science to retract his perjury, and to confess his guilt, instead of double restitution, he had only to repay the amount stolen, and one fifth more. (Levit. vi. 2—5.) 2. MAN-STEALING, that is, the seizing or stealing of the person of a free-born Israelite, either to use him as a slave himself, or to sell him as a slave to others, was absolutely and irremissibly punished with death. (Exod. xxi. 16. Deut. xxiv. 7.) 3. "Where a person was judicially convicted of having DENIED ANY THING COMMITTED TO HIS TRUST, or found by him, his punishment, as in the case of theft, was double restitution; only that it never, as in that crime, went so far as quadruple, or quintuple restitution; at least nothing of this kind is ordained in Exod. xxii. 8. If the person accused of this crime had sworn himself guiltless, and afterwards, from the impulse of his conscience, acknowledged the commission of perjury, he had only one-fifth beyond the value of the article denied to refund to its owner." (Levit. vi. 5.) 4. The Mosaic laws respecting DEBTORS were widely different from those which obtain in European countries: the mode of procedure sanctioned by them, though simple, was very efficient. Persons, who had property due to them, might, if they chose, secure it either by means of a mortgrage, or by a pledge, or by a bondsman or surety. (1.) The creditor, when about to receive a pledge for a debt, was not allowed to enter the debtor's house, and take what he pleased; but was to wait before the door, till the debtor should deliver up that pledge with which he could most easily dispense. (Deut. xxiv. 10, 11. Compare Job xxii. 6. xxiv. 3. 7—9.) (3.) When it is committed premeditatedly and deceitfully. (Exod. xxi. 14.)—(4.) When a man lies in wait for another, falls upon him, and slays him. (Deut. xix. 11.) In order to constitute wilful murder, besides enmity, Moses deemed it essential, that the deed be perpetrated by a blow, a thrust, or a cast, or other thing of such a nature as inevitably to cause death. (Num. xxxv. 16-21.): such as, the use of an iron tool,-a stone, or piece of wood, that may probably cause death,-the striking of a man with the fist, out of enmity,-pushing a man down in such a manner that his life is endangered,—and throwing any thing at a man, from sanguinary motives, so as to occasion his death. The punishment of murder was death, without all power of redemption. 2. HOMICIDE or ManslaughtER is discriminated by the following adjuncts or circumstances:-(1.) That it takes place without hatred or enmity. (Num. xxxv. 22. Deut. xix. 46.)-(2.) Without thirst for revenge. (Exod. xxi. 13. Num. Xxxv. 22.)-(3.) When it happens by mistake. (Num. xxxv. 11. 15.)-(4.) By accident, or (as it is termed in the English law) chance-medley. (Deut. xix. 5.) The punishment of homicide was confinement to a city of refuge, as will be shown in the following section. Besides the two crimes of murder and homicide, there are two other species of homicide, to which no punishment was annexed; viz. (1.) If a man caught a thief breaking into his house by night, and killed him, it was not blood-guilliness, that is, he could not be punished; but if he did so when the sun was up, it was blood-guiltiness; for the thief's life ought to have been spared, for the reason annexed to the law (Exod. xxii. 2, 3.), víz. because then the person robbed might have it in his power to obtain restitution; or, at any rate, the thief, if he could not otherwise make up his loss, might be sold, in order to repay him.-(2.) If the Goel or avenger of blood overtook the innocent homicide before he reached a city of refuge, and killed him while his heart was hot, it was considered as done in justifiable zeal (Deut. xix. 6.); and even if he found him without the limits of his asylum, and slew him, he was not punishable. (Num. xxxv. 26, 27.) The taking of pecuniary compensation for murder was prohibited; but the mode of punishing murderers was undetermined; and, indeed, it appears to have been left in a great degree to the pleasure of the Goel. An exception, however, was made to the severity of the law in the case of a perfect slave (that is, one not of Hebrew descent), whether male or female. Although a man had struck any of his slaves, whether male or female, with a stick, so as to cause their death, unless that event took place immediately, and under his hand, he was not punished. If the slave survived one or two days, the master escaped with impunity: it being considered that his death might not have proceeded from the beating, and that it was not a master's interest to kill his slaves, because, as Moses says (Exod. xxi. 20, 21.), they are his money. If the even during the same day, his death was to be avenged; but in what manner Moses has not specified. Probably the Israelitish master was subjected only to an arbitrary punishment, regulated according to circumstances by the pleasure of the judge. (2.) When a mill or mill-stone, or an upper garment, was given as a pledge, it was not to be kept all night. These articles appear to be specified as examples for all other things with which the debtor could not dispense without great inconvenience. (Exod. xxii. 26, 27. Deut. xxiv. 6. 12.) (3.) The debt which remained unpaid until the seventh or sabbatic year (during which the soil was to be left without cultivation, and, consequently, a person was not supposed to be in a condition to make payments), could not be exacted during that period. (Deut. xv. 1-11.) But, at other times, in case the debt was not paid, the creditor might seize, first, the hereditary land of the debtor, and enjoy its produce until the debt was paid, or at least until the year of jubilee; or, secondly, his houses. These might be sold in perpetuity, except those belonging to the Levites. (Levit. xxv. 14—32.) Thirdly, in case the house or land was not sufficient to cancel the debt, or if it so happened that the debtor had none, the person of the debtor might be sold, together with his wife and children, if he had any. This is implied in Lev. xxv. 39.; and this custom is alluded to in Job xxiv. 9. It existed in the time of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 1.); and on the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, some rich persons exercised this right over their poor debtors. (Neh. v. 1-slave died under his master's hand while beating him, or 13.) Our Lord alludes to the same custom in Matt. xviii. 25. As the person of the debtor might thus be seized and sold, his cattle and furniture were, consequently, liable for his debts. This is alluded to by Solomon, in Prov. xxii. 27. It does not appear that imprisonment for debt existed in the age of Moses, but it seems to have prevailed in the time of Jesus Christ. (Matt. xviii. 34.) (4.) If a person had become bondsman, or surety for another, he was liable to be called upon for payment in the same way with the original debtor. But this practice does not appear to have obtained before the time of Solomon (in whose Proverbs there are several references to it), when it was attended with serious consequences. It seems that the formality observed was, for the person who became surety to give his hand to the debtor, and not to the creditor, to intimate that he became, in a legal sense, one with the debtor; for Solomon cautions his son against giving his hand to a stranger, to a person whose circumstances he did not know: and entreats him to go and urge the person to whom he had given his hand, or for whom he had become surety, to pay his own debt; so that it must have been to the debtor that the hand was given. See Prov. xi. 15. xvii. 18. and xxii. 26. IV. Among the CRIMES which may be committed against THE PERSON, In order to increase an abhorrence of murder, and to deter them from the perpetration of so heinous a crime,—when it had been committed by some person unknown, the city nearest to which the corpse was found was to be ascertained by mensuration: after which the elders or magistates of that city were required to declare their utter ignorance of the affair in the very solemn manner prescribed in Deut. xxi. 1-9. 3. For other CORPORAL INJURIES of various kinds, different statutes were made, which show the humanity and wisdom of the Mosaic law. Thus, if a man injured another in a fray, he was obliged to pay the expenses of his cure, and of his bed, that is, the loss of his time arising from his confinement. (Exod. xxi. 18, 19.) By this admirable precept, most courts of justice still regulate their decisions in such cases.-If a pregnant woman was hurt, in consequence of a fray between two individuals,-as posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant,—in the event of her premature delivery, the author of the misfortune 1. MURDER claims the first place. As this is a crime of was obliged to give her husband such a pecuniary compensathe most heinous nature, Moses has described four accessory tion as he might demand, the amount of which, if the offencircumstances or marks, by which to distinguish it from sim-der thought it too high, was to be determined by the decision ple homicide or manslaughter; viz. (1.) When it proceeds of arbitrators. On the other hand, if either the woman or from hatred or enmity. (Num. xxxv. 20, 21. Deut. xix. 11.) her child was hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation took its -(2.) When it proceeds from thirst of blood, or a desire to full effect, as stated in Exod. xxi. 22-25.-The law of satiate revenge with the blood of another. (Num. xxxv, 20.)— retaliation also operated, if one man hurt another by either assaulting him openly, or by any insidious attack, whether | 4. The crime, of which decency withholds the name, as nature abominates the idea, was punished with death (Lev. xviii. 22, 23. xx. 13. 15, 16.), as also was adultery (Lev. xx. 10.), it should seem by stoning (Ezek. xvi. 38. 40. John viii. 7.), except in certain cases which are specified in Lev. xix. 20-22. Other crimes of lust, which were common among the Egyptians and Canaanites, are made capital by Moses. For a full examination of the wisdom of his laws on these subjects, the reader is referred to the commen taries of Michaelis.2 8. Dichotomy, or cutting asunder.-9. Tuμavoμcc, or beating to death.-10. Exposing to wild beasts.-11. Crucifixion. -(1.) Prevalence of this mode of punishment among the ancients. (2.) Ignominy of crucifixion.—(3.) The circumstances of our Saviour's crucifixion considered and illus trated. son.4 THE end of punishment is expressed by Moses to be the determent of others from the commission of crimes. His language is, that others may hear and fear, and may shun the commission of like crimes. (Deut. xvii. 13. xix. 20.) By the wise and humane enactments of this legislator, parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children for their parents (Deut. xxiv. 16.), as was afterwards the case win the Chaldæans (Dan. vi. 24.), and also among the kings of Israel (1 Kings xxi. and 2 Kings ix. 26.), on charges of treeOf the punishments mentioned in the sacred writers, some were inflicted by the Jews in common with other tions, and others were peculiar to themselves. They re usually divided into two classes, non-capital and capital. I. The NON-CAPITAL or inferior PUNISHMENTS, which were V. In nothing, however, were the wisdom and equity of inflicted for smaller offences, are eight in number; viz. the Mosaic law more admirably displayed, than in the rigour Mosaic law was SCOURGING. (Lev. xix. 20. Deut. xxii. 18. 1. The most common corporal punishment of the ancient with which CRIMES OF MALICE were punished. Those pests of society, malicious informers, were odious in the eye of XXV. 2, 3,) After the captivity it continued to be the usual that law (Lev. xix. 16-18.), and the publication of false punishment for transgressions of the law, so late indeed as the reports, affecting the characters of others, is expressly pro- it five times. (2 Cor. xi. 24.) In the time of our Saviour it time of Josephus; and the apostle tells us that he suffered hibited in Exod. xxiii. 1.: though that statute does not annex any punishment to this crime. One exception, how- was not confined to the judicial tribunals, but was also inever, is made, which justly imposes a very severe punish-flicted in the synagogues. (Matt. x. 17. xxiii. 34. Acts xxii. ment on the delinquent. See Deut. xxii. 13-19. All manner 19. xxvi. 11.) The penalty of scourging was inflicted by of false witness was prohibited (Exod. xx. 16.), even though judicial sentence. The offender having been admonished to it were to favour a poor man. (Exod. xxiii. 1-3.) But in him as in capital cases, the judges commanded him to be tied acknowledge his guilt, and the witnesses produced against the case of false testimony against an innocent man, the matter was ordered to be investigated with the utmost strict- by the arms to a low pillar: the culprit being stripped down ness, and, as a species of wickedness altogether extraordi- to his waist, the executioner, who stood behind him upon a nary, to be brought before the highest tribunal, where the stone, inflicted the punishment both on the back and breast priests and the judges of the whole people sat in judgment: with thongs ordinarily made of ox's hide or leather. The and after conviction, the false witness was subjected to pu- number of stripes depended upon the enormity of the offence. nishment, according to the law of retaliation, and beyond the According to the talmudical writers, while the executioner possibility of reprieve; so that he suffered the very same was discharging his office, the principal judge proclaimed punishment which attended the crime of which he accused these words with a loud voice:-If thou observest not all the his innocent brother. (Deut. xix. 16-21.) No regulation words of this law, &c. then the Lord shall make thy plagues can be more equitable than this, which must have operated wonderful, c. (Deut. xxviii. 58, 59.); adding, Keep there as a powerful prevention of this crime. Some of those fore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosexcellent laws, which are the glory and ornament of the per in all that ye do (Deut. xxix. 9.); and concluding with British Constitution, have been made on this very ground. these words of the Psalmist (lxxviii. 38.):-But he being full Thus, in the 37 Edw. III. c. 18., it is enacted, that all those of compassion forgave their iniquities; which he was to repeat, who make suggestion, shall suffer the same penalty to which if he had finished these verses before the full number of the other party would have been subject, if he were attainted, stripes was given. It was expressly enacted that no Jew in case his suggestions be found evil. A similar law was should suffer more than forty stripes for any crime, though a made in the same reign. (38 Edw. III. c. 9.) By a law less number might be inflicted. In order that the legal numof the twelve tables, false witnesses were thrown down the ber might not be exceeded, the scourge consisted of three Tarpeian rock. In short, false witnesses have been desery- lashes or thongs: so that, at each blow, he received three edly execrated by all nations, and in every age. stripes consequently when the full punishment was inflicted, the delinquent received only thirteen blows, that is, forty stripes save one, but if he were so weak, as to be on the point of fainting away, the judges would order the executioner to suspend his flagellation. Among the Romans, however, the number was not limited, but varied according to the crime of the malefactor and the discretion of the judge. It is highly probable that, when Pilate took Jesus and scourged him, he directed this scourging to be unusually severe, that the sight of his lacerated body might move the Jews to compassionate the prisoner, and desist from opposing his release. This appears the more probable; as our Saviour was so enfeebled by this scourging, that he afterwards had not strength enough left to enable him to drag his cross to Calvary. Among the Jews, the punishment of scourging involved no sort of ignominy, which could make the sufferer infamous or an object of reproach to his fellow-citizens. It consisted merely in the physical sense of the pain. SECTION IV. ON THE PUNISHMENTS MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES.3 Design of punishments.—Classification of Jewish punishments. 1 As the Jewish law inflicted such heavy punishments on those who committed fornication and adultery, it is probable, from Prov. ii. 16., that the Jews had harlots among them from the neighbouring nations, who seduced them into impurity and idolatry, and who might be tolerated in some cor rupt periods of their state. The case was the same at Athens, where foreign harlo's were tolerated. Hence the term strange women, came to be ap plied to all bad women, whether foreigners or Israelites. Orton's Exposi tion, vol. v. p. 6. Vol. iv. pp. 163-203. The general authorities for this section are, Schulzii Archeologia Hebraica, pp. 82-92. Calmet, Dissertation sur les Supplices des Hebreux, Dissert. tom. i. pp. 241-276.; Brunings, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 107-114.; Alber, Hermeneut. Vet. Test. tom. i. pp. 225-233. C. B. Michaelis, de judiciis, poenisque capitalibus Hebræorum, in Pott's and Ruperti's Sylloge Commen tationum, vol. iv. pp. 177-239.; Jahn, Archæología Biblica, §§ 249-255.; Ackermann, Archæologia Biblica, $$ 243-258. 2. RETALIATION, or the returning of like for like, was the punishment inflicted for corporal injuries to another, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Exod. xxi. 24.) It appears, however, to have been rarely, if ever, 4 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 371. vol. iii. pp. 404. 400-402. Ant. Jud. lib. iv. c. 8. § 11. In inflicting the punishment of whipping, the Jews sometimes, for notorious offences, tied sharp bones, pieces of lead, or thorns to the end of the thongs, called by the Greeks aripa YANG μHOT1yzs, flagra taxillata; but in the Scriptures termed scorpions. To these Rehoboam alludes in 1 Kings xii. 11.-Burder's Oriental Literature, vol. i. p. 414. Cited by Dr. Lightfoot, Works, vol. i. p. 901. folio edit. • Michaelis's Commentaries, vol iii. pp. 444-448. strictly put in execution: but the injurious party was to give | celled by making a trespass-offering, and making up his dethe injured person satisfaction. In this sense the Taurora ficiencies with twenty per cent. over and above. (Lev. v. among the Greeks, and the Lex Talionis among the Romans, 14, 15.) was understood; and an equivalent was accepted, the value of an eye, a tooth, &c. for the eye or tooth itself. It should seem that in the time of Jesus Christ, the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received. On this account our Saviour prohibited retaliation in his divine sermon on the mount. (Matt. v. 38, 39.) 3. RESTITUTION.-Justice requires that those things which have been stolen or unlawfully taken from another should be restored to the party aggrieved, and that compensation should be made to him by the aggressor. Accordingly, various fines or pecuniary payments were enacted by the Mosaic law; as, (1.) Fines, vy (ONESH), strictly so called, went commonly to the injured party; and were of two kinds,—Fixed, that is, those of which the amount was determined by some statute, as for instance, that of Deut. xxii. 19. or xxii. 29. ;-and Undetermined, or where the amount was left to the decision of the judges. (Exod. xxi. 22.) (2.) Two-fold, four-fold, and even five-fold, restitution of things stolen, and restitution of property unjustly retained, with twenty per cent. over and above. Thus, if a man killed a beast, he was to make it good, beast for beast. (Lev. xxiv. 18.) If an ox pushed or gored another man's servant to death, his owner was bound to pay for the servant thirty shekels of silver. (Exod. xxi. 32.)-In the case of one man's ox pushing the ox of another man to death, as it would be very difficult to ascertain which of the two had been to blame for the quarrel, the two owners were obliged to bear the loss. The living ox was to be sold, and its price, together with the dead beast, was to be equally divided between them. If, however, one of the oxen had previously been notorious for pushing, and the owner had not taken care to confine him, in such case he was to give the loser another, and to take the dead ox himself. (Exod. xxi. 36.)-If a man dug a pit and did not cover it, or let an old pit remain open, and another man's beast fell into it, the owner of such pit was obliged to pay for the beast, and had it for the payment. (Exod. xxi. 33, 31.)-When a fire was kindled in the fields and did any damage, he who kindled it was to make the damage good. (Exod. xxii. 6.)1 (3.) Compensation, not commanded, but only allowed, by law, to be given to a person injured that he might depart from his suit, and not insist on the legal punishment, whether corporal or capital. It is termed either D (KopheR), that is, Compensation or D D (PIDJON NepheSH), that is, Ransom of Life. In one case it is most expressly permitted (Exod. xxi. 30.); but it is prohibited in the case of murder and also in homicide. (Num. xxxv. 31, 32.) The highest fine leviable by the law of Moses, was one hundred shekels of silver, a great sum in those times, when the precious metals were rare.2 4. To this class of punishments may be referred the Sin and Trespass OFFERINGS, which were IN THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENTS. They were in general extremely moderate, and were enjoined in the following cases : (5.) The same was the rule, where a person denied any thing given him in trust, or any thing lost, which he had found, or any promise he had made; or again, where he had acquired any property dishonestly, and had his conscience awakened account of it, even where it was a theft, of which he had once cleared himself by oath, but was now moved by the impulse of his conscience to make voluntary restitution, and wished to get rid of the guilt. (Lev. vi. 1-7.) By the offering made on such an occasion, the preceding crime was wholly cancelled; and because the delinquent would other wise have had to make restitution from two to five fold, he now gave twenty per cent. over and above the amount of his theft. (6.) In the case of adultery committed with a slave, an offering was appointed by Lev. xix. 20-22.: which did not, however, wholly cancel the punishment, but mitigated it from death, which was the established punishment of adultery, to that of stripes for the woman, the man bringing the trespassoffering in the manner directed by Moses.3 Such measures as these, Michaelis remarks, must have had a great effect in prompting to the restitution of property unjustly acquired: but in the case of crimes, of which the good of the community expressly required that the legal punishment should uniformly and actually be put in execution, no such offering could be accepted.4 5. IMPRISONMENT does not appear to have been imposed by Moses as a punishment, though he could not be unacquainted with it; for he describes it as in use among the Egyptians. (Gen. xxxix. 20, 21.) The only time he mentions it, or more properly arrest, is solely for the purpose of keeping the culprit safe until judgment should be given on his conduct. (Lev. xxiv. 12.) In later times, however, the punishment of the prison came into use among the Israelites and Jews; whose history, uuder the monarchs, abounds with instances of their imprisoning persons, especially the prophets, who were obnoxious to them for their faithful reproofs of their sins and crimes. Thus, Asa committed the prophet Hanani to prison, for reproving him (2 Chron. xvi. 10.) ;5 Ahab committed Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 27.), as Zedekiah did the prophet Jeremiah, for the same offence. (Jer. xxxvii. 21.) John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod, misnamed the Great (Matt. iv. 12.); and Peter by Herod Agrippa. (Acts xii. 4.) Debtors (Matt. xviii. 30.) and murderers (Luke xxiii. 19.) were also committed to prison. We read also of Tpots Ancora, a common prison, a public gaol (Acts v. 18.), which was a place of durance and confinement for the worst sort of offenders. In their prisons, there was usually a dungeon (Jer. xxxviii. 6.), or a pit or cistern, as the word (BOR) is rendered in Zech. ix. 11. where it unquestionably refers to a prison: and from this word we may conceive the nature of a dungeon, viz. that it was a place, in which indeed there was no water, but in its bottom deep mud; and, accordingly, we read that Jeremiah, who was cast into this worst and lowest part of the prison, sunk into the mire. (Jer. XXxviii. 6.) In the prisons also were Stocks, for detaining the person of the prisoner more securely. (Job xiii. 27. xxxiii. 11.) (1.) For every unintentional trangression of the Levitical Michaelis conjectures that they were of the sort by the law, even if it was a sin of commission (for in the Mosaic doc- Greeks called up, wherein the prisoner was so contrine concerning sin and trespass offerings, all transgressions fined, that his body was kept in an unnatural position, which are divided into sins of commission, and sins of omission), a must have proved a torture truly insupportable. The Eowrepa sin-offering was to be made, and thereupon the legal punish-xx, or Inner Prison, into which Paul and Silas were ment was remitted, which, in the case of wilful transgression, thrust at Philippi, is supposed to have been the same as the was nothing less than extirpation. (Lev. iv. 2. v. 1.4-7). pit or cistern above noticed; and here their feet were made (2.) Whoever had made a rash oath, and had not kept it, was obliged to make a sin-offering; for his inconsideration, if it was an oath to do evil, and for his neglect, if it was an oath to do good. (Lev. v. 4.) fast in the wooden stocks (Acts xvi. 24), To uxcv. As this prison was under the Roman government, these stocks are supposed to have been the cippi or large pieces of wood in use among that people, which not only loaded the legs of (3.) Whoever had, as a witness, been guilty of perjury-prisoners, but sometimes distended them in a very painful not, however, to impeach an innocent man (for in that case the manner. Hence the situation of Paul and Silas would be kr talionis operated), but-in not testifying what he knew against a guilty person, or in any other respect concerning the matter in question; and in consequence thereof felt disquieted in his conscience, might, without being liable to any farther punishment, or ignominy, obtain remission of the perjury, by a confession of it, accompanied with a trespass offering. (Lev. v. 1.) (4.) Whoever had incurred debt to the sanctuary, that is had not conscientiously paid his tithes, had his crime canMichaelis's Commentaries, vol. ii. pp. 365–367. 477, 478. 2 Ibid. pp. 478, 479. VOL. II. I Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. pp. 482-487. • Ibid. pp. 488. This place is termed the prison-house: but it appears that suspected persons were sometimes confined in part of the house which was occupied by the great officers of state, and was converted into a prison for this purpose. In this manner Jeremiah was at first confined (Jer. xxxvii. 15.), and probably Joseph in the same manner (see Gen. xl. 3.): a similar practice obtains in the East to this day. See Harmer's Observations, vol. iii. p. 503. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. pp. 439-442. Schulzii Archæol. Hebr. pp. 81, 85. The word rendered stocks in our authorized version of Jer. xx. 2. and xxix. 26. ought to have been rendered house of correction. See Dr. Blayney's notes on those passages. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. p. 443. rendered more painful than that of an offender sitting in the stocks, as used among us; especially if (as is very possible) they lay on the hard or dirty ground, with their bare backs, lacerated by recent scourging. : The keepers of the prison anciently had, as in the East they still have, a discretionary power to treat their prisoners just as they please; nothing further being required of them, than to produce them when called for. According to the accurate and observant traveller, Chardin, the gaoler is master, to do as he pleases; to treat his prisoner well or ill; to put him in irons or not, to shut him up closely, or to hold him in easier restraint; to admit persons to him, or to suffer no one to see him. If the gaoler and his servants receive large fees, however base may be the character of the prisoner, he shall be lodged in the best part of the gaoler's own apartment and, on the contrary, if the persons, who have caused the prisoner to be confined, make the gaoler greater presents, he will treat his victim with the utmost inhumanity. Chardin illustrates this statement by a narrative of the treatment received by a very great Armenian merchant. While he bribed the gaoler, the latter treated him with the greatest lenity; but afterwards, when the adverse party presented a considerable sum of money, first to the judge, and afterwards to the gaoler, the hapless Armenian first felt his privileges retrenched he was next closely confined, and then was treated with such inhumanity as not to be permitted to drink oftener than once in twenty-four hours, even during the hottest time in the summer. No person was allowed to approach him but the servants of the prison: at length he was thrown into a dungeon, where he was in a quarter of an hour brought to the point to which all this severe usage was designed to force him. What energy does this account of an eastern prison give to those passages of Scripture, which speak of the soul coming into iron (Psal. cv. 17. marginal rendering), of the sorrowful SIGHING of the prisoner coming before God (Psal. lxxix. 11.), and of Jeremiah's being kept in a dungeon many days, and supplicating that he might not be remanded thither lest he should die! (Jer. xxxvii. 16—20.) 6. BANISHMENT was not a punishment enjoined by the Mosaic law; but after the captivity, both exile and forfeiture of property were introduced among the Jews: and it also existed under the Romans, by whom it was called diminutio capitis, because the person banished lost the right of a citizen, and the city of Rome thereby lost a head. But there was another kind of exile, termed disportatio, which was accounted the worst kind. The party banished forfeited his estate; and being bound was put on board ship, and transported to some island specified exclusively by the emperor, there to be confined in perpetual banishment. In this manner the apostle John was exiled to the little island of Patmos (Rev. i. 9.), where he wrote his Revelation. 7. In the East, anciently, it was the custom to PUT OUT THE EYES OF PRISONERS. Thus Samson was deprived of sight by the Philistines (Judg. xvi. 21.), and Zedekiah by the Chaldees. (2 Kings xxv. 7.) It is well known that cutting out one or both of the eyes has been frequently practised in Persia and other parts of the East, as a punishment for treasonable offences. To the great work of restoring eyeballs to the sightless by the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah probably alludes in his beautiful prediction cited by our Lord, and applied to himself in Luke iv. 18.5 8. CUTTING OFF THE HAIR of criminals seems to be rather an ignominious than a painful mode of punishment: yet it appears that pain was added to the disgrace, and that the hair was violently plucked off, as if the executioner were plucking a bird alive. This is the literal meaning of the original word, which in Neh. xiii. 25. is rendered plucked off their hair; sometimes hot ashes were applied to the skin after the hair was torn off, in order to render the pain more exquisitely acute. In the spurious book, commonly termed the fourth book of Maccabees, it is said that the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes caused the hair and skin to be entirely torn Doddridge's Expositor, and Kuinöel, on Acts xvi. 24. Biscoe on Acts, vol. i. p. 34. 2 Harmer's Observations, vol. iii. pp. 504, 505. Dr. Adam's Roman Antiquities, pp. 66, 67. In 1820, Mr. Rae Wilson met, at Acre, with numerous individuals, who exhibited marks of the vengeance of the late pacha Hadjee Achmet, from his sanguinary cruelties fitly surnamed Djezzar, or the Butcher. They were disfigured in various ways, by a hand amputated, an eye torn out, or a nose which had been split, or partly or totally cut off. (Travels in the Holy Land, vol. ii. p. 43.) In the winter of 1826, two emirs had their eyes burnt out, and their tongues in part cut off, by the Emir Bechir, the prince of Mount Lebanon, their uncle; on account of their having been concerned in some disturbances against his government. (Missionary Register, July, 1827, p. 333.) • Fragments supplementary to Calmet, No. 192. off the heads of some of the seven Maccabean brethren. As an historical composition this book is utterly destitute of credit; but it shows that the mode of punishment under consideration was not unusual in the East. This sort of torture is said to have been frequently inflicted on the early martyrs and confessors for the Christian faith. 9. EXCLUSION FROM SACRED WORSHIP, OF EXCOMMUNICATION, was not only an ecclesiastical punishment, but also a civil one; because in this theocratic republic there was no distinction between the divine and the civil right. The fancies of the Rabbins, relative to the origin of excommunication, are endless. Some affirm, that Adam excommunicated Cain and his whole race; others, that excommunication began with Miriam, for having spoken ill of Moses; others, again, find it in the song of Deborah and Barak (Judg. v. 23. Curse ye Meroz), interpreting Meroz as a person who had refused to assist Barak. But it is most probable, that the earliest positive mention of this punishment occurs after the return from the Babylonish captivity, in Ezra x. 7, 8., or in the anathema of Nehemiah (xiii. 5.) against those who had married strange women. In later times, according to the rabbinical writers, there were three degrees of excommunication among the Jews. The first was called " (NIDUI), removal or separation from all intercourse with society: this is, in the New Testament, frequently termed casting out of the synagogue. (John ix. 22. xvi. 2. Luke vi. 22, &c.) This was in force for thirty days, and might be shortened by repentance. During its continuance, the excommunicated party was prohibited from bathing, from shaving his head, or approaching his wife or any other person nearer than four cubits: but if he submitted to this prohibition, he was not debarred the privilege of attending the sacred rites. If, however, the party continued in his obstinacy after that time, the excommunication was renewed with additional solemn maledictions. This second degree was called □ (CHEREM), which signifies to anathematize, or devote to death: it involved an exclusion from the sacred assemblies. The third, and last degree of ex(MaRaN-ATHA), that is, the Lord cometh, or may the Lord come; intimating that those against whom it was fulminated, had nothing more to expect but the terrible day of judgment. מרן אתא SHIM-THA) or) שםאתא communication was termed The condition of those who were excommunicated was the most deplorable that can be imagined. They were perpetually excluded from all the rights and privileges of the Jewish people, were debarred from all social intercourse, and were excluded from the temple and the synagogues, on pain of severe corporal punishment. Whoever had incurred this sentence was loaded with imprecations, as appears from Deut. xxvii. where the expression cursed is he, is so often repeated: whence to curse and to excommunicate were equivalent terms with the Jews. And therefore St. Paul says, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus anathema or accursed (1 Cor. xii. 3.), that is, curses Him as the Jew did, who denied him to be the Messiah, and excommunicated the Christians. In the second degree, they delivered the excommunicated party over to Satan, devoting him by a solemn curse: to this practice St. Paul is supposed to allude (1 Cor. v. 5.); and in this sense he expresses his desire even to be accursed for his brethren (Rom. ix. 3.), that is, to be excommunicated, laden with curses, and to suffer all the miseries consequent on the infliction of this punishment, if it could have been of any service to his brethren the Jews. In order to impress the minds of the people with the greater horror, it is said that, when the offence was published in the synagogue, all the candles were lighted, and when the proclamation was finished, they were extinguished, as a sign that the excommunicated person was deprived of the light of Heaven; further, his goods were confiscated, his sons were not admitted to circumcision; and if he died without repentance or absolution, by the sentence of the judge a stone was to be cast upon his coffin or bier, in order to show that he deserved to be stoned.' II. The Talmudical writers have distinguished the CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS of the Jews into lesser deaths, and such as were more grievous but there is no warrant in the Scriptures for these distinctions, neither are these writers agreed among themselves what particular punishments are to be referred to these two heads. A capital crime was termed, generally, a sin of death (Deut. xxii. 26.), or a sin worthy of death (Deut Robinson's Lexicon on the Gr. Test. voce ATоruvayyos. Jahn, Archæologia Biblica, $258. Ackermann, Archæol. Bibl. § 252. Encyclopæ dia Metropolitana, vol. xxi. p. 703. Grotius's Note, or rather Dissertation, on Luke vi. 22 Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. pp. 747-749. Selden, de Jure Naturæ et Gentium, lib. iv. c. 8. Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus vol. i. pp. 279-284. x. 22.); which mode of expression is adopted, or rather | some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the Goël was mitated, by the apostle John, who distinguishes between a in use before the time of Moses, and it was probably filled by en unto death, and a sin Nor unto death. (1 John v. 16.) the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of reCriminals, or those who were deemed worthy of capital deeming a mortgaged field is given to him. To prevent the punishment, were called sons or men of death (1 Sam. xx. 31. unnecessary loss of life through a sanguinary spirit of rexxvi. 16. 2 Sam. xix. 29. marginal rendering); just as he venge, the Hebrew legislator made various enactments conwho had incurred the punishment of scourging was designated cerning the blood-avenger. In most ages and countries, a son of stripes. (Deut. xxv. 2. Heb.) Those who suffered a certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being capital punishment, were said to be put to death for their own asylums: Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the sin. (Deut. xxiv. 16. 2 Kings xiv. 6.) A similar phraseo- murderer would flee to the altar, commanded that when the Jogy was adopted by Jesus Christ, when he said to the Jews, crime was deliberate and intentional, he should be torn even Ye shall die in your sins. (John viii. 21. 24.) Eleven differ- from the altar, and put to death. (Exod. xxi. 14.) But in the ent sorts of capital punishments are mentioned in the Sacred case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer was enjoined to Writings; viz. flee to one of the six cities of refuge which (we have already seen) were appropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was enacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual might meet with no impediment whatever in his way. (Deut. xix. 3.) If the Gol overtook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to death, he was not considered as guilty of blood: but if the manslayer had reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an inquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and asylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour's death undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was judicially delivered to the Goël, who might put him to death in whatever way he chose: but in the former case the homicide continued in the place of refuge until the high-priest's death, when he might return home in perfect security. If, however, the Goël found him without the city or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of blood. (Num. xxxv. 26, 27.) Further to guard the life of man, and prevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation. (Num. xxxv. 31.) It should seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or if he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty of the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus we find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and that Solomon, in obedience to his father's dying entreaty, actually discharged it by putting that murderer to death. (1 Kings ii. 5, 6. 28— 34.) There is a beautiful allusion to the blood-avenger in Heb. vi. 17, 18. son. 1. SLAYING BY THE SWORD is commonly confounded with decapitation or beheading. They were, however, two distinct punishments. The laws of Moses are totally silent concerning the latter practice, and it appears that those who were slain with the sword were put to death in any way which the executioner thought proper. See 1 Kings ii. 25. 29.31.34.46. This punishment was inflicted in two cases: (1.) When a murderer was to be put to death; and (2.) When a whole city or tribe was hostilely attacked for any common crime, they smote all (as the Hebrew phrase is) with the edge of the sword. (Deut. xiii. 13-16.) Here, doubtless, the sword was used by every one as he found opportunity.! With respect to the case of murder, frequent mention is made in the Old Testament of the S (GOEL) or blood-avenger; various regulations were made by Moses concerning this perThe inhabitants of the East, it is well known, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If, therefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent hands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to avenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with unceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force or by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia and Persia,2 and also among the Circassians, Ingush Tartars, Nubians, and Abyssinians, and it appears to have been alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening to kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the country, saying, Why should I be bereft of you both in one day? (Gen. xxvii. 15.) She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the murder, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine and Isaac was much too partial to Esau, for her to entertain any expectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would, therefore, appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the blood-avenger, perhaps of 5 Hewing in pieces with the sword may be referred to this class of punishments. Thus Agag was executed, as a criminal, by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. xv. 33.); and recent travellers, inform us that criminals are literally hewed in pieces in Abyssinia, Persia, and in Asiatic Turkey. 2. STONING was denounced against idolaters, blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, incestuous persons, witches, wizards, and 1 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. pp. 418, 419. children who either cursed their parents or rebelled against "The interest of the common safety has, for ages, established a law them. (Lev. xx. 2. 27. xxiv. 14. Deut. xiii. 10. xvii. 5. among them" (the Arabians) "which decrees that the blood of every man, wise is slain, must be avenged by that of his murderer. This vengeance is xxi. 21. and xxii. 21. 24.) It was the most general punishcalled far, or retaliation; and the right of exacting it devolves on the nearest ment denounced in the law against notorious criminals; and of kin to the deceased. So nice are the Arabs on this point of honour, this kind of punishment is intended by the indefinite term of that if any one neglects to seek his retaliation, he is disgraced for ever. He therefore watches every opportunity of revenge: if his enemy perishes putting to death. (Lev. xx. 10. compared with John viii. 5.) from any other cause, still he is not satisfied, and his vengeance is directed Michaelis supposes that the culprit was bound, previously to acainst the nearest relation. These animosities are transmitted, as an the execution of his sentence. The witnesses threw the first inheritance, from father to children, and never cease but by the extinction of one of the families, unless they agree to sacrifice the criminal; or pur-stones, and the rest of the people then followed their example. chase the blood for a stated price, in money or in flocks. Without this Instances of persons being stoned in the Old Testament occur satisfaction there is neither peace, nor truce, nor alliance between them; in Achan (Josh. vii. 25.), Adoram (1 Kings xii. 18), Naboth nor, sometimes, even between whole tribes. There is blood between us, (1 Kings xxi. 10.), and Zechariah. (2 Chron. xxiv. 21.)9 By they, on every occasion; and this expression is an insurmountable barrier." (Volney's Travels in Egypt and Syria, vol. i. p. 367. See also Niebuhr, Description de l'Arabie, pp. 26--30.)-In Turkey and in Persia murder is never prosecuted by the officers of the government. It is the business of the next relations, and of them only, to revenge the slaughter of their kinsmen; and if they rather choose, as they generally do, to compound the matter for money, nothing more is said about it.-Lady M. W. Montague's Letters, let. 42. Sir R. K. Porter's Travels, vol. ii. pp. 75, 76. Among the Circassians, all the relatives of the murderers are consi. dered as guilty. This customary infatuation to avenge the blood of relations, generates most of the feuds, and occasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for, unless pardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two families, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding generations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to the family of the deceased, this tribute is caled Thlil-Uasa, or the price of blood but neither princes nor usdens (or nobles) accept of such a compensation, as it is an established law among them, to demand blood for blood.-Pallas, Voyages dans les Gouvernemens Méridionaux de l'Empire de Russie, tom. 1. p. 441. Paris, 1805. • Dr. Henderson, in describing the operation of the oriental law, of blood for blood" among the Ingush Tartars, mentions the case of "a young Ean of amiable disposition, who was worn down almost to a skeleton, by the constant dread in which he lived, of having avenged upon him a murder committed by his father before he was born. He can reckon up more than a hundred persons who consider themselves bound to take away his life, whenever a favourable opportunity shall present itself." Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, p. 485. Light's Travels in Egypt, Nubia, &c. p. 95. Burckhardt's Travels in Nubia, p. 138. Salt's Voyage to Abyssinia, pp. 345, 346. In the New Testament we meet with vestiges of a punishment, which has frequently been confounded with lapidation: it originated in the latter times of the Jewish commonwealth, and was termed the rebel's beating. It was often fatal, and was inflicted by the mob with their fists, or staves, or stones, without mercy, or the sentence of the judges. Whoever transgressed against a prohibition of the wise men, or of the scribes, which had its foundation in the law, was delivered over to the people to be used in this manner, and was called a son of rebellion.10 The frequent taking up of stones by the Jews against our Saviour, mentioned in the New Testament, and also the stoning of Stephen (Acts vii. 59.), were instances of this kind, to which some have referred the stoning of St. Paul at Lystra. (Acts xiv. 19.) But this appears to be a mistake. The people of Lystra were Gentiles, though they stoned Paul at the instigation of the Jews who came from Antioch and Iconium: and it appears from various passages Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. ii. pp. 221-225. Bruce's Travels, vol. iv. p. 81. Harmer's Observations, vol. iv. pp. 229, 230. Capt. Light's Travels in Egypt, Nubia, &c. p. 194. • Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. p. 421. 10 Ibid. pp. 422-429. |