strictly put in execution: but the injurious party was to give the injured person satisfaction. In this sense the rara among the Greeks, and the Lex Tulionis among the Romans, 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, way (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, 34.)-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 0 (KopheR), that is, Compensation or D 170 (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: (1.) For every unintentional trangression of the Levitical law, even if it was a sin of commission (for in the Mosaic doctrine concerning sin and trespass offerings, all transgressions are divided into sins of commission, and sins of omission), a sin-offering was to be made, and thereupon the legal punishment was remitted, which, in the case of wilful transgression, was nothing less than extirpation. (Lev. iv. 2. v. 1. 4--7). (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.) (3.) Whoever had, as a witness, been guilty of perjurynot, however, to impeach an innocent man (for in that case the lex 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 aad not conscientiously paid his tithes, had his crime can 1 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. ii. pp. 365–367. 477, 478. celled by making a trespass-offering, and making up his deficiencies with twenty per cent. over and above. (Lev. v 14, 15.) (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 otherwise have had to make restitution from two to fire 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.1 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.) ; 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 Tapes Anjos, 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.)6 In the prisons also were Stocks, for detaining the person of the prisoner more securely. (Job xiii. 27. xxxiii. 11.)' Michaelis conjectures that they were of the sort by the Greeks called Tupy, wherein the prisoner was so confined, that his body was kept in an unnatural position, which must have proved a torture truly insupportable. The Eorp Duan, or Inner Prison, into which Paul and Silas were thrust at Philippi, is supposed to have been the same as the pit or cistern above noticed; and here their feet were made fast in the wooden stocks (Acts xvi. 24), Evacy. 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 prisoners, but sometimes distended them in a very painful manner. Hence the situation of Paul and Silas would be 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. 84, 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. Blay ney'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 of their hair; sometimes hot ashes were applied to the skin after the hair was torn off, in order to render the pain more exqui sitely acute. In the spurious book, commonly terraed 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. Harmer's Observations, vol. iii. pp. 504, 505. Dr. Adam's Roman Antiquities, pp. 66, 67. ♦ In 1820, Mr. Rae Wilson inet, at Acre, with numerous individuals, who exhibited marks of the vengeance of the late pacha Hadjee Acimet, from his sanguinary cruelties fitly surnamed Djezzar, or the Butcher. They were disfigured in various ways, by a hand amputatal, 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 governinent. (Missionary Register, July, 1847, 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, Or EXCOMMUNICA TON, was not only an ecclesiastical punishment, but also a civil one; because in this theocratic republic there was r distinction between the divine and the civil right. The farcies of the Rabbins, relative to the origin of excommunica tion, 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 excommunica tion 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 excommunication was termed (SHам-ATHA) or N (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.6 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 equiva lent 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 (Rɔm. 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 repentaace 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 A-oσurzy yo. Jahn, Archeologia Biblica, § 258. Ackermann, Archæol. Bibl. § 252 Encyclopa dia Metropolitana, vol. xxi. p 703. Grotius's Note, or rather Dissertation, on Luke vi. 22. Lightfoot' Works, vol. ii. pp. 747-749. Selden, de Jure Nature et Gentium, lih iv c 18. Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus vel pp 279–284 xxi. 22.); which niode of expression is adopted, or rather | some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the Gol was imitated, by the apostle John, who distinguishes between a in use before the time of Moses, and it was probably filled by sin 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 logy 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 Go'l 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 Goel, 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 perpetratior of murder, Moses positively prohibited the receiving of a sun 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 * (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 n Arabia and Persia, and also among the Circassians,3 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 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. pp. 418, 419. "The interest of the common safety has, for ages, established a law among them" (the Arabians) "which decrees that the blood of every man, who is slain, must be avenged by that of his murderer. This vengeance is called far, or retaliation; and the right of exacting it devolves on the nearest of kin to the deceased. So nice are the Arabs on this point of honour, 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 from any other cause, still he is not satisfied, and his vengeance is directed against the nearest relation. These animosities are transmitted, as an 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. chase the blood for a stated price, in money or in flocks. Without this satisfaction there is neither peace, nor truce, nor alliance between them; nor, sometimes, even between whole tribes. There is blood between us, say 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 inatter for money, nothing inore 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 considered 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 called 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 Gou vernemens Méridionaux de l'Empue de Russie, tom. 1. p. 441. Paris, 1805. • Dr. Henderson, in describing the operation of the oriental law, of "blood for bleed" among the Ingush Tartars, mentions the case of a young the constant dread in which he lived, of having avenged upon him a murman of amiaule disposition, who was worn down almost to a skeleton, by der 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. Balt's Voyage to Abyssinia, pp. 315, 346. 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.8 2. STONING was denounced against idolaters, blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, incestuous persons, witches, wizards, and children who either cursed their parents or rebelled against them. (Lev. xx. 2. 27. xxiv. 14. Deut. xiii. 10. xvii. 5. xxi. 21. and xxii. 21. 24.) It was the most general punishment denounced in the law against notorious criminals; and this kind of punishment is intended by the indefinite term of putting to death. (Lev. xx. 10. compared with John viii. 5.) Michaelis supposes that the culprit was bound, previously to the execution of his sentence. The witnesses threw the first stones, and the rest of the people then followed their example. Instances of persons being stoned in the Old Testament occur in Achan (Josh. vii. 25.), Adoram (1 Kings xii. 18), Naboth (1 Kings xxi. 10.), and Zechariah. (2 Chron. xxiv. 21.)9 In the New Testament we meet with vestiges of a punish ment, 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 Antioch and Iconium: and it appears from various passages stoned Paul at the instigation of the Jews who came from 1 Michaelis' Commentaries, vol. ii. pp. 221-225. • Bruce's Travels, vol. iv. p. 81. Harmer's Ot servations, 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. 6. DROWNING was a punishment in use among the Syrians. and was well known to the Jews in the time of our Saviour, though we have no evidence that it was practised by them. It was also in use among the Greeks and Romans. The Emperor Augustus, we are told, punished certain persons. who had been guilty of rapacity in the province (cf Syria or of Lycia), by causing them to be thrown into a river, with a heavy weight about their necks. Josephus also tells us that the Galileans revolting, drowned the partisans of Hered in the sea of Gennesareth. To this mode of capital punishment Jesus Christ alludes in Matt. xviii. 6.11 7. BRUISING, or POUNDING IN A MORTAR, is a punishment still in use among the Turks. The ulema or body of lawyers are in Turkey exempted fron. confiscation of their property, and from being put to death, except by the pestle and mortar. Some of the Turkish guards, who had permitted the escape of the Polish prince Coreski in 1618, were pounded to death in great mortars of iron.2 This horrid punishment was not unknown in the time of Solomon, who expressly alludes to it in Prov. xxvii. 22. of Greek authors, that stoning was a Grecian punishment. | factors from the Tarpeian rock. The same practice obtaina The inconstancy of a populace, easily persuaded by any among the Moors at Constantine, a town in Barbary.8 plausible demagogues, will sufficiently account for the sudden change in the mind of the Lystrians towards the apostle.' Although the law of Moses punished no one with infamy, during life, yet three marks of infamy are denounced against those who were punished capitally; viz.—(1.) Burning the criminal who had been stoned, agreeably to the ancient consuetudinary law. (Gen. xxxviii. 24. Lev. xx. 14. xxi. 9.)(2.) Hanging, either on a tree or on a gibbet (for the Hebrew word signifies both); which was practised in Egypt (Gen. xl. 17-19.), and also enjoined by Moses. (Num. xxv. 4, 5. Deut. xxi. 22.) The five Canaanitish kings were first slain and then hanged. (Josh. x. 26.) Persons who were hanged were considered as accursed of God, that is, punished by him and abominable; on which account they were to be taken down and buried the same day. (Deut. xxi. 23.) The hanging of Saul's sons, recorded in 2 Sam. xxi. 6., was done, not by the Israelites, but by the Gibeonites, who were of Canaanitish origin, and probably retained their old laws. The hanging mentioned by Moses was widely different from crucifixion, which was a Roman punishment; on account of its ignominy, nowever, the Jews subsequently extended the declaration of Moses to it, and accounted the crucified person as accursed. (John xix. 31-34. Gal. iu. 13.)-(3.) The Heaping of Stones on the bodies of criminals, who had been already stoned to death, or slain by the sword, or upon their remains, when consumed by fire.2 Such a heap was accumulated over Achan (Josh. vii. 25, 26.), and also over Absalom. (2 Sam. xviii. 17.) The Arabs, long after the time of David, expressed their detestation of deceased enemies in the same manner. Similar heaps were raised over persons murdered in the highways in the time of the prophet Ezekiel (xxxix. 15.); as they also are to this day, in Palestine, and other parts of the East.1 3. BURNING OFFENDERS ALIVE is a punishment which Moses commanded to be inflicted on the daughters of priests, who should be guilty of fornication (Lev. xxi. 9.), and upon a man who should marry both the mother and the daughter. (Lev. xx. 14.) This punishment seems to have been in use in the East, from a very early period. When Judah was informed that his daughter-in-law Tamar was pregnant, he condemned her to be burnt. (Gen. xxxviii. 24.) Many ages afterwards we find the Babylonians or Chaldeans burning certain offenders alive (Jer. xxix. 22. Dan. iii. 6.); and this mode of punishment was not uncommon in the East so lately as the seventeenth century. 5 The preceding are the only capital punishments denounced in the Mosaic law in subsequent times others were introduced among the Jews, as their intercourse increased with foreign nations. 8. DICHOTOMY, or CUTTING ASUNDER, was a capital punishment anciently in use in the countries contiguous to Judæa. The rabbinical writers report that Isaiah was thus put to death by the profligate Manasseh; and to this Saint Paul is supposed to allude. (Heb. xi. 37.) Nebuchadnezzar threatened it to the Chaldee magi, if they did not interpret his dream (Dan. ii. 5.), and also to the blasphemers of the true God. (Dan. iii. 29.) Herodotus says, that Sabacho had a vision, in which he was commanded to cut in two all the Egyptian priests: and that Xerxes ordered one of the sons of Pythias to be cut in two, and one half placed on each side of the way, that his army might pass between them.13 Trajan is said to have inflicted this punishment on some rebellious Jews. It is still practised by the Moors of Western Barbary, and also in Persia.14 9. BEATING TO DEATH (Tuaμs) was practised by Antiochus towards the Jews (2 Macc. vi. 19. 28. 30.), and is referred to by Saint Paul. (Heb. xi. 35. Gr.) This was a punishment in use among the Greeks, and was usually inflicted upon slaves. The real or supposed culprit was fastened to a stake, and beaten to death with sticks. The same punishment is still in use among the Turks, under the appellation of the bastinado: with them, however, it is seldom mortal. 10. EXPOSING TO WILD BEASTS appears to have been a punishment among the Medes and Persians. It was inflicted first on the exemplary prophet Daniel, who was miraculously preserved, and afterwards on his accusers, who miserably perished. (Dan. vi. 7. 12. 16-24.) From them it appears to have passed to the Romans.15 In their theatres they had two sorts of amusements, each sufficiently barbarous. Sometimes they cast men naked to the wild beasts, to be devoured by them: this punishment was inflicted on slaves and vile persons. Sometimes persons were sent into the theatre, de-armed, to fight with wild beasts: if they conquered, they had their lives and liberty: but if not, they fell a prey to the beasts. To this latter usage (concerning which some further particulars are given in a subsequent page) Saint Paul refers in 2 Tim. iv. 17. and 1 Cor. xv. 32. 4. DECAPITATION, or beheading, though not a mode of punishment enjoined by Moses, was certainly in use before his time. It existed in Egypt (Gen. xl. 19.), and it is well known to have been inflicted under the princes of the Herodian family. Thus John the Baptist was beheaded (Matt. xiv. 8-12.) by one of Herod's life-guards, who was spatched to his prison for that purpose. (Mark vi. 27.) 5. PRECIPITATION, or casting headlong from a window, or from a precipice, was a punishment rarely used; though we meet with it in the history of the kings, and in subsequent times. Thus, the profligate Jezebel was precipitated out of a window (2 Kings ix. 30. 33.), and the same mode of punish-flicting upon them the sentence to which they had been conment still obtains in Persia. Amaziah, king of Judah, barbarously forced ten thousand Idumæan prisoners of war to leap from the top of a high rock. (2 Chron. xxv. 12.) The Jews attempted to precipitate Jesus Christ from the brow of a mountain. (Luke iv. 29.) James, surnamed the Just, was thrown from the highest part of the temple into the subjacent valley. The same mode of punishment, it is well known, obtained among the Romans, who used to throw certain male Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 315, 316. Michaelis has given some instances of this practice. See his Commenaries, vol. iii. p. 430. a Dr Lightfoot's Works, vol. i. pp. 901, 902. Dr. Shaw's Travels in Barbary, vol. i. Pref. p. xviii. 8vo. edit. Chardin, in his Travels (vol. vi. p. 118. of Langles' edition), after speaking of the most common modes of punishing with death, says, "But there is still a particular way of putting to death such as have transgressed in civil affairs, either by causing a dearth, or by selling above the tax by a false weight, or who have committed themselves in any other manner. The cooks are put upon a spit, and roasted over a slow fire (see Jeremiah xxix. 22.), bakers are thrown into a hot oven. During the dearth in 1688, I saw such ovens heated on the royal square at Ispahan, to terrify the akers, and deter them from deriving advantage from the general distress." --Burder's Oriental Literature, vol. ii. p. 204. Sir R. K. Porter's Travels in Persia, vol. ii. pp. 25-30. In the case of certain extraordinary criminals, besides indemned, it was not unusual to demolish their houses, and reduce them to a common place for filth and dung. Among other things, Nebuchadnezzar denounced this disgrace to the diviners of Chaldæa, if they did not declare his dream to him (Dan. ii. 5.); and afterwards to all such as should not worship the God of Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. (Dan. iii. 29.) And Darius threatened the same punishment to those who should molest the Jews. (Ezra vi. 11.) In this way the Romans destroyed the house of Spurius Cassius, after they had precipitated him from the Tarpeian 19 Knolles's History of the Turks, vol. ii. p. 947. London, 1687. Raphelii Annotationes in Nov. Test. ex Herodoto, tom. i. p. 376. Other instances from ancient writers are given by Dr. Whitby, on Matt. xxiv. 51. and Kuinoël, Comment. in Hist. Lib. Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 633. 14 Shaw's Travels, vol. i. p. 457. Morier's Second Journey, p. 96. 15 This barbarous mode of punishment still exists in Morocco. See an interesting extract from Höst's Account of Morocco and Fez, in Burder's Oriental Literature, vol. ii. p. 207 rock, for having (as they said) aimed at tyranny. Further, the heads, hands, and feet of state criminals, were also frequently cut off, and fixed up in the most public places, as a warning to others. This punishment obtains among the Turks, and was inflicted on the sons of Rimmon (who had treacherously murdered Ishbosheth), by command of David: who commanded that the assassins' hands and feet should be hung up over the pool of Hebron, which was probably a place of great resort. Among the ancient Chaldeans, cutting off the nose and ears was a common punishment of adulterers. To this the prophet Ezekiel alludes. (xxiii. 25.) 11. CRUCIFIXION was a punishment which the ancients inflicted only on the most notorious criminals and malefactors. The cross was made of two beams, either crossing at the top at right angles, or in the middle of their length like an X. There was, besides, a piece on the centre of the transverse beam, to which was attached the accusation, or statement of the culprit's crime; together with a piece of wood that projected from the middle, on which the person sat as on a kind of saddle, and by which the whole body was supported. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, gives this description; and it is worthy of note, that he lived in the former part of the second century of the Christian æra, before the punishment of the cross was abolished. The cross on which our Lord suffered was of the former kind, being thus represented on all ancient monuments, coins, and crosses. Crucifixion is one of the most cruel and excruciating deaths, which the art of ingeniously tormenting and extinguishing life ever devised. The naked body of the criminal was fastened to the upright beam by nailing or tying the feet to it, and on the transverse beam by nailing and sometimes tying the hands to it. Those members, being the grand instruments of motion, are provided with a greater quantity of nerves, which (especially those of the hands) are peculiarly sensible. As the nerves are the instruments of all sensation or feeling, wounds in the parts where they abound must be peculiarly painful; especially when inflicted with such rude instruments as large nails, forcibly driven through the exquisitely delicate tendons, nerves, and bones of those parts. The horror of this punishment will appear, when it is considered that the person was permitted to hang (the whole weight of his body being borne up by his nailed hands and feet, and by the projecting piece in the middle of the cross), until he perished through agony and want of food. There are instances of crucified persons living in this exquisite torture several days.3 "The wise and adorable Author of our being has formed and constituted the fabric of our bodies in such a merciful manner, that nothing violent is lasting. Friendly death sealed the eyes of those wretches generally in three days. Hunger, thirst, and acute pain dismissed them from their intolerable sufferings. The rites of sepulture were denied them. Their dead bodies were generally left on the crosses on which they were first suspended, and became a prey to every ravenous beast and carnivorous bird.1 (1.) Crucifixion obtained among several ancient nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Carthaginians. The Carthaginians generally adjudged to this death their unfortunate and unsuccessful commanders. There are many un 1 Dionys. Halicarnass. lib. viii. cc. 78, 79 Hariner's Observations, vol. i. pp. 501, 502. This kind of punishment was in use in the time of Mohammed, who introduces Pharaoh as saying, I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on the opposite sides; that is, first the right hand, and then the left foot; next the left hand, and then the right foot. Koran, ch. xx. 74. and xxvi. 49. (Sale's translation, pp. 259. 304. 4to. edit.) See additional examples of such mutilations in Burder's Oriental Literature, vol. ii. p. 186. Wilson's Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land, pp. 375-377. Dr. Adam Clarke on Matt. xxvii. 35. For the remainder of this account of the crucifixion the author is indebted to Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, part i. book i. c. 7. §§ ix.-xvii., and Dr. Harwood's Introauction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 336-353. Pasces in cruce corvos. Horat. Epist. lib. i. epist. 16. ver. 48. Vultur, jumento et canibus, crucibusque relictis Ad fœtus properat, partemque cadaveris affert. Juvenal, Satyr. 14. ver. 77, 78. Thucydides, lib. i. sect. 110. p. 71. edit. Duker. Justin, treating of the affairs of Egypt, says: Concursu multitudinis et Agathocles occiditur, et mulieres in ultionem Eurydices patibul s suffiguntur. Justin, lib. xxx. cap. 2. p. 578. edit. Gronovii. Herodoti Erato. p. 541. edit. Wesseling. 1763. See also Thalia, p. 260. and Polyhyiania, p. 617. Alexander crucified two thousand Tyrians. Triste deinde spectaculum victoribus ira præbuit regis; duo millia, in quibus occidendi defecerat rabies, crucibus adfixi per ingens litoris spatium, dependerunt. Q. Curtii, lib, iv. cap. 4. p. 187. edit. Snakenburgh, 1724. See also Plutarch in vita Alex. and Justin, lib. xviii. cap. 3. Duces bella pravo consilio gerentes, etiamsi prospera fortuna subse euta esset, crucí tamen suffigebantur. Valerius Maximus, lib. ii. cap. 7. 191. edit. Torren. Leida, 1726. happy instances of this. They crucified Bomilcar, whom Justin calls their king, when they detected his intended de sign of joining Agathocles. They erected a cross in the midst of the forum, on which they suspended him, and from which, with a great and unconquered spirit, amidst all his sufferings, he bitterly inveighed against them, and upbraided them with all the black and atrocious crimes they had lately perpetrated. But this manner of executing criminals prevailed most among the Romans. It was generally a servile punishment, and chiefly inflicted on vile, worthless, and incorrigible slaves. In reference to this, the apostle, describing the condescension of Jesus, and his submission to this most opprobrious death, represents him as taking upon him the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 7, 8.), and becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. (2.) "It was universally and deservedly reputed the most shameful and ignominious death to which a wretch could be exposed. In such an exit were comprised every idea and circumstance of odium, disgrace, and public scandal." Hence the apostle magnifies and extols the great love of our Redeemer, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, and for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame (Rom. v. 8. Heb. xii. 2.); disregarding every cir cumstance of public indignity and infamy with which such a death was loaded. "It was from the idea they connected with such a death, that the Greeks treated the apostles with the last contempt and pity for publicly embarking in the cause of a person who had been brought to this reproachful and dishonourable death by his own countrymen. The preaching of the cross was to them foolishness (1 Cor. i. 23.) ; the promulgation of a system of religion that had been taught by a person who, by a national act, had publicly suffered the punishment and death of the most useless and abandoned slave, was, in their ideas, the last infatuation; and the preaching of Christ crucified, publishing in the world a religion whose founder suffered on a cross, appeared the last absurdity and madness.10 The heathens looked upon the attachment of the primitive Christians to a religion, whose publisher had come to such an end, as an undoubted proof of their utter ruin, that they were destroying their interest, comfort, and happiness, by adopting such a system founded on such a dishonourable circumstance." The same inherent scandal and ignominy had crucifixion in the estimation of the Jews. They indeed annexed more complicated wretchedness to it, for they esteemed the miscreant who was adjudged to such an end not only to be abandoned of men, but forsaken of God. He that is hanged, says the law, is accursed of God. (Deut. xxi. 23.) Hence St. Paul, representing to the Galatians the grace of Jesus, who released us from that curse to which the law of Moses devoted us, by being made a curse for us, by submitting to be treated for our sakes as an execrable malefactor, to show the horror of such a death as Christ voluntarily endured, adds, It is written in the law. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree! (Gal. iii. 13.) And from this express declaration of the law of Moses concerning persons thus executed, we may account for that aversion the Jews discovered against Christianity, and perceive the reason of what St. Paul asserts, that their preaching of Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumbling-block. (1 Cor. i. 23.) The circumstance of the cross caused them to stum ble at the very gate of Christianity.12 Bomilcar rex Pœnorum in medio foro a Pœnis patibulo suffixus est De summa cruce, veluti de tribunali, Panorum scelera concionaretur Justin, lib. xxii. c p. 7. p. 505. ed. Gronovii. • Fone crucem ervo. Juvenal, Sat. 6. ver. 218. 10 "From this circustance," says Justin Martyr, "the heathens are fully convinced of our mauess for giving the second place after the im mutable and eternal God, and Father of all, to a person who was crucified!" Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. pp. 60, 61. emt. Paris, 1636. Et qui hominem summo supplicio pro facinore punitum, et crucis Igna feralia ceremonias fabulatur, congruentia perditis_sceleratisque tribuit ltaria: ut id colant quod me. rentur. Minucius Felix, p. 57. edit. Davis. Cantab. 1712. Nam quod religioni nostræ hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis. Min. Felix, p. 14 11 That this was the sentiment of the heathens concerning the Christians, St. Paul informs us, and he exhorts the Philippians not to be discouraged by it. Philip. i. 28. Not intimidated in any thing by your adversaries; for though they looked upon your attachment to the gospel as an undoubted proof of your utter ruin, yet to you it is a demonstration of your salvation -a salvation which hath God for its author. Trypho the Jew every where affects to treat the Christian religion with contempt, on account of the crucifixion of its author. He ridicules its professors for centering all their hopes in a man who was crucified! Dialog. cum Tryphone, p. 33. The person whom you call your Messiah, says he, incurred the last disgrace and ignominy, for he fell under the greatest curse in the law of God, he was crucified! p. 90. Again, we must hesitate, says Trypho, with regard to our believing a person, whe was so ignominously crucified, being the Messiah; for it is written in the |