Notes. John xix. 17 — 27.
17. — [And He hearing His cross.'] It was the Roman custom to compel criminals, sentenced to crucifixion, to carry tlieir own cross. Our Lord was thus treated like the vilest felon. " Fur- cifer," was the Latin name of ignominy and contempt given to the worst criminals. It means, literally, " cross-bearer."
Besser observes that our Lord, when a workman in the car- penter's shop at Nazareth, had willingly carried pieces of tim- ber in the service of His foster-father. Here, with no less cheerfulness, He bears to Golgotha the timber of the cross, in order to raise the altar on which He is to be sacrificed, and to do the will of his Father in heaven.
Whether the " cross " that our Lord bore, was a straight piece of timber, with another transverse piece fixed across it, for the hands of the criminal to be nailed to, — or whether it was a tree with two forked arms, admits perhaps of some little doubt. The almost universal tradition of the Churches is that it was the former : viz., a cross made of two pieces. Yet it is worth remembering that it was very common to crucify on a tree such as I have described, — that the Latin word for " cross- bearer," means, literally, " forked-tree-bearer," — and that our Bible translators have four times spoken of the " wood " on which our Lord was crucified as " the tree." (Acts v. 30 ; x. 89 ; xiii. 29 ; 1 Peter ii. 24.) The matter therefore is not quite BO clear as some may think, though of course it is one of no consequence. The cross of two pieces at right angles, is cer- tainly more picturesque than a common tree shaped like the letter Y, and the habitual use of the cross in Christian art, and the general tradition of ecclesiastical history, have combined to make most people regard the question as a settled one. Yet tha undeniable use of forked trees in crucifying criminals, and the equally undeniable difficulty of carrying a cross of two transverse pieces, compared with a forked tree, are points that really ought not to be ov^erlooked. The matter, after all, is one of pure conjecture. But, to say the least, it is quite a disputa- ble point whether the cross Avith which Christendom is so fa- miliar, on the gable ends of churches, on tombs, in painted windows, in crucifixes, or in the simple ornamental form which ladies are so fond of wearing, — the cross, I say, of two trans- verse pieces at right angles, is really and truly the kind of cross on which Christ was crucified 1 There is no proof posi- tive that the whole of Christendom is not mistaken. Of course, if the cross itself had been preserved and found, it would set- tle the dispute. But there is not the slightest reason to sup- pose that it was preserved, or treated with any respect, either by Jews, Romans, or disciples. The famous story of the " dis- covery or invention of the cross " by the Empress Helena in 326 A. D., is a mere apocryphal legend invented by man, and