We can

which is attended with red perspiration, no one can gainsay the opinion that such perspiration may have appeared. not, however, prove that the Saviour was thus diseased. By his watchings, journeyings, fastings, and anxieties he was probably emaciated and weakened: but there is no evidence that he had any sickness other than debility, nor this in any peculiar degree. The only question, then, remaining is, would mental trouble have educed a bloody sweat from a man, debilitated, perhaps, but laboring under no particular organic disorder? It is therefore remarked,

Thirdly, there is no substantial evidence that mental emotion, though operating on an exhausted body, will ever produce the disputed perspiration. It is, indeed, not inconceivable, like an absurd proposition in logic, that the phenomenon should result from such a cause, still it cannot be proved that the law of the circulating system allows the result. For, by what process of induction can a thing be shown to accord with physiological principles, when the thing never occurs, in any and in all combinations of circumstances? Fact, and not fancy, must be the basis of our reasonings on this as well as every branch of physics.

I am well aware that there have been occurrences, as well authenticated as some which were noticed under the second head, which seem to prove the possibility of a sanguinary sweat resulting from mere anguish. Bartholin records an instance, originally published by "the grave and credible historian Thuanus, of the governor of a certain garrison, who, being decoyed by stratagem from the garrison and taken captive, and threatened with an ignominious death, was so affected by his misfortune, that he poured forth a bloody sweat from his whole body." Thuanus also states, that "a young man of Florence, being, by order of Pope Sextus V. condemned to death, was so vehemently harrassed with fear while he was led along to execution, that he discharged blood instead of sweat from all parts of his system." "A healthy and robust man at Paris, hearing that a capital sentence had been passed against him, is said by Maldonate to have been at once covered with blood oozing through the pores."* Considering the fact that all perspiration comes originally from the blood, and changes its color in accordance with changes in the body, being sometimes yellow, sometimes blue, and sometimes reddish; most of the physicians among the schoolmen were ready to admit that, in the words of Dr. Mead, on Galen's authority, "the pores of the body are

* See Dr. Gill on the New Testament, Vol. i. p. 735; also, the Essay of Bartholin, previously alluded to. 34

VOL. VI. NO. VII.

sometimes, by mental pressure, so dilated as to permit blood to come through them, and thus produce the bloody sweat."

Testimony like this must indeed force our assent, unless we can impeach the witnesses. It may be thought that, as we have already adduced some of these witnesses in proof of our second proposition, we cannot now consistently impeach them. But we must remember, that the testimony of such a man as Bartholin on such a subject as this is credible or incredible, very much according to its agreement or disagreement with the testimony of modern and more accurate physicians. His reports of blood exuding by disease are confirmed by the reports of Baconian philosophers; but when he goes farther, and tells of blood exuding without any disease, he goes beyond the school of more enlightened physiologists, and probably goes too far. The human system is the same now that it ever has been, and if it is not now a law, that the system shall exhibit this phenomenon through the bare influence of grief, it never was. But modern physiologists, of the most enlarged science, and critical observation, have witnessed the scenes where the mental enginery might be expected to work with its greatest power; have seen an indefinite variety of changes wrought by it on the body; have seen them wrought in the hospital while patients were trembling under the scalpel of the anatomist, in the prison, while culprits, harrassed with remorse, were shuddering in view of anticipated execution; they have seen the body become emaciated, the eye fade, the hair change its color, the whole system break down and die solely through fear; and yet have never detected the bloody sweat. It is as well settled by experiment as any truth can be, that "in these latter days,' mental excitement will not produce this disputed phenomenon. Why, then, is it, that grief will often expel the soul from the body, and yet not exudate blood? Does it require a stronger movement of feeling for the emission of a few ounces of the fluid, than for the expulsion of the soul itself?-for the opening of the capillary vessels, than for the stopping of the whole machine? If anguish is often so intense as to completely overpower the system, why does it not sometimes produce this inferior effect of deranging the venal part of the system? What better reason, than that this is not a law of the body, and, as all men have been made of the same material, that it never was a law; that the body can now, and always could, endure any amount of grief consistent with life, and yet not exude its vital fluid?

The character and circumstances of those, who stand as witnesses of blood perspiring from a sound body, require us to be

cautious in admitting their testimony. No one can read the Hypomnemata of Bartholin, without seeing that superstition was intermingled thoroughly with his learning; that he had an irrepressible desire "to prove his point," and make facts bend to it. So, with the majority of these witnesses. We know, therefore, that their will would probably bias their judgment. They were not often eye-witnesses of the events related but communicated them on trust. They give but little evidence that the subjects of the phenomenon were scientifically or closely examined, and therefore give us liberty to suspect that there may have been powerful diseases in the subjects whom they report as healthy. The greater part of them being of that class of scholastic writers, on whom, when they differ from moderns, very little dependence can be placed, and being also ignorant of Harvey's discovery that the blood circulates through the system, might easily be deceived by external appearances.* From the circumstance that blood was seen on the skin, they might seize at the conclusion, impetuously as they were wont to do, that it oozed through the invisible pores; whereas, if they had examined carefully, they might have discovered on the skin some ruptures through which the blood had found free passage. Such facts are certainly disqualifications in the witnesses, and therefore, since the internal probability is against their enthusiastic reports, and since they publish some tales too marvellous to have even a semblance of sobriety, we cannot yield to them implicit credence. Often, indeed, they outrage all that is plausible. There is not a single writer, whose testimony in favor of a bloody sweat being educed by mental excitement is conclusive. We do not therefore say, that such an occurrence is impossible, but we do say that it cannot be proved to be possible; and as the perspiration of Christ was neither miraculous, nor the effect of a disease, we have no reason to think, on any physiological ground, that it could have been a perspiration of blood.

Fourthly. There is no evidence in the Scriptures, that Christ experienced a literal sanguinary sweat. Luke is the only writer who alludes to the sweat in Gethsemane. It was natural that he should mention it, because it was connected with his medical profession. But what does Luke say? Not that Christ sweat blood, but sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Justin Martyr, in his controversy with Trypho, omits the word auatos (of blood,) and

Harvey published his discovery of the circulation of the blood in 1628. The majority of our witnesses wrote before that year. Bartholin, however, was born in 1616, and died in 1680.

translates the verse, "he sweat as it were great drops falling," etc. There is no authority, however, for this omission.

What, then, is the meaning of the word gel (as it were)? Chrysostom, Quenstedt, and others, say that it is here used as "a particle of confirmation and clear definition, and not of comparison," and may be translated by the word "even" or its synonymes: "He sweat even great drops." But what is the evidence that ose is thus used? The only evidence which they adduce is, that ós is used so, and corresponds with the Hebrew particle k e; see John i. 14; Matt. xiv. 5; Rom. ix. 32; 1 Cor. iv. 1; where the adverb expresses no comparison, but rather certainty. But, in the first place, if çel is ever used in this sense, there is no evidence that it is used so in this passage, and there must be evidence that a word docs denote a particular thing, as well as may denote it, before the thing can be established. But, secondly, gel and os are two different words, and the former is never employed in the Bible as the latter sometimes is, to express confirmation or emphasis. It is used thirty-three times in the New Testament; eighteen times to express indefiniteness and bare approximation, and may be translated by the English words, about, near, something like; as in Matt. xiv. 21, etc.; fourteen times to express resemblance, comparison, and may be translated by the words, " as if," "like to," "similar," as in Matt. ix. 36. The latter of these two meanings is the only one appropriate to Luke xxii. 44. If this verse gives any evidence that Christ sweat actual blood, Matt. ix. 36, gives evidence in the same way that men were actually sheep; Matt. xxviii. 4, that living men were actually dead; Acts ix. 18, that scales literally fell from the Apostle's eyes; and Heb. i. 12, that the firmament is literally a piece of cloth. Evidently, then, the only passage which alludes to the sweat, proves nothing in favor of a discharge of blood. It simply proves that there was a perspiration so profuse as to fall from the body as drops of blood fall from a bleeding man. Else, why was it not written, "he sweat drops of blood?"

Indeed, the passage under consideration suggests a new argument against the idea of a cuticular hemorrhage. Aristotle, Diodorus Siculus, Bartholin, and numerous physicians whom he quotes, say that blood exudes when it is "thin," "watery," "improperly diluted." The blood of Christ must, therefore, if it was perspired, have been vitiated in this way. But Luke, the most credible of all physicians who have reported this case, says that the drops were poußo, that is, dots; thick, coagulated drops of blood. This definition is given to the word goufoo by nearly all the lexicographers and commentators. Luke,

then, if he teaches that Christ perspired blood, teaches also that the consistence of it was just opposite to the consistence which is necessary for such a perspiration; that the blood was thicker than ordinary, when it should have been thinner. Besides, the 68duso, "grumi," "clots" of blood, would not "fall to the ground" freely, but would rather adhere to the skin. The supposition that Luke intended nothing but a comparison is the only one which removes these difficulties.

The explanation already given of Luke xxii. 44 is corroborated by the fact, that metaphors and comparisons like that found here, are now, and were anciently, very common. They are too powerful not to obtain currency. Theophylact, (Opera, Tom. i. p. 475,) commenting on the passage in question, says, "Christ sweat, and did it with so great anxiety, that, in the use of a proverb, drops of blood are said to have fallen from him. This proverb is applied to men who labor severely; these men being said to sweat blood, just as those who weep bitterly are said to weep blood." The phrase is an expression, in Oriental style, of the profuseness of the sweat, which indicated the depth of the grief. Accordingly, Grotius, Theophylact, Euthymius, Le Clerc, Kuincel, Rosenmüller, and the great body of exegetical commentators reject the idea of a bloody perspiration. Paulus, in his Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Vol. iii. p. 616, says that the color of the perspiration could not be determined in the night, and therefore no one had a right to say that it was red like blood. This argument will, of course, weigh nothing with those who believe that "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Such arguments, too, are unnecessary; not only because there are sufficient without such, but also because we need no arguments, save those which are strictly defensive. The whole burden of proof lies with the advocates of a literal sanguinary effusion; of us nothing more is demanded than to refute their reasonings, and to show that their opinion, as it cannot be established by evidence, cannot be safely believed. Though the opinion is advocated by such men as Poole, Gill, Pearce, Doddridge, Whitby, Clarke, and many other English Commentators, it has no superior practical influence. It must, therefore, be innocent to believe no more on this subject than evidence allows; and be content with knowing this simple fact, that the perspiration of Christ resembled blood in some particulars, though not probably in all.

* See Paulus on the word douẞot in Luke xxii. 44.