TRADITION ascribes the invention of this punishment to Semiramis, an ancient queen of Assyria. It was in use among the Egyptians, Persians, Assyrians, Scythians, Germans, Greeks, and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. The custom of crucifixion after death implied in Deut. xxi. 22, 23, it is certain, was by no means rare. Оп the whole, it is probable that the Jews borrowed this mode of punishment from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death; and to a Jew it would acquire additional horror from the curse in Deut. xxi. 23. Among the Romans also, the degradation was a part of the infliction; and exemption from it was the privilege of every Roman citizen. Our Lord was condemned to it by the popular cry of the Jews, as often happened to the early Christians, on the charge of sedition against Cæsar (Matt. xxvii. 23; Luke xxiii. 2); although the Sanhedrim had previously condemned Him on the totally distinct charge of blasphemy. The punishment properly commenced with scourging, after the criminal had been stripped: this generally took place at a column. The criminal carried his own cross, or at any rate a part of it, to the place of execution, which was outside the city. Arrived there, the sufferer was stripped naked; his dress being the perquisite

of the soldiers in attendance. The

cross was then driven into the ground, so that the feet of the condemned were a foot or two above the earth, and he was lifted upon it; or else stretched upon it on the ground, and then lifted with it. Before the nailing took place, a medicated cup was usually given, out of kindness, to confuse the senses, and deaden the pangs of the sufferer. The death was of a lingering character; sometimes it did not occur for three days, and was at last the result of gradual benumbing and starvation. Fracture of the legs was adopted by the Jews to hasten death. Other modes of hastening it were by lighting fires under the cross, or letting wild beasts loose upon the crucified. Generally the body was suffered to rot on the cross by the action of sun and rain, or to be devoured by birds and beasts. Sepulture was usually forbidden; or, it might be granted by special favour, or on grand occasions. But in consequence of Deut. xxi. 22, 23, an express national exception was made in favour of the Jews. The physical suffering occasioned by this mode of death arose from several things: such as, 1. the unnatural position and violent tension of the body, causing a painful sensation from the least motion; 2. the driving of the nails through the hands and feet, full of nerves and tendons, creating the most exquisite anguish; 3. the inflammation caused by exposure of so many wounds and lacerations; 4. the

a square house and stables, Master Matt, good or bad, would have been Squire of Cullingworth, without asking leave or license of any one. But the said ancestor built a church on the estate instead of the supposed square house and stables, and settled the land to maintain a parson for that church; and then he left the Cullingworth estate, with the church, to his family, just as he would have done with no church at all. The only difference was, that Cullingworth thenceforth required not a squire, but a parson; and therefore to refuse to make Matt a parson 'only because,' as he said, 'he was the best whip in and out of Cambridge, and got plucked once or twice,' was the same, in effect, as to deprive him of his patrimony."(P. 121.)

A REASON FOR DISSENT.

"As to dissent, Henry, Bishop of Exeter, once remarked, 'You must not talk to me about people being Dissenters where they have no church to dissent from.' This his lordship said of a place where there was a church and a minister, but only the chance of a dark corner of the church on Sundays, and a very small portion-just about one six-thousandth part of the minister's energies on week-days available for any one of the poor. There is a rule of lawDe non apparentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio; which I take to mean that, whether there is positively no church at all, or 'none to signify,' the path of duty is the

same.

"Who then can deny the position of our high-church prelate-that

ARCHDEACONS AND THE CHURCH IN DANGER."

"The church has duties as well as rights, and the shortest way to obtain the one is to discharge the other. I have seen some fifty clergymen drawn away from their parishes, with an archdeacon at their head, to vote, protest, or speechify, and append fifty names to a sheet of foolscap. I have seen this many times these last twenty years, and perhaps never without hearing plain people say and say truly, as the results showed - they had better be minding their parishes.'-'I'll tell you what,' said the old man, as he stirred up his glass of negus, 'people say, "The church is in danger." Yes, in danger, I could have said, from such as you.' When I was young, the steady, serious clergy used to work, and the good-fornothing used to hunt and shoot; but now even the steady are beguiled by hobby-horses, hunt shadows, and

fire away with blank cartridge and clerical flash-in-the-pan. And this is the worst kind of idleness of the two by a great deal, because it is the most hopeless and the most insidious. These Mr. Hixons do 'their own will under pretence of their Master's will.' They don't learn the page that is set them, but the very next, like the wayward child. So the church is in danger when the clergy

are losing weight and laughed at, as they ever will be, when every man's views are in the future and in the distance-and the more talk, the less work. A good old Puritan proverb, 'The way to make a clean town is for every man to sweep before his own door;' so the way to make a pure church is for every man to mind his own parish."

"My family is large, and we have so many visitors." So large? Of whom does your family consist? I presume, your wife, your children, your servants, and, perhaps, some relatives and connexions. Yours is a large family, according to your statement. Then you have more children and more servants than many of your neighbours; that is to say, God has blessed you more; you have had children given you, and their lives have been continued; you have succeeded in business, or inherited wealth, and thus have been able to increase the number of your servants; you have filled your roomy house with the comforts of life, and made it a delightful visiting-place, so that you have much company and good cheer in your pleasant home. Who hath given you these things? Who could take them away in the twinkling of an eye? And is He to have no daily

expressions of gratitude for His munificence to your household?

Many children, servants and friends! See how many must be deeply injured in their spiritual interests if you neglect this duty; how many to perpetuate your example, and to carry the stream of irreligion down to unborn generations through so many channels. See how many may be blessed by a proper, humble effort on your part to do that which by honour and conscience you are bound to do.

If you had but one child, it would be worth a life's devotion to lead that child to God, as his growing influence might widen and deepen as ages roll on; but to train a number for the Lord, this is a glorious work, which should certainly not be abandoned, but rather certainly prosecuted, because it is so great a work. The physician might just as well abandon his practice because it

is so large; the military leader his army because it is so large; the minister of the Gospel his congregation because it is so large; as might you surrender your family to irreligion because it is so large.

It is not an inducement sufficient to lead you to abandon labour for the maintenance of your family, for procuring bread and raiment, because it is so large. Every addition to it ought to stimulate you to be more diligent in business and more fervent in spirit. The larger your family, the more need there is of religion in the house to control and regulate, to modify the interchange of influences, to suppress those outbursts of passion which, where so many interests are concerned, may jar the little community to its centre. Your family may no more do without religion than your town, your country, the world.

And if

religion prevail in your midst, you will find your family all anxious to have family prayer; but whether or not, you are bound to discharge your duty in this respect. "But the visitors! I could do well enough, perhaps, with my own family, but the service might be disagreeable to .my visitors!"

Is it possible that you will suffer any other man to come into your family and regulate or derange your own affairs? Or are you not bound to exert a wholesome influence over all who put themselves within your reach? Is there not to be one law for him that dwelleth with you, and for the stranger within your gate? You are bound to exert a perpetual influence to the extent of your power. The best labour for Christ is the constant, faithful, trustful discharge of every duty.

To the Members of the Churches of the Congregational Order in England.

BRETHREN,-The Sunday school is acknowledged to be a great power in the land; statesmen and philanthropists are impressed with the simplicity of its methods and the influential nature of its operations, and the wide-spread organization which covers the country, promoting education among the poor, uniting class with class, laying the surest

foundation of order and good government, and giving the best guarantees for peace and social advancement. But the Sunday school belongs to the church-it is a religious institution-and while Government admits its value in reforming the manners of the people, and acknowledges that in times of erisis and peril its influence upon the conduct of men has been the salvation of the State, we want to recognize it as an agency of God for the spiritual salvation and