procurator, a weak as well as a cruel man, and the Jews. Pilate was detested by the Jews as cruel, treacherous and

660 IMPROVEMENT ERA. oppressive. Other records of his life do not represent him merely as the weakling that he appears here. He had vio- lated their national prejudices, and had used the knives of assassins to avert the consequences. But the Jews knew the weak point in his breastplate. He was the mere worldly and professional statesman, to whom the favor of the Em- peror was life itself, and the only evil of life downfall from that favor. It was their policy, therefore, to threaten to de- nounce him to Caesar for lack of zeal in suppressing a rebel- lion, the leader of which was aiming at a crown. In his way Pilate believed in Christ; this the greatest crime of a stained life was that with which his own will had the least to do. But he did not believe so as to make him risk delation to his master and all its possible consequences. He yielded to the stronger purpose of the Jews and suffered Jesus to be put to death. Not many years after, the consequences which he had stained his soul to avert came upon him. He was accused and banished, and like Judas, the other great accomplice in this crime of the Jews, put an end to his own life. The well known incidents of the second interview are soon recalled. After the examination by Herod and the return of Jesus, Pilate proposed to release him, as it was usual on the feast-day to release a prisoner to the Jews out of grace. Pilate knew well that the priests and rulers would object to this; but it was a covert appeal to the people also present, with whom Jesus had so lately been in favor. The multitude, persuaded by the priests, preferred another prisoner, called Barabbas. In the mean time the wife of Pilate sent a warning to Pilate to have nothing to do with the death of "that just man," as she had been troubled in a dream on account of him. Obliged, as he thought, to yield to the clamors of the people, he took water and washed his hands before them, and adopting the phrase of his wife, which perhaps represented the opinion of both of them, formed before this time, he said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it." The people imprecated on their own heads and those of their children the blood of him whose doom was thus sealed. Pilate released unto them

PASSION WEEK. 661 Barabbas, "that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired" (comp. Acts III: 14). This was an unimportant element in their crime. The choice was offered them between one who had broken the laws of God and man, and one who had given his whole life up to the doing good and speaking truth amongst them. They condemned the latter to death, and were eager for the deliverance of the for- mer. "And in fact their demanding the acquittal of a mur- derer is but the parallel to their requiring the death of an in- nocent person, as St. Ambrose observes; for it is but the very law of iniquity, that they which hate innocence should love crime. They rejected, therefore, the Prince of Heaven, and chose a robber and a murderer and an insurrectionist, and they received the object of their choice; so was it given them, for insurrections and murders did not fail them till the last, when their city was destroyed in the midst of murders and insurrections, which they now demanded of the Roman gov- ernor." Now came the scourging, and the blows and insults of the soldiers who, uttering truth when they thought they were only reviling, crowned him and addressed him as King of the Jews. According to John, Pilate now made one more effort for his release. He thought that the scourging might appease their rage, he saw the frame of Jesus bowed and withered with all that he had gone through; and, hoping that this moving sight might inspire them with the same pity that he felt himself, he brought the Savior forth to them again, and said, "Behold the man!" Not even so was their violence assuaged. He had made himself the Son of God, and must die. He still sought to release Jesus; but the last argument, which had been in the minds of both sides all along, was now openly applied to him: "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend." This saying, which had not been uttered till the vehemence of rage overcame the de- cent respect for Pilate's position, decided the question. He delivered Jesus to be crucified (Matt. XXVII: 13-30; Mark XV: 6-19; Luke XXIII: 17-25; John XVIII: 39-40; XIX: 1-16). John mentions that this occurred about the sixth hour,

662 1MPROVEMENT ERA . whereas the crucifixion, according to Mark, was accomplished at the third hour; but there is every reason to think, with Greswell and Wiesler, that John reckons from midnight, and that this took place at six in the morning, whilst in Mark the Jewish reckoning from six in the morning is followed, so that the crucifixion took place at nine o'clock, the intervening time having been spent in preparations. One person alone has been calm amidst the excitements of that night of horrors. On him is now laid the weight of his cross, or at least of the transverse beam of it; and, with this pressing him down, they proceed out of the city to Gol- gotha or Calvary, a place the site of which is now uncertain. As he began to droop, his persecutors, unwilling to defile themselves with the accursed burden, lay hold of Simon of Cyrene and compel him to carry the cross after Jesus. Amongst the great multitude that followed, were several women, who bewailed and lamented him. He bade them not to weep for him, but for the widespread destruction of their nation, which should be the punishment for his death (Luke). After offering him wine and myrrh, they crucified him between two thieves. Nothing was wanting to his hu- miliation; a thief had been preferred before him, and two thieves shared his punishment. The soldiers divided his garments and cast lots for them (see Psalm XXII: 18). Pilate set over him in three languages the inscription, "Jesus, the King of the Jews." The chief priests took exception to this that it did not denounce him as falsely calling himself by that name, but Pilate refused to alter it. The passers-by and the Roman soldiers would not let even the minutes of deadly agony pass in peace; they reviled and mocked him. In the depths of his bodily suffering Jesus calmly com- mended to John who stood near, the care of Mary his mother. "Behold thy son! behold thy mother." From the sixth hour to the ninth there was darkness over the whole land. At the ninth hour (3 p.m.) Jesus uttered with a loud voice the opening words of the XXII Psalm, all the inspired words of which referred to the suffering Messiah. One of those pre- sent dipped a sponge in the common sour wine of the soldiers and put it on a reed to moisten the sufferer's lips. Again he

PASSION WEEK. 663 cried with a loud voice, "It is finished" (John), "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke); and gave up the ghost. His words upon the cross had all of them shown how truly he had possessed his soul in patience, even to the end of the sacrifice he was making: "Father, forgive them!" was a prayer for his enemies. "This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," was a merciful acceptance of the offer of a penitent heart. "Woman, behold thy son," was a sign of loving consideration, even at the last, for those he had always loved. "I thirst," the only word that related to himself, was uttered, because it was prophecied that they were to give him vinegar to drink. On the death of Jesus the veil which covered the most holy place of the temple, the place of the more especial presence of Jehovah, was rent in twain, a symbol that we may now have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, through his flesh" (Heb. X: 19, 20). There was a great earthquake. The centurion who kept guard, witnessing what had taken place, came to the same conclusion as Pilate and his wife. "Certainly this was a righteous man;" he went beyond them, "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark). Even the people who had joined in the mocking and reviling were over- come by the wonders of his death, and "smote their breasts and returned" (Luke XXIII: 48). The Jews, very zealous for the Sabbath in the midst of their murderous work, begged Pilate that he would put an end to the punishment by breaking the legs of the criminals that they might be taken down and buried before the Sabbath, for which they were preparing. Those who were to execute this duty found that Jesus was dead and the thieves still living; so they performed this work on the latter only, that a bone of him might not be broken (Ex. XII: 46; Psalms XXXIV: 20). The death of the Lord before the others was, no doubt, partly the conse- quence of the previous mental suffering which he had under- gone, and partly because his will to die lessened the natural resistance of the frame to dissolution. Some seek for a "mysterious cause" of it, something out of the course of nature;