opted another, he was not allowed, supposing he wished it, to marry, without leave from the magistrate. The desire to marry again, on the part of such persons, commonly arose from their being illused by the one they had adopted as a son and heir. When they did marry again, if they had legitimate children born to them, their estates were equally shared between them and the adopted son.

Amongst the Romans also the custom of adoption was far from being unknown. They, too, had certain laws guarding against the abuse of the practice. None were allowed to adopt except those who had no children of their own, and were far advanced in life. Neither were eunuchs allowed to adopt. No one was permitted to adopt as his son and heir one older than himself. The adopter required to be eighteen years older than the adopted. The Romans had also various forms to go through when one was adopted. Sometimes it was done before the prætor. In this case, the natural father appeared before the magistrate, declaring that he emancipated his son, resigned all authority over him, and consented that he should be translated into the family of the adopter. Sometimes the transaction took place before the assembly of the people. This was when the party adopted was already free, and was called adrogation. It was so called, because the following questions were proposed in the ceremony: Whether the adopter would take such a person for his son? And, Whether the other consented to become such a person's

L

son? After this, the adopted changed all his previous names, and assumed the prename, name, and surname of his adopter. There was also a private mode of adoption, contracted and confirmed simply between the two parties themselves. It is recorded of the Emperor Adrian, that he preferred adopted children to natural ones, "because," said he, "we choose the former, but are obliged to take the latter at random." But we must not take this as expressing anything like the general sentiment. When one had to resort to adoption, he must have felt himself reduced to a deeply painful alternative.

The practice of adoption has also had an existence amongst the Chinese. The only peculiarity worthy of notice amongst them is, that they make their adoptions from children found in the hospitals, who have been abandoned by their parents.

Amongst the Mahommedans, and the Semitic races generally, the same custom has been known from time immemorial. In the East, a slave, either born in the house, or bought very young, was chosen as an adoptive. If the adopter has a daughter, he gets this slave to marry her, and thus he adopts him as his son, and the offspring are regarded as his. The Tartars seem to be the only people who prefer to adopt their near relations. Nephews, or cousins, if they exist, are those commonly chosen. Some consider this fact as illustrative of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by Jacob. The Turks adopt by causing one to pass through the shirt of his adopter. We have seen this somewhere

certainly with no great propriety-adduced to illustrate the transaction between Elijah and Elisha, when the mantle of the former descended upon the latter.

When the adoption was completed, the adoptive was henceforward considered as dead to the family to which he previously belonged, and as ever afterwards forming a proper member of the family into which he was adopted. To this feature of the case, and to the custom of adoption generally, there are frequent allusions in Scripture; and the correct understanding of the practice may enable one to understand many parts thereof which otherwise may appear very obscure.

CRUCIFIXION.

THE universal prevalence of crime, in all ages, called aloud for expedients to check its progress. Whether these expedients were always wise, and adapted to serve the end in view, may well be questioned. Punishment, of one sort or another, was what was commonly resorted to. These punishments were very numerous. In the course of time crucifixion came to occupy a very prominent place amongst them.

The origin of crucifixion cannot now be traced with indisputable accuracy. The earliest instance of crucifixion on record, so far as we are aware at present, is Pharaoh's chief baker. He is said, in our English version, to have been hanged: but Josephus says that he was crucified. Be this as it may, this punishment soon became very prevalent. It were easy to adduce instances of its existence amongst the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Africans, Greeks, Romans, and Jews.

The cross was composed of two pieces of wood. The piece which was placed erect in the ground was about eleven feet in length. Within a little more than a foot of the top of this there was nailed, transversely, another piece of wood, three or four feet in length. A very prominent part of the cross, however, still remains to be mentioned, and which has been far too much lost sight of. From the piece of wood which stood erect in the ground an

other piece, about a foot in length, projected to the front. This might sometimes be artificially inserted; or more frequently a tree, or a strong branch of a tree, was selected, from which another branch grew, which served the purpose. On this projecting bar the criminal sat; and he was thus supported thereby. As this last feature has been lost sight of so much, we may be allowed to adduce one or two ancient testimonies to corroborate it. Irenæus, one of the Christian Fathers who lived in the second century, says: "The structure of the cross has five ends or summits-two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which the crucified person rests." Justin Martyr, who flourished in the same century, speaks of "that end projecting from the middle (of the upright post) like a horn, on which crucified persons are seated." We may further quote from Tertullian: "A part, and indeed a principal part, of the cross is any post which is fixed in an upright position; but to us the entire cross is imputed, including its transverse beam, and the projecting bar which serves as a seat."

Except in times of civil war, none were put to death by crucifixion except slaves, robbers, and the most abandoned of characters. In the Roman empire, however, this was the punishment of robbers and murderers, only provided they were slaves too; but otherwise, if they were free, and had the privileges of the city of Rome, this was thought too infamous a punishment, whatever one's crime might be. This goes far to explain