attended and guarded him.' This manner of confinement is was first introduced among the Romans by Sylla. Their frequently mentioned, and there are many beautiful allusions great men were so fond of this magnificence, and thought it to it in the Roman writers. Thus was St. Paul confined. so essential to the elegance and splendour of life, that they Fettered in this manner, he delivered his apology before appear to have carried with them these splendid materials to Festus, king Agrippa, and Bernice. And it was this circum- form and compose these elaborate floors, for their tents, for stance that occasioned one of the most pathetic and affecting their houses, and for their tribunals, wherever they removed strokes of true oratory that ever was displayed either in the-from a depraved and most wretchedly vitiated taste, at last Grecian or Roman senate. Would to God that not only THOU, deeming them a necessary and indispensable furniture, not but also ALL that hear me this day, were both almost and alto- merely a vain and proud display of grandeur and greatness. gether such as I am, except these bonds! What a prodigious With this variegated pavement, composed of pieces of mareffect must this striking conclusion, and the sight of the irons ble or stone thus disposed and combined, the evangelist held up to enforce it, make upon the minds of the audience! informs us, that the floor of Pilate's tribunal was ornamented. During the two years that St. Paul was a prisoner at large, and (John xix. 13.) Such an embellishment of a tribunal was ived at Rome in his own hired house, he was subjected to this only a proud ostentatious display to the world of Italian confinement. Paul was suffered to dwell with a soldier that greatness and magnificence, calculated less for real use than kept him. The circumstance of publicly wearing his chain, to strike the beholders with an idea of the boundless prodiand being thus coupled to a soldier, was very disgraceful and gality and extravagance of the Romans. dishonourable, and the ignominy of it would naturally occasion the desertion of former friends and acquaintance. Hence the apostle immortalizes the name of Onesiphorus, and fervently intercedes with God to bless his family, and to remember him in the day of future recompense, for a rare instance of distinguished fidelity and affection to him when all had turned away from him and forsaken him. The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ASHAMED of my CHAIN, but immediately upon his arrival in Rome he sought me out very diligently till he found The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. (2 Tim. i. 16, 17, 18.) me! 66 Having mentioned Pilate the Roman procurator, we cannot close this section without remarking the efforts he repeatedly made, when he sat in judgment upon Jesus, to save him from the determined fury of the Jews. Five successive attempts are enumerated by commentators and critics. He had the fullest conviction of his innocence-that it was merely through malice, and a virulence which nothing could placate, that they demanded his execution. Yet though the governor for a long time resisted all their united clamour and importunity, and, conscious that he had done nothing worthy of death, steadily refused to pronounce the sentence of condemnation upon him; yet one argument, which in a menacing "Sometimes the prisoner was fastened to two soldiers, manner they addressed to him, at last totally shook his firmone on each side, wearing a chain both on his right and left ness, and induced him to yield to their sanguinary purpose. hand. St. Paul at first was thus confined. When the tri- The Jews, after aggravating his guilt, and employing every bune received him from the hands of the Jews, he com- expedient in vain to influence the president to inflict capital manded him to be bound with two chains. (Acts xxi. 33.) punishment upon him, at last cried out: If thou let this man In this manner was Peter fettered and confined by Herod go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a Agrippa. The same night Peter was sleeping between two sol-king, speaketh against Cæsar. Upon hearing this, all his diers, bound with TWO CHAINS. (Acts xii. 6.) former firmness instantly vanished; he could stem the torrent of popular fury no longer to this he yielded, and immediately ordered his execution. Then delivered he him, therefore, to them to be crucified. This conduct of Pilate arose from his perfect knowledge of the character and temper of his master Tiberius, who was a gloomy old tyrant, day and night incessantly haunted with the fiends of jealousy and suspicion-who would never forgive any innovations in his government, but punished the authors and abettors of them with inexorable death. Pilate, therefore, hearing the Jews reiterating this with menaces, that if he let him go he was not Cæsar's friend-knowing the jealousy and cruelty of Tiberius, and fearing that the disappointed rage of the Jews would instigate them to accuse him to the old tyrant, as abetting and suffering a person to escape with impunity, who had assumed the regal title and character in one of his provinces, was alarmed for his own safety; and rather than draw down upon his devoted head the resentment of the sovereign, who would never forgive or forget an injury, real or imaginary, contrary to his own judgment and clear persuasion of the innocence of Jesus, sentenced him to be crucified." "It further appears, that if the soldiers, who were thus appointed to guard criminals, and to whom they were chained, suffered the prisoner to escape, they were punished with death. Thus, when Peter was delivered out of prison by a miracle, the next morning we read there was no small confusion among the soldiers who were appointed his guards, and to whom he had been chained, what was become of Peter. "Whence it appears that his deliverance had been effected, and his shackles had been miraculously unloosed, without their knowledge, when they were sunk in repose. Upon which Herod, after making a fruitless search for him, ordered all those who had been entrusted with the custody of Peter to be executed. (Acts xii. 19.) In like manner also keepers of prisons were punished with death, if the confined made their escape. This is evident from what is related concerning the imprisonment of Paul and Silas at Philippi. These, after their bodies were mangled with scourges, were precipitated into the public dungeon, and their feet were made fast in the stocks. At midnight these good men prayed and sang praises to God in these circumstances; when suddenly a dreadful earthquake shook the whole prison to its foundation, all the doors in an instant flew open, and the shackles of all the prisoners dropped to the ground. This violent concussion awakening the keeper, when he saw the doors of the prison wide open, he drew his sword, and was going to plunge it in his bosom, concluding that all the prisoners had escaped. In that crisis Paul called to him with a loud voice, entreating him not to lay violent hands upon himself, assuring him all the prisoners were safe. V. "The Roman tribunal, if we may judge of it from what is related concerning Pilate's, was erected on a raised stage, the floor of which was embellished with a tesselated pavement. This consisted of little square pieces of marble, or of stones of various colours, which were disposed and arranged with great art and elegance, to form a chequered and pleasing appearance. Pliny informs us that this refinement 1 Quemadmodum eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat, sic ista quæ tam dissimilia sunt, pariter incedunt. Senecæ Epist. 5. tom. ii. p. 13. Gronovii, 1672. So also Manilius. Vinctorum dominus, sociusque in parte catenæ, Interdum pænis innoxia corpora servat.-Lib. V. v. 628, 629. 2 In like manner the brave but unfortunate Eumenes addressed a very pathetic speech to his army, with his fetters on. Plutarch, Eumenes. Justin, lib. xiv. cap. 3. Prolatam, sicut erat catenatus, manum ostendit. Justin, lib. xiv. cap.3. p. 395. Gronovii. Opus tessellatum ex parvulis coloris varii lapillis quadratis constabat, quibus solum pavimenti incrustabatur. Varro de re rustica, lib. iii. 1. VI. As the Romans allowed the inhabitants of conquered countries to retain their local tribunals, we find incidental mention made in the New Testament of provincial courts of justice. Two of these are of sufficient importance to claim a distinct notice in this place; viz. 1. The Areopagus, at Athens; and, 2. The Assembly, at Ephesus. 1. The tribunal of the AREOPAGUS is said to have been instituted at Athens, by Cecrops the founder of that city, and was celebrated for the strict equity of its decisions. Among the various causes of which it took cognizance, were matters of religion, the consecration of new gods, erection of temples and altars, and the introduction of new ceremonies into divine worship. On this account St. Paul was brought before the tribunal of Areopagus as a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto the Athenians, Jesus and Avora, or the Resurrection. (Acts xvii. 18.) Its sittings were held on the Apacs Пayos, or Hill of Mars (whence its name was derived), which is situated in the midst of the city of Athens, opposite to the Acropolis or citadel, and is an insulated precipitous rock, broken towards the south, and on the north side sloping gently down to the temple of Thesus. Lithostrota acceptavere sub Sylla. Plinii Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvi. p. 60. In expeditionibus tessella at sectilia pavimenta circumtulisse. Sueto nius vita J. Cæsaris. cap. 46. p. 74. edit. variorum Lug. Bat. 1662. Vid. etiam not. Salmasii in loc. See Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion Cassius. Philo makes the very same remark concerning Pilate, p. 390. edit. Mangey. 1. IDOLATRY, that is, the worship of other gods, in the Mosaic law occupies the first place in the list of crimes. It was, indeed, a crime not merely against God, but also against a fundamental law of the state, and, consequently, was a species of high-treason, which was capitally punished. This crime consisted not in ideas and opinions, but in the overt act of worshipping other gods. An Israelite, therefore, was guilty of idolatry :— Its appearance is thus described by Dr. E. D. Clarke :-" It is not possible to conceive a situation of greater peril, or one more calculated to prove the sincerity of a preacher, than that in which the apostle was here placed: and the truth of this, perhaps, will never be better felt than by a spectator, who from this eminence actually beholds the monuments of pagan pomp and superstition, by which he, whom the Athenians considered as the setter forth of strange gods, was then surrounded: representing to the imagination the disciples of (1.) When he actually worshipped other gods besides Socrates and of Plato, the dogmatist of the porch, and the JEHOVAH, the only true God. This was, properly speaking, sceptic of the academy, addressed by a poor and lowly man, the state crime just noticed; and it is, at the same time, the who, rude in speech, without the enticing words of man's wis- greatest of all offences against sound reason and common dom, enjoined precepts contrary to their taste, and very hostile sense. This crime was prohibited in the first of the ten to their prejudices. One of the peculiar privileges of the commandments. (Exod. xx. 3.) Areopagita seems to have been set at defiance by the zeal of (2.) By worshipping images, whether of the true God Saint Paul on this occasion; namely, that of inflicting ex-under a visible form, to which the Israelites were but too treme and exemplary punishment upon any person, who prone (Exod. xxxii. 4, 5. Judg. xvii. 3. xviii. 4—6. 14—17. should slight the celebration of the holy mysteries, or blas- 30, 31. vi. 25-33. viii. 24-27. 1 Kings xii. 26-31.), or pheme the gods of Greece. We ascended to the summit by | of the images of the gods of the Gentiles, of which we have means of steps cut in the natural stone. The sublime scene so many instances in the sacred history. All image-worship here exhibited, is so striking, that a brief description of it | whatever is expressly forbidden in Exod. xx. 4, 5.: and a may prove how truly it offers to us a commentary upon the curse is denounced against it in Deut. xxvii. 15. apostle's words, as they were delivered upon the spot. He stood upon the top of the rock, and beneath the canopy of heaven. Before him there was spread a glorious prospect of mountains, islands, seas, and skies: behind him towered the lofty Acropolis, crowned with all its marble temples. Thus every object, whether in the face of nature, or among the works of art, conspired to elevate the mind, and to fill it with reverence towards that BEING, who made and governs the world (Acts xvii. 24. 28.); who sitteth in that light which no mortal eye can approach, and yet is nigh unto the meanest of his creatures; in whom we live and move and have our being." 2. The ASSEMBLY mentioned in Acts xix. 39. is, most probably, that belonging to the district of Ephesus, Asia Minor being divided into several districts, each of which had its appropriate legal assembly. Some of these are referred to by Cicero, and many others are mentioned by Pliny, particularly this of Ephesus. The гpaμuaras or chief officer says, that if Demetrius had any claim of property to make, there were civil courts in which he might sue: if he had crimes to object to any person, the proconsul was there, to take cognizance of the charge: but, if he had complaints of a political nature to prefer, or had any thing to say which might redound to the honour of their goddess, there was the usual legal assembly of the district belonging to Ephesus, in which it ought to be proposed. The regular periods of such assemblies, it appears, were three or four times a month; although they were convoked extraordinarily for the despatch of any pressing business.4 SECTION III.5 ON THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE JEWS. 6 (3.) By prostration before, or adoration of, such images, or of any thing else revered as a god, such as the sun, moon, and stars. (Exod. xx. 5. xxxiv. 14. Deut. iv. 19.) This prostration consisted in falling down on the knees, and at the same time touching the ground with the forehead. (4.) By having altars or groves dedicated to idols, or images thereof; all which the Mosaic law required to be utterly destroyed (Exod. xxxiv. 13. Deut. vii. 5. xii. 3.); and the Israelites were prohibited, by Deut. vii. 25, 26., from keeping, or even bringing into their houses, the gold and silver that had been upon any image, lest it should prove u snare, and lead them astray: because, having been once consecrated to an idol-god (considering the then prevalent superstition as to the reality of such deities), some idea of its sanctity, or some dread of it, might still have continued, and have thus been the means of propagating idolatry afresh among their children. (5.) By offering sacrifices to idols, which was expressly forbidden in Lev. xvii. 1-7., especially human victims, the sacrifices of which (it is well known), prevailed to a frightful extent. Parents immolated their offspring: this horrid practice was introduced among the Israelites, from the Canaanites, and is repeatedly reprobated by the prophets in the most pointed manner. The offering of human victims was prohibited in Lev. xviii. 21. compared with 2, 3. 24— 30. xx. 1-5. Deut. xii. 30. and xviii. 10. (6.) By eating of offerings made to idols, made by other people, who invited them to their offering-feasts. Though no special law was enacted against thus attending the festivals of their gods, it is evidently presupposed as unlawful in Exod. xxxiv. 15. Idolatry was punished by stoning the guilty individual. When a whole city became guilty of idolatry, it was con sidered in a state of rebellion against the government, and was treated according to the laws of war. Its inhabitants and all their cattle were put to death; no spoil was made, L CRIMES AGAINST GOD-1. Idolatry.-2. Blasphemy.-3. but every thing which it contained was burnt, together with Falsely prophesying.—4. Divination.—5. Perjury.-II. the city itself; nor was it ever allowed to be rebuilt. (Deut. CRIMES AGAINST PARENTS AND MAGISTRATES.-III. CRIMES xiii. 13-18.) This law does not appear to have been parAGAINST PROPERTY :-1. Theft.-2. Man-stealing.-3. The ticularly enforced; the Israelites (from their proneness to crime of denying any thing taken in trust, or found.-adopt the then almost universally prevalent polytheism) in 4. Regulations concerning debtors.-IV. CRIMES AGAINST most cases overlooked the crime of a city that became notoTHE PERSON:-1. Murder.-2. Homicide.-3. Corporal in- riously idolatrous; whence it happened, that idolatry was juries.-4. Crimes of lust.-V. CRIMES OF MALICE. not confined to any one city, but soon overspread the whole nation. In this case, when the people, as a people, brought guilt upon themselves by their idolatry, God reserved to himself the infliction of the punishments denounced against that national crime; which consisted in wars, famines, and other national judgments, and (when the measure of their iniquity was completed) in the destruction of their polity, and the transportation of the people as slaves into other lands. (Lev. xxvi. Deut. xxviii. xxix. xxxii.) For the crime of seducing others to the worship of strange gods, but more especially where a pretended prophet (who might often naturally anticipate what would come to pass) uttered predictions tending to lead the people into idolatry, the appointed order to prevent the barbarous immolation of infants, Moses punishment was stoning to death. (Deut. xiii. 2—12.) In denounced the punishment of stoning upon those who offered human sacrifices; which the bystanders might instantly execute upon the delinquent when caught in the act, without any judicíal inquiry whatever. (Lev. xx. 2.) I. IT has been shown in a preceding chapter, that the maintenance of the worship of the only true God was a fundamental object of the Mosaic polity. The government of the Israelites being a Theocracy, that is, one in which the supreme legislative power was vested in the Almighty, who was regarded as their king, it was to be expected that, in a state confessedly religious, crimes against the Supreme Majesty of Jehovah should occupy a primary place in the statutes given by Moses to that people. Accordingly, * Dr. Clarke's Travels, vol. vi. pp. 263–265. See also Mr. Dodwell's Clas sical and Topographical Tour through Greece, vol. i. pp. 361, 362. * Cicero, Epist. ad Atticum, lib. v. ep. 20. Antiqua, vol. ii. p. 127. p. 657. Pliny, Hist. Nat. lib. v. cc. 25. 29. 32, 33. See also Cellarii Geographia his name, 2. God being both the sovereign and the legislator of the Israelites, BLASPHEMY (that is, the speaking injuriously of h's attributes, his government, and his revelation) was not only a crime against Him, but also against the state; it was, therefore, punished capitally by stoning. (Lev. xxiv. 10-14.) 3. It appears from Deut. xviii. 20-22. that a FALSE PROPHET was punished capitally, being stoned to death; and there were two cases in which a person was held as convicted of the crime, and consequently liable to its punishment, viz. (1.) If he had prophesied any thing in the name of any other god,—whether it took place or not, he was at all events considered as a false prophet, and, as such, stoned to death. (Deut. xiii. 2—6.)—(2.) If a prophet spoke in the name of the true God, he was tolerated, so long as he remained unconvicted of imposture, even though he threatened calamity or destruction to the state, and he could not be punished: but when the event which he had predicted did not come to pass, he was regarded as an audacious impostor, and, as such, was stoned. (Deut. xviii. 21, 22.) 4. DIVINATION is the conjecturing of future events from things which are supposed to presage them. The eastern people were always fond of divination, magic, the curious arts of interpreting dreams, and of obtaining a knowledge of future events. When Moses gave the law which bears his name to the Israelites, this disposition had long been common in Egypt and the neighbouring countries. Now, all these vain arts in order to pry into futurity, and all divination whatever, unless God was consulted by prophets, or by Urim and Thummim (the sacred lot kept by the high-priest), were expressly prohibited by the statutes of Lev. xix. 26. 31. xx. 6. 23. 27. and Deut. xviii. 9-12. In the case of a person transgressing these laws, by consulting a diviner, God reserved to himself the infliction of his punishment; the transgressor not being amenable to the secular magistrate. (Lev. xx. 6.) The diviner himself was to be stoned. (Lev. xx. 27.) only remarked, that it abrogated the fifth commandment, but he likewise added, as a counter-doctrine, that Moses, their own legislator, had expressly declared, that the man who cursed futher or mother deserved to die. Now, it is impossible for a man to curse his parents more effectually, than by a vow like this, when he interprets it with such rigour, as to preclude him from doing any thing in future for their benefit. It is not imprecating upon them a curse in the common style of curses, which evaporate into air; but it is fulfilling the curse, and making it to all intents and purposes effectual.”ı Of the two crimes above noticed, the act of striking a parent evinces the most depraved and wicked disposition: and severe as the punishment was, few parents would apply to a magistrate, until all methods had been tried in vain. Both these crimes are included in the case of the stubborn, rebellious, and drunkard son; whom his parents were unable to keep in order, and who, when intoxicated, endangered the lives of others. Such an irreclaimable offender was to be punished with stoning. (Deut. xxi. 18-21.) Severe as this law may seem, we have no instance recorded of its being carried into effect; but it must have had a most salutary operation in the prevention of crimes, in a climate like that of Palestine, where (as in all southern climates) liquor produces more formidable effects than with us, and where also it is most probable that at that time, the people had not the same efficacious means which we possess, of securing drunkards, and preventing them from doing mischief. 2. Civil government being an ordinance of God, provision is made in all well regulated states for respecting the persons of MAGISTRATES. We have seen in a former chapter,2 that when the regal government was established among the Israelites, the person of the king was inviolable, even though he might be tyrannical and unjust. It is indispensably necessary to the due execution of justice that the persons of magistrates be sacred, and that they should not be insulted in the discharge of their office. All reproachful words or curses, uttered against persons invested with authority, are prohibited in Exod. xxii. 28. No punishment, however, is specified; probably it was left to the discretion of the judge, and was different according to the rank of the magistrate and the III. The CRIMES or offences AGAINST PROPERTY, mentioned by Moses, are theft, man-stealing, and the denial of any thing taken in trust, or found. 5. PERJURY is, by the Mosaic law, most peremptorily prohibited as a most heinous sin against God; to whoin the punishment of it is left, and who in Exod. xx. 7. expressly promises that he will inflict it, without ordaining the inflic-extent of the crime. tion of any punishment by the temporal magistrate; except only in the case of a man falsely charging another with a crime, in which case the false witness was liable to the same punishment which would have been inflicted on the accused party if he had been found to have been really guilty (as is shown in p. 64. infra); not indeed as the punishment of perjury against God, but of false witness. II. CRIMES AGAINST PARENTS and MAGISTRATES constitute an important article of the criminal law of the Hebrews. 1. In the form of government among that people, we recognise much of the patriarchal spirit; in consequence of which fathers enjoyed great rights over their families. The CURSING OF PARENTS, that is, not only the imprecation of evil on them, but probably also all rude and reproachful language towards them, was punished with death (Exod. xxi, 17. Lev. xx. 9.); as likewise was the striking of them. (Exod. xxi. 15.) An example of the crime of cursing of a parent, which is fully in point, is given by Jesus Christ in Matt. xv. 4-6. or Mark vii. 9-12.; "where he upbraids the Pharisees with their giving, from their deference to human traditions and doctrines, such an exposition of the divine law, as converted an action, which, by the law of Moses, would have been punished with death, into a vow, both obligatory and acceptable in the sight of God. It seems, that it was then not uncommon for an undutiful and degenerate son, who wanted to be rid of the burden of supporting his parents, and in his wrath, to turn them adrift upon the wide world, to say to his father or mother, Korban, or, Be that Corban (consecrated) which I should appropriate to thy support; that is, Every thing wherewith I might ever aid or serve thee, and, of course, every thing, which I ought to devote to thy relief in the days of helpless old age, I here vow unto God.-A most abominable vow, indeed! and which God would, unquestionably, as little approve or accept, as he would a vow to commit adultery. And yet some of the Pharisees pronounced on such vows this strange decision; that they were absolutely obligatory, and that the son, who uttered such words, was bound to abstain from contributing, in the smallest article, to the use of his parents, because every thing, that should have been so appropriated, had become consecrated to God, and could no longer be applied to their use, without sacrilege and a breach of his vow. But on this exposition, Christ not | 1. On the crime of THEFT, Moses imposed the punishment of double (and in certain cases still higher) restitution; and if the thief were unable to make it (which, however, could rarely happen, as every Israelite by law had his paternal field, the crops of which might be attached), he was ordered to be sold for a slave, and payment was to be made to the injured party out of the purchase-money. (Exod. xxii. 1. 3.) The same practice obtains, according to Chardin, among the Persians. The wisdom of this regulation is much greater than the generality of mankind are aware of: for, as the desire of gain and the love of luxuries are the prevalent inducements to theft, restitution, varied according to circumstances, would effectually prevent the unlawful gratification of that desire, while the idle man would be deterred from stealing by the dread of slavery, in which he would be compelled to work by the power of blows. If, however, a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed (Exod. xxii. 2.), but not if the sun had arisen, in which case he might be known and apprehended, and the restitution made which was enjoined by Moses. When stolen oxen or sheep were found in the possession of a thief, he was to make a two-fold restitution to the owner, who thus obtained a profit for his risk of loss. (Exod. xxii. 4.) The punishment was applicable to every case in which the article stolen remained unaltered in his possession. But if it was already alienated or slaughtered, the criminal was to restore four-fold for a sheep, and five-fold for an ox (Exod. xxii. 1), in consequence of its great value and indispensable utility in agriculture, to the Israelites, who had no horses. In the time of Solomon, when property had become more valuable from the increase of commerce, the punishment of restitution was increased to seven-fold. (Prov. vi. 30, 31.) When a thief had nothing to pay, he was sold as a slave (Exod. xxii. 3.), probably for as many years as were necessary for the extinction of the debt, and of course, perhaps, for life; though in other cases the Hebrew servant could be made to serve only for six years. If, however, a thief, after having denied, even upon oath, any theft, with which he was charged, had the honesty or con1 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 300. See p. 44. supra. 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 mortgage, 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-guiltiness, 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 (2.) When a mill or mill-stone, or an upper garment, was it in his power to obtain restitution; or, at any rate, the thief, given as a pledge, it was not to be kept all night. These if he could not otherwise make up his loss, might be sold, articles appear to be specified as examples for all other in order to repay him.-(2.) If the Goel or avenger of blood things with which the debtor could not dispense without overtook the innocent homicide before he reached a city of great inconvenience. (Exod. xxii. 26, 27. Deut. xxiv. 6. 12.) refuge, and killed him while his heart was hot, it was consi(3.) The debt which remained unpaid until the seventh ordered as done in justifiable zeal (Deut. xix. 6.); and even sabbatic year (during which the soil was to be left without if he found him without the limits of his asylum, and slew cultivation, and, consequently, a person was not supposed to him, he was not punishable. (Num. xxxv. 26, 27.) The be in a condition to make payments), could not be exacted taking of pecuniary compensation for murder was prohibited; during that period. (Deut. xv. 1-11.) But, at other times, but the mode of punishing murderers was undetermined; and, in case the debt was not paid, the creditor might seize, first, indeed, it appears to have been left in a great degree to the the hereditary land of the debtor, and enjoy its produce until pleasure of the Go 1. An exception, however, was made to the debt was paid, or at least until the year of jubilee; or, the severity of the law in the case of a perfect slave (that is, secondly, his houses. These might be sold in perpetuity, one not of Hebrew descent), whether male or female. Alexcept those belonging to the Levites. (Levit. xxv. 14-32.) though a man had struck any of his slaves, whether male or Thirdly, in case the house or land was not sufficient to cancel female, with a stick, so as to cause their death, unless that the debt, or if it so happened that the debtor had none, the event took place immediately, and under his hand, he was person of the debtor might be sold, together with his wife not punished. If the slave survived one or two days, the and children, if he had any. This is implied in Lev. xxv. master escaped with impunity: it being considered that his 39.; and this custom is alluded to in Job xxiv. 9. It existed death might not have proceeded from the beating, and that it in the time of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 1.); and on the return of was not a master's interest to kill his slaves, because, as the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, some rich persons Moses says (Exod. xxi. 20, 21.), they are his money. If the 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, 1. MURDER claims the first place. As this is a crime of the most heinous nature, Moses has described four accessory eircumstances or marks, by which to distinguish it from simple homicide or manslaughter; viz. (1.) When it proceeds from hatred or enmity. (Num. xxxv. 20, 21. Deut. xix. 11.) -(2.) When it proceeds from thirst of blood, or a desire to Satiate revenge with the blood of another. (Num. xxxv. 20.) 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. 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 was obliged to give her husband such a pecuniary compensation as he might demand, the amount of which, if the offender thought it too high, was to be determined by the decision of arbitrators. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation took its full effect, as stated in Exod. xxi. 22-25.-The law of retaliation also operated, if one man hurt another by either assaulting him openly, or by any insidious attack, whether the parties were both Israelites, or an Israelite and a foreigner. (Lev. xxiv. 19-22.) This equality of the law, however, did not extend to slaves: but if a master knocked out the eye or tooth of a slave, the latter received his freedom as a compensation for the injury he had sustained. (Exod. xxi. 26, 27.) If this noble law did not teach the unmerciful slave-holder humanity, at least it taught him caution; as one rash blow might have deprived him of all right to the future services of his slave, and, consequently, self-interest would oblige him to be cautious and circumspect. 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. Tuμavioμce, 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 illustrated. 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 with the Chaldæans (Dan. vi. 24.), and also among the kings of Israel (1 Kings xxi. and 2 Kings ix. 26.), on charges of treaOf the punishments mentioned in the sacred writers, some were inflicted by the Jews in common with other nations, and others were peculiar to themselves. They are 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- time of Josephus; and the apostle tells us that he suffered hibited in Exod. xxiii. 1.: though that statute does not it five times. (2 Cor. xi. 24.) In the time of our Saviour it 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 acknowledge his guilt, and the witnesses produced against the case of false testimony against an innocent man, the him as in capital cases, the judges commanded him to be tied 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 thereas 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 deserv- 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 Design of punishments.— Classification of Jewish punishments. directed this scourging to be unusually severe, that the sight I. PUNISHMENTS, NOT CAPITAL.-1. Scourging.-2. Retali- of his lacerated body might move the Jews to compassionate ation.-3. Pecuniary Fines.-4. Offerings in the nature of the prisoner, and desist from opposing his release. This appunishment.-5. Imprisonment.-6. Banishment.-Oriental pears the more probable; as our Saviour was so enfeebled by mode of treating prisoners.-7. Depriving them of sight.- this scourging, that he afterwards had not strength enough 8. Cutting or plucking off the hair.—9. Excommunication. left to enable him to drag his cross to Calvary. Among the -II. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.-1. Slaying with the sword. Jews, the punishment of scourging involved no sort of igno2. Stoning.-3. Burning to death.-4. Decapitation.-5. miny, which could make the sufferer infamous or an object Precipitation.-6. Drowning.—7. Bruising in a mortar.—of reproach to his fellow-citizens. It consisted merely in the physical sense of the pain.s SECTION IV. ON THE PUNISHMENTS MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES.3 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 thein from the neighbouring nations, who seduced them in'o impurity and ido atry, and who might be tolerated in some corrupt periods of their state. The case was the same at Athens, where foreign harlots were tolerated. Hence the term strange women, came to be applied 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. Calinet, 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, Archæologia Biblica, $ 219-255.; 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, • 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 aσтpayaλwλas uxoriyes, flagra tarillata; but in the Scriptures termed scorpions. To these Rehoboam alludes in 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. |