was first introduced among the Romans by Sylla. Their great men were so fond of this magnificence, and thought it so essential to the elegance and splendour of life, that they appear to have carried with them these splendid materials to form and compose these elaborate floors, for their tents, for their houses, and for their tribunals, wherever they removed from a depraved and most wretchedly vitiated taste, at last deeming them a necessary and indispensable furniture, not merely a vain and proud display of grandeur and greatness. With this variegated pavement, composed of pieces of marble or stone thus disposed and combined, the evangelist informs us, that the floor of Pilate's tribunal was ornamented. (John xix. 13.) Such an embellishment of a tribunal was only a proud ostentatious display to the world of Italian greatness and magnificence, calculated less for real use than to strike the beholders with an idea of the boundless prodigality and extravagance of the Romans.

66

attended and guarded him. This manner of confinement is frequently mentioned, and there are many beautiful allusions to it in the Roman writers. Thus was St. Paul confined. Fettered in this manner, he delivered his apology before Festus, king Agrippa, and Bernice. And it was this circumstance that occasioned one of the most pathetic and affecting strokes of true oratory that ever was displayed either in the Grecian or Roman senate. Would to God that not only THOU, but also ALL that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds! What a prodigious effect must this striking conclusion, and the sight of the irons held up to enforce it, make upon the minds of the audience! During the two years that St. Paul was a prisoner at large, and ived at Rome in his own hired house, he was subjected to this confinement. Paul was suffered to dwell with a soldier that kept him. The circumstance of publicly wearing his chain, and being thus coupled to a soldier, was very disgraceful and dishonourable, and the ignominy of it would naturally occa- Having mentioned Pilate the Roman procurator, we cansion the desertion of former friends and acquaintance. Hence not close this section without remarking the efforts he rethe apostle immortalizes the name of Onesiphorus, and fer- peatedly made, when he sat in judgment upon Jesus, to save vently intercedes with God to bless his family, and to re-him from the determined fury of the Jews. Five successive member him in the day of future recompense, for a rare attempts are enumerated by commentators and critics. He instance of distinguished fidelity and affection to him when had the fullest conviction of his innocence that it was merely all had turned away from him and forsaken him. The Lord through malice, and a virulence which nothing could plagive mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, cate, that they demanded his execution. Yet though the and was not ASHAMED of my CHAIN, but immediately upon his governor for a long time resisted all their united clamour and arrival in Rome he sought me out very diligently till he found importunity, and, conscious that he had done nothing worthy me! The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the of death, steadily refused to pronounce the sentence of conLord in that day. (2 Tim. i. 16, 17, 18.) demnation 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 "It further appears, that if the soldiers, who were thus ap- of popular fury no longer to this he yielded, and immediately pointed to guard criminals, and to whom they were chained, ordered his execution. Then delivered he him, therefore, to them suffered the prisoner to escape, they were punished with to be crucified. This conduct of Pilate arose from his perfect death. Thus, when Peter was delivered out of prison by a knowledge of the character and temper of his master Tiberius, miracle, the next morning we read there was no small con- who was a gloomy old tyrant, day and night incessantly haunted fusion among the soldiers who were appointed his guards, with the fiends of jealousy and suspicion-who would never and to whom he had been chained, what was become of forgive any innovations in his government, but punished the Peter. 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 Caesar'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."

"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 Quemadmodum eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat, sic ista quæ tam dissiruilia sunt, pariter incedunt. Senecæ Epist. 5. tom. ii. p. 13. Gronoviì, 1672. So also Manilius.

Vinctorum dominus, sociusque in parte catenæ,

Interdum pænis innoxia corpora servat.-Lib. V. v. 628, 629.

In like manner the brave but unfortunate Eumenes addressed a very pathetic speech to his army, with his fetters on. Plutarch, Eumenes. Jusin, lib. xiv. cap. 3.

Prolatam, sicut erat catenatus, manum ostendit. Justin, lib. xiv. cap.3. D. 393. Gronovii.

Opus tessellatum ex parvulis coloris varii lapillis quadratis constabat, quibus sorum pavimeni incrustabatur. Varro de re rustica, lib. ii. 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 Avarok, or the Resurrection. (Acts xvii. 18.) Its sittings were held on the Apes Hayes, 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 insula, ed 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. Suetonius 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.

:

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 preve 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 Socrates and of Plato, the dogmatist of the porch, and the sceptic of the academy, addressed by a poor and lowly man, who, rude in speech, without the enticing words of man's wisdom, enjoined precepts contrary to their taste, and very hostile to their prejudices. One of the peculiar privileges of the Areopagite seems to have been set at defiance by the zeal of Saint Paul on this occasion; namely, that of inflicting extreme and exemplary punishment upon any person, who should slight the celebration of the holy mysteries, or blaspheme the gods of Greece. We ascended to the summit by means of steps cut in the natural stone. The sublime scene here exhibited, is so striking, that a brief description of it may prove how truly it offers to us a commentary upon the 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,2 and many others are mentioned by Pliny,3 particularly this of Ephesus. The pμrs or chief officer says, that if Demetrius had any claim of property to make, there were civil ccarts 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."

SECTION III.5

ON THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE JEWS.

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 3 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 :

(1.) When he actually worshipped other gods besides JEHOVAH, the only true God. This was, properly speaking, the state crime just noticed; and it is, at the same time, the greatest of all offences against sound reason and commor. sense. This crime was prohibited in the first of the ten commandments. (Exod. xx. 3.)

(2.) By worshipping images, whether of the true God under a visible form, to which the Israelites were but too prone (Exod. xxxii. 4, 5. Judg. xvii. 3. xviii. 4-6. 14-17. 30, 31. vi. 25-33. viii. 24-27. 1 Kings xii. 26-31.), or of the images of the gods of the Gentiles, of which we have so many instances in the sacred history. All image worship whatever is expressly forbidden in Exod. xx. 4, 5.: and a curse is denounced against it in Deut. xxvii. 15.

(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 for bidden 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. 2430. 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 considered 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. I. 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. ČRIMES 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 polytheisin) 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—19.) 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 judicial 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,

1 Dr. Clarke's Travels, vol. vi. pp. 263-265. See also Mr. Dodwell's Clas

sica! and Topographical Tour through Greece, vol. i. pp. 361, 362. * Cicero, Epist. ad Atticum, lib. v. ep. 20.

Antiqua, vel. ii. p. 127.

Pliny, Hist. Nat. lib. v. cc. 25. 29. 32, 33. See also Cellarii Geographia Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. p. 312., and Bloomfield's Annotations, vol. iv. This section is wholly an abridgment of Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. lv. pp. 1-312.

p. 657.

See p. 41. supra.

2. God being both the sovereign and the legislator of the Israelites, BLASPHEMY (that is, the speaking injuriously of his name, his 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 impossi ble 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." 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, rebel lious, 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, tha 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 prohi5. PERJURY is, by the Mosaic law, most peremptorily pro-bited in Exod. xxii. 28. No punishment, however, is specihibited as a most heinous sin against God; to whoin the fied; probably it was left to the discretion of the judge, and punishment of it is left, and who in Exod. xx. 7. expressly was different according to the rank of the magistrate and the promises that he will inflict it, without ordaining the inflic-extent of the crime.

tion of any punishment by the temporal magistrate; except III. The CRIMES or offences AGAINST PROPERTY, mentioned only in the case of a man falsely charging another with a by Moses, are theft, man-stealing, and the denial of any thing crime, in which case the false witness was liable to the same taken in trust, or found. 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 rately 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 restere 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 conSee p. H. anfra

1 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iv. D. 300,

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. Tuμravopce, or beat ing to death.-10. Exposing to wild beasts.—11. Crucifixion −(1.) Prevalence of this mode of punishment among the an cients. (2.) Ignominy of crucifixion.—(3.) The circum stances 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 chilaren 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 na tions, and others were peculiar to themselves. They are usually divided into two classes, non-capital and capital. 1. The NON-CAPITAL or inferior PUNISHMENTS, which were the Mosaic law more admirably displayed, than in the rigour Mosaic law was ScoURGING. (Lev. xix. 20. Deut. xxii. 18. V. In nothing, however, were the wisdom and equity of inflicted for smaller offences, are eight in number; viz. 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, afecting 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. should suffer more than forty stripes for any crime, though a A similar law was 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 prisons, and desist from opposing his release. This appears the more probable; as our Saviour was so enfeebled by this scourging, t.at he afterwards had not strength enough left to enable him to drag his cross to Calvary. Among the Jews, the punish nent of scourging involved no sort of ignominy, which cous I make the sufferer infamous or an object of reproach to his fellow-citizens. It consisted merely in the physical sense of he pain.8

SECTION IV.

ON THE PUNISHMENTS MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES.3

Design of punishments.— Classification of Jewish punishments. -I. PUNISHMENTS, NOT CAPITAL.-1. Scourging.-2. Retaliation.-3. Pecuniary Fines.-4. Offerings in the nature of punishment.-5. Imprisonment.—6. Banishment.—Oriental mode of treating prisoners.—7. Depriving them of sight.— 8. Cutting or plucking off the hair.-9. Excommunication. -II. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.-1. Slaying with the sword. 2. Stoning.-3. Burning to death.-4. Decapitation.-5. Precipitation.-6. Drowning.-7. Bruising in a mortar.

As the Jewish law inflicted such heavy punishments on those who comnitted 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 corrupt periods of their state. The case was the same at Athens, where foreign

harlo's were folerated. 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, poanisque capitalibus Hebræorum, in Pott's and Ruperti's Sylloge Commen. tationum, vol. iv. pp. 177-239.; Jahn, Archæologia Biblica, §§ 219-255.; Ackermann, Archeologia 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. It appears, however, to have been rarely, if ever,

24.)

Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 371. vol. iii. pp. 404. 400-402.
Ant. Jud. lib. iv. c. 1. § 11.

In inflicting the pushment of whipping, the Jews somethines, for noto-
rious offences, tied shap bones, pieces of lead, or thorns to the end of the
thongs, called by the reeks apagadw has μnoriy25, flagra taxillata
but in the Scriptures ermed scorpions. To these Rehoboam alludes
1 Kings xii. 11.-Burd. 's Oriental Literature, vol. i. p. 414.
Cited by Dr. Ligh Joot, Works, vol. i. p. 901. folio edit.
Michaelis's Coins.entaries, vol. iii. pp. 444-448.