66

*

There are several authors, Lipsius, Clozius, and others, who have labored, and that successfully, to prove that the Jews did punish by crucifixion. We read in Deut. xxi. 23, that the man" who is hanged, is accursed of God." Is not the same mode of hanging intended in this and the preceding verse, as in Gal. iii. 13, which seems to be a quotation from this? D. Clozius says, "the use of the gallows, on which the man dies by means of a cord around his neck, was unknown to the Greeks, Romans, or Jews, before the time of Constantine, who substituted this mode of suspension for that by nails;" and Salmasius, after a long examination of the subject, says, "whatever things are recorded before Constantine, about hanging upon the wood, tree, or cross, are to be applied specifically to crucifixion, the only mode. of hanging which was used before that period." With this fact in view, we must interpret 2 Sam. xxi. 6—9, as an instance of crucifixion. Another instance is in Josh. viii. 29, where the king of Ai is said to have been "hung upon a tree," "ni Eva Sidvus," according to the Septuagint, "the double cross," the instrument appropriated to suspension by the hands and feet. Another proof that this was a Jewish punishment, is found in Josh. x. 26. Junius, Tremellius, and others, suppose the five kings here spoken of to have been killed by their suspension, and not before it. Be this as it may, it was a common custom to suspend the criminal's body after death. Suetonius, c. 74, records that "Julius Cæsar commanded the pirates first to be killed, and then, simply for disgrace, affixed to the cross ;" and the Talmud, Sanhedrim, c. 6, testifies that condemned criminals were first punished with death, afterwards were hung. The suspension of the kings, whether prior or posterior to their death, proves that the cross was not unknown in Judea. Unequivocal evidence of the same fact is found in Josephus. He says of John Hyrcanus Alexander, prince of his nation, called also Alexander Janneus, that "eight hundred captives he crucified in the middle of the city," and that "the Jews were so careful about burials, as to take down by sunset men who had been crucified, and bury them."

This evidence, perhaps, may convince us, that the peculiar people did sometimes, it is admitted that they did not

* Tractatus de doloribus animal. Christi. P. 258.

+ Epist. de Cruce. p. 427.

uniformly, nor perhaps generally, crucify their malefactors. The evidence must be heightened by the fact that other nations did the same, particularly those who exerted over Judea the most commanding influence.*

At a very early date, we hear of crucifixion among the Egyptians. Moses mentions it in Gen. xl. 19, 20, where the Vulgate translates," he shall suspend thee upon the cross," and Josephus," he shall deliver thee, being fixed to the cross, to be devoured by birds." Thucydides describes the crucifixion of a king; Justin of several women, in Egypt.

We next hear of the punishment among the Persians. See Esther ii. 23; vii. 10; ix. 14. Josephus calls the gallows here mentioned oraugos. Herodotus relates, that sometimes the Persian criminal was put to death in an easier mode than that of crucifixion, and immediately after death was exhibited on the cross, so as to receive the odium of the punishment, without its agonies.

The Carthaginians seem to have been smitten with a passion for this kind of penalty. They applied it not only to the ignoble, but to the most illustrious. Valerius says, that they crucified their generals, even if just returned from victory, whenever they appeared to have been led on to victory by a bad design. Justin tells us of Bomilcar, whom he calls king of Carthage, who, while suffering all the torments of a public crucifixion, harangued the spectators with a vehement and unconquered spirit, inveighed against their crimes, and incensed them by his bitter though merited

sarcasm.

The cross was early used in Assyria, according to Diodorus Siculus; in Greece, according to Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Justinius; in Germany, according to Tacitus; and indeed in almost every land of which a history has come down to us. It is still used by Mohammedans in the East.

Livy dates its introduction into Rome, at the time of Tullus. He is probably correct; though Cicero dates it at the reign of Tarquin the Proud, who certainly applied the torture with all the zeal of one who had introduced it as a novelty. The use of it became more general, as the republic increased. We read of the crucifixion of five hundred and upwards in a single day, by Titus; of about two thou

*For an extended discussion of this topic, see Dissertatio Georgii Moebii, de supplicio crucis. Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus, 234–240.

sand at one time, by Quinctilius Varus; of about six thousand servants, by Augustus the Sicilian, the masters of the servants having previously been slain. Josephus says, that, at the destruction of Jerusalem, "room was wanting for crosses, and crosses for bodies." When nominal Christianity, however, became triumphant, this species of penalty was discarded throughout the Roman empire. As the holiest of men once endured it, a veil of hallowed remembrance was flung over it; Constantine resolved that throughout his dominions it should no longer be profaned, and he substituted for nailing upon the cross, strangulation upon the gallows, (patibulum instead of crux.) He also prohibited the breaking of the criminal's legs, because the legs of Jesus' companions in punishment were broken, and he stamped the cross on medals, coins, and the arms and ensigns of his soldiers.

The Romans applied the punishment chiefly to slaves, and therefore called it "servile supplicium," "supplicium in servile modum." A crime which would subject a soldier to decapitation, would send a slave to be crucified. "The cross, the very name of it," says Cicero pro Rab., "should be far, not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but also from his thoughts, eyes, ears. Not merely the endurance of all these cruelties, but also the condition to endure them, the expectation, yea, the mention of them, is unworthy of a Roman citizen and free man." It is indeed true that citizens, distinctively so called, were always exempt from this punishment; but mere freemen, who were not citizens, were sometimes exposed to it. No age nor sex were spared. Robbery, assassination, lying, theft, desertion from the army, and other crimes, were punished by it, and in the case of slaves, so small an offence as desertion from their master. Lardner says, "it was universally and deservedly reputed the most shameful and ignominious death to which a wretch could be condemned. In such an exit were comprised every idea and circumstance of odium, disgrace, and public scandal." Hence was the cross called "infelix arbor," "infelix lignum," "infamus stipes," "damnata crux." "From this circumstance," says Justin Martyr, "the heathens are fully convinced of our madness, in giving the second place after the immutable and eternal God and Father of all, to a person who was crucified." "We must hesitate," says Trypho, after ridiculing the weakness and sufferings of Jesus, "with regard to

our believing a person who was so ignominiously crucified, to be the Messiah; for he fell under the greatest curse of the law of God, for it is written in the law, cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree." We perceive, then, that the apostle had a meaning, when he said, "Christ took upon him the form of a servant," Phil. ii. 7, 8; that " he despised the shame," Heb. xii. 2; that the preaching of the cross was to the Jew, who remembered Deut. xxi. 23, "a stumbling block," and to the Greek, who asked what good can come from a nailed, pierced malefactor, "foolishness," 1 Cor. i. 23. The celebrated climax of Cicero, derives much of its peculiar force from the ignominy of the chastisement it describes. "An order was given for his execution, for his execution upon the cross!" "It is an outrage to bind a Roman citizen; to scourge him is an atrocious crime; to put him to death is almost parricide! but to crucify himwhat shall I call it?"

Nor did the dreadfulness of this death result alone from its baseness. "Crudelissimum, teterrimumque," Cicero characterizes it, and says, "ab oculis, auribusque, et omni cogitatione hominum removendum esse." For the intensity of its pangs, it was feared far more than either burning or decapitation. "If men are free citizens," says Ulpianus, "they may be given to the beasts for their crimes; if slaves, they may be loaded with the heaviest punishment," "supplicio summo," "supremo," "extremo," as it was often denominated. We shall easily see that it must have been full of tortures if we attend to the structure of the instrument and the mode of applying it.*

There were two kinds of crosses; the simple and the double. The simple cross consisted of a single timber, to which the hands and feet were bound or nailed. Hesychius says, that sometimes the criminal was made to sit upon a sharpened stake, and the stake penetrated the body, and after passing along the spine, came out at the mouth. Seneca and Plato mention this mode of "infixion," as distinguished from that of "affixion." Nicholas Fontanus says, that the cross sometimes came out at the breast instead of the mouth.

The double cross, according to Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Jerome, was constructed in three different ways; first, in the form of the letter X, the two beams intersecting each

*For a more extended view of the history of crucifixion, see Justi Lipsi V. C. Opera Omnia, tom. 1. pp. 1154–1172.

other in the middle, and one of the criminal's members being affixed to each section of each beam; secondly, in the form of the letter T, the two beams crossing each other at right angles at the top, and one arm being affixed to each part of the transverse beam; thirdly, in a form distinguished from the second by an elevation of the perpendicular beam above the transverse, the two beams remaining at right angles to each other. According to the most ancient pictures, statues, and written representations, our Saviour suffered on the double cross, made in the third form.* The perpendicular beam was distinguished from the transverse by the epithet, "tree," and this word is sometimes extended in its signification to the whole instrument. See Paul's use of it

in Gal. iii. 13, and Peter's, in 1 Pet. ii. 24.

In the middle of the perpendicular beam there was a projection, called "the middle seat," upon which the sufferer rested and by which in part he relieved the pressure on his limbs. The knees being bent, and the feet being therefore incapable of supporting the body, its whole weight must rest upon the hands, and sometimes they, without the aid of this middle projection, would be insufficient to sustain their burden. Although many have denied that any such seat was in use, the authority in favor of it seems to be decisive. Justin Martyr, who lived before the punishment of crucifixion was abolished, states expressly, "in the middle of the cross there was fixed a piece of wood, as a horn, standing out, and on the horn the crucified man was as it were carried." Irenæus also speaks of the projection in the middle of the perpendicular beam, on which projection the criminal, while held up by nails, rested and relieved himself." Tertullian and Innocent mention the same, as the means of prolonging the sufferer's agony because mitigating its intenseness. The current comparisons, also, among ancient authors, of a crucified man with an equestrian, indicate the existence of the central knob. On no other principle can we understand the phrases, "to mount upon the cross, "" to leap upon the cross," "to ride," (inequitare), "to rest upon the cross," "to be borne and carried upon it." Ordinarily the seat was smooth and easy, and according to Justin, was made to resemble the horn of an ox; but occasionally there were sought out for the criminal some new excruciating pains, and then the seat was made rough, pointed, and sharp.

* See Justi Lipsi, V. C. Opera Omnia, tom. 3. pp. 1157—1169.