Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

4. When the apostle discovered that Festus | Exod. xx. 4, 5, prohibits all image worship, was disposed to gratify the Jews, we find him whether it refer to the true God, or to the idols of appealing from a provincial court to the imperial the Gentiles. (2.) Prostration before strange tribunal—from the jurisdiction of the Procurator gods, in an attitude of adoration or worship, which to the decision of the Emperor, Acts xxv. 9—11. was so universally prevalent in the East, constiThis appears to be another singular advantage tuted the crime of idolatry, Exod. xx. 5: the proenjoyed by a citizen of Rome. Festus, after de-hibition included the adoration of the heavenly liberating with the Roman council, turned and host, Deut. iv. 19; (3.) offering sacrifices to idols, said to him, “Have you appealed to the emperor? in which the religion of the heathen principally -By the emperor, then, you shall be judged," consisted, Lev. xvii. 1–7; (4.) having altars or ver. 12. Suetonius informs us that Augustus groves dedicated to idols. These were expressly delegated a number of consular persons at Rome ordered to be destroyed for the purpose of obliterto receive the appeals of people in the provinces, ating the memorials of the idolatrous practices of and that he appointed one person to superintend the Canaanites, Exod. xxxiv. 13; Deut. vii. 5; the affairs of each province.* This right, which xii. 3. (5.) Eating offerings made to idols, or the Roman freemen enjoyed, is confirmed by a attending the festivals of other gods, though no passage in the famous epistle of Pliny to Trajan, special law was framed against this, is presupin which he says, that the contumacious and in- posed to be unlawful, in the prohibition of Exod. flexibly obstinate Christians (that is, those who xxiv. 15. Indeed, its unlawfulness is sufficiently would not apostatize) he ordered to be immedi- obvious; because for a person to have gone to any ately punished; but others, being citizens of Rome, such offering feast, was a solemn declaration of he directed to be carried thither.† his belief in the idol to whom it was made, and a full participation in the religion of the offerer, Acts xv. 20-29; 1 Cor. x. 14-28.|| (6.) Offering human sacrifices (Lev. xviii. 31; Deut. xii. 31, &c.), which prevailed to a frightful extent among the heathen, and which, notwithstanding the severity of the laws enacted against it (Lev xx. 1-5), was adopted by the Israelites (Deut

§ 2. The Criminal Law.

THE Jewish code of criminal laws is distributed

by Michaëlis into six classes; viz., those which take cognizance of Crimes against God; Crimes of Lust; Crimes of blood; Crimes against pro-xii. 31; 2 Chron. xviii. 3; Ps. cvi. 37, 38; Jer perty; Crimes of malice; and Crimes against parents and rulers.‡

I. CRIMES AGAINST GOD.-As the maintenance

of the worship of the only true God was one of the fundamental objects of the Mosaic polity, and as that God was at the same time regarded as the king of the Israelitish nation, so we find,

1. Idolatry, that is, the worship of other gods, occupying, in the Mosaic law, 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 thus a species of high treason. It must be remarked, however, that the crime consisted, not in ideas and opinions, but in the overt act of worshipping other gods. Thus a person was guilty of idolatry, (1.) if he made images of strange gods, or kept such images, so as to make it manifest that he revered them as

gods, Deut. xvii. 15. Indeed the prohibition in

1662.

vii. 31; xix. 5; Ezek. xvi. 21), was most strenu
ously forbidden. The ground of the prohibition.
as an idolatrous act, appears to have been its uni-
versal prevalence among idolatrous nations. Nearly
akin to this was, (7.) eating or drinking of blood.
(Lev. iii. 17; vii. 26, 27; xvii. 10–14; xix. 26;
Deut. xii. 16, 23, 24; xv. 23), the principal
reason of which prohibition seems, as in the for-
mer case, to have been the adoption of the practice
in the pagan nations of Asia, in their sacrifices to
idols, and in the taking of oaths: it was therefore
regarded as expressive of a conversion to hea-
thenism.§ (8.) Prophesying in the name of a
strange god, which was a virtual recognition of
his deity, and, as such, an act of idolatry, Deut.

How this injunction is to be understood we see from various parts of the epistles of Paul, especially from Rom. xv., and 1 Cor. viii. and x. The propositions which he lays down are these: (1) Idol offerings eaten in an idol temple, or at an idol banquet, forms a participation in idolatrous worship. But

Vit. August. cap. 33., p. 208, Edit. Var. Lugd. Bat. (2) exclusive of this case, it is lawful to eat of idol offerings;

Harwood's Introduction, vol. ii., pp. 190–202. There is a very useful Harmony of the Mosaic Law, digested under proper heads, with a reference to all the passages of Scripture in which the details are to be found, in the Critica Biblica, vol. iv., pp. 108-112, which we have trans. ferred to our pages, at the end of this section.

for the idol is a nonentity, and has no property; every thing on the face of the earth, even the idol offering itself, belonging to the true God. (3) Yet ought we, for the sake of the weak, to abstain from eating of any such offering, if they are thereby scandalized, and tell us, for warning, that it is an idol offering. Michaëlis on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv., p. 37.

§ Michaelis, ubi supra, vol. iii., pp. 248-254.

27; Deut. xviii. 9-12; Exod. xxii. 17; Deut. xviii. 10-17. In the case of a person consulting a diviner, God reserved to himself the infliction of his punishment, the transgressor not being amenable to the secular magistrate, Lev. xx. 6. 4. Perjury is prohibited most peremptorily, as a heinous sin against God, to whom the punishment is left, and who expressly threatens to visit it on the offender, without ordaining any punishment to be inflicted by the temporal magistrate, Exod. xx. 7.

II. CRIMES OF LUST. The more flagrant and abominable of these were punished with death, others with extirpation, and some only by the imposition of fines and the exaction of offerings. For a consideration of this branch of the criminal law, the reader is referred to Michaëlis's Commentaries.*

III. CRIMES OF BLOOD. Of these,

xiii. 2-6. (9.) Every audacious transgression of the ceremonial law was regarded as an abandonment of the service of the true God; and, of course, as a transition to the service of other gods. -"The same reproacheth JEHOVAH; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people, because he hath despised the word of the Lord," Numb. xxi. 30, 31. The chief of these presumptuous crimes, or transgressions "in contempt of the law," were, The neglect of circumcision-(Gen. xvii. 14) | -neglect of eating the paschal lamb (Numb. ix. 9, 14)-eating of a sacrifice in a state of legal uncleanness (Lev. vii. 20, 21)-neglect of purification after a legal defilement (Numb. xix. 20)— eating the fat pieces or blood of oxen, sheep, and goats (Lev. vii. 23—–27)—imitating the sacred incense, which was to be offered to none but God, (Exod. xxx. 38)-profaning the Sabbath by doing servile work (Exod. xxxi. 14-16; xxxv. 2). Every trespass of the Levitical law which did not proceed from presumption, was termed an error, and was atoneable by an offering, Numb. xv. 27, 28. The punishment for idolatry, or for seducing others to the commission of that crime, was death, by stoning, Deut. xvii. 2—5; Lev. xx. 2, &c. And when a whole city became guilty of idolatry, it was considered as in a state of rebellion against government, and treated according to the laws of war. Its inhabitants, and all their cattle, were put to death. No spoil was made, but every thing it contained was destroyed with itself; nor durst it ever be rebuilt, Deut. xiii. 13-19. The appropriate term, by which the punishment denounced against any such idolatrous city was expressed in the law, is cherem, to consecrate to Jehovah, or to put under the ban; to outlaw, or proscribe. See Exod. xxii. 20; Deut. xiii. 15-17. We have, however, no intimation that this law was ever enforced. The Israelites, generally, were so prone to the sin of idolatry themselves, that they in most cases overlooked it in a city that became 2. Homicide, or, as we call it, manslaughter, is notoriously idolatrous; and thus the evil soon discriminated by the following adjuncts and deoverspread the entire nation. Under these circumscriptive circumstances :-(1) That it takes place stances, God reserved to himself the infliction of the punishment denounced against that national crime; which consisted in wars, famines, and other heavy judgments; and, when the measure of their iniquity was complete, in the destruction of their polity, and the transportation of the people as slaves into other lands, Lev. xxvi; Deut. xxviii; xxix. ; xxxii.

the

2. Blasphemy, or speaking injuriously of the name of God, was another crime which incurred capital punishment, Lev. xxiv. 10-14.

3. Divination and incantation, of which there were various kinds, were also crimes incurring capital punishment, Lev. xix. 26-31; xx. 6, 23,

1. Murder demands the first notice, Exod. xx. 13; xxi. 14; Lev. xxiv. 17; Numb. xxxv. 16— 21, 31; Deut. xix. 11-13. The accessory circumstances, whereby Moses describes murder, and which express the marks that distinguish it from homicide, are the following: (1) When it proceeds from hatred or enmity. (2) When it proceeds from a thirst of blood, or a desire to satiate revenge with the death of another. (3) When it is committed premeditatedly and deceitfully. (4) When a man lies in wait for another, falls upon him, and slays him. Besides enmity, Moses deemed it as essential to the crime of murder, that it be caused by a blow, or a thrust, or a cast, or other thing of such a nature as was likely to prove fatal; as the use of an iron tool, a stone, or piece of wood, of such a description as was likely to cause death; striking with the fist, out of enmity, pushing a man, or throwing any thing at him, in a manner that was likely to occasion death, Numb. xxxv. 16—21.

without hatred or enmity, Numb. xxxv. 22, 23; Deut. xix. 4-6. (2) Without thirst of blood, Exod. xxi. 13; Numb. xxxv. 22. (3) When it happens from mistake, Numb. xxxv. 14, 15. (4) When it arises from accident, Deut. xix. 5.

3. The crime of murder was punished with death, without any power of redemption; and that of homicide subjected the guilty person to the vengeance of the nearest kin of the deceased, unless he fled to one of the six cities of refuge. Here he was obliged to remain till the death of the high-priest, when a general amnesty took

* Vol. iv., pp. 114--203.

4. There were two species of homicide, however, to which no punishment was annexed:-(1) The killing of a nocturnal thief, Exod. xxii. 2; (2) the killing of an innocent homicide, by the blood-avenger, while the former was without the boundaries of the asylum, Deut. xix. 6; Numb.. Xxxv. 26, 27. In order to increase the abhorrence of murder and homicide among the Hebrews, and to represent it as polluting both the land and the people, and also to induce every person to give such information as he was possessed of, there was a certain ceremonial ordained by way of expiation, the statute relative to which is recorded in Deut. xxi. 1-9.

place, and the right of blood-avengement ceased. | lator struck at the root of this species of crime by But if, at any time previous to this event, the rendering informers odious in the eve of the law, homicide went beyond the limits of his asylum, except in the cases of idolatry and murder (Lev. the avenger of blood, if he met him, had a right xix. 16-18; Deut. xiii. 7-9); and by exto kill him, Exod. xxi. 13; Numb. xxxv. 9-35; pressly prohibiting the publication of all false Deut. xix. 1-13. reports, Exod. xxiii. 1. There was no specific punishment, however, annexed to these crimes of malice, that being left to the discretion of the judge, excepting the case of a man unjustly reproaching his bride, whose punishment is specified, Deut. xxii. 13-19. All manner of false witness, either against an innocent person or in favour of a guilty one, was also strictly prohibited, Exod. xx. 13; xxiii. 1-3. We find no punishment positively annexed to the latter species of false witness; but with regard to the former, the case was widely different. When false testimony was given against an innocent man, the matter was ordered to be investigate with the utmost strictness, and, as a species of dedness altoge ther extraordinary, to be brought before the highest tribunal, where the priests andudges of the whole people sat in judgment. After conviction, the false witness was subjected to punishment, according to the law of retaliation, beyond the possibility of reprieve; so that he suffered the very same punishment which attended the crime whereof he accused his innocent brother, Deut. xix. 16-21.

5. The statutes relative to corporal injuries of less magnitude than those just specified, will be found in Exod. xxi. 18-27; Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22; Deut. xxv. 11, 12, to which the reader is referred.

IV. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY. These were,

Theft, for which crime Moses imposed the punishment of double, and in certain cases still higher, restitution (Exod. xxi. 37; xxii. 3; Prov. vi. 30, 31); and if the thief were unable to make such restitution, he was to be sold for a slave, and payment was to be made to the sufferer out of the purchase-money, Exod. xxi. 37; xxii. 3. This, as Michaëlis remarks, is the most equitable and rational of all punishments, and that which will most effectually deter from the commission of the crime, if carried into effect. It can only be carried into effect, however, in a state constituted upon principles similar to those of the Mosaic polity. If a thief, after having denied, even upon oath, any theft with which he was charged, retracted his perjury by the confession of guilt, instead of double restitution, he had only to repay the amount stolen, and one-fifth more, Lev.

[graphic]
[graphic]

vi. 1-5.

2. Man-stealing, that is, forcibly taking the person of a free-born Israelite, either to use him as a slave, or to sell him as a slave to others, was punished with death; and no mitigation of punishment was allowed, Exod. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7.

3. Denying any thing taken in trust or found, subjected the guilty person to the punishment of double restitution, Exod. xxii. 8. But the same provision was made for a confession of guilt in this case as in that of theft, Lev. vi. 1-5.

V. CRIMES OF MALICE. The Hebrew legis

VI. CRIMES AGAINST PARENTS AND RULERS. In the Hebrew form of government, we trace much of the patriarchal spirit which invested the fathers with very great rights over their families. The most heinous offences of which children could be guilty towards their parents were,

1. Cursing them (Exod. xxi. 17; Lev. xx. 9), which included the use of all rude and reproachful language, as well as the imprecation of evil. An example of this crime, and one altogether in point, is given in Matt. xv. 4-6, where the Pharisees are upbraided with 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 not then 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 destitute upon the world, to say to his father and mother, "Corban "-" Be thou 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

66

Michaëlis, vol. i., p. 443.

consequences than in northern, and must be regarded by a legislator in a different light. And as imprisonment for crime was a thing altogether unknown to the Hebrews, they were precluded from the means of so securing drunkards, as to prevent them from effecting mischief.

4. The magistrate, being the appointed minister of God, and administering justice under his authority, was regarded as inviolably sacred in his person, and preserved against the utterance of all reproachful words or curses, Exod. xxii. 28. The punishment of persons guilty of this offence is no where specified, being modified according to the degree of guilt. It probably generally consisted of stripes, before the institution of the regal government, after which crimes against the king's person were punished with death. See 2 Sam. xix. 22-24, compared with 1 Kings ii. 8, 9,

to thy relief in the days of helpless old age, I here
Fow unto God.”—A most abominable vow, and
one which God would, unquestionably, as little ap-
prove or accept, as he would a vow to commit the
most obviously abominable crimes. And yet some
of the Pharisees pronounced on such vows this
strange decision that they were absolutely obli-
gatory, and that the son, who uttered such words,
was bound to abstain from contributing in the
smallest article to the relief of his parents; be-
cause every thing that should have been so appro-
priated had become consecrated to God, and could
no longer be applied to their use, without sacri-
lege and a breach of his vow. But on this exposi-
tion, Christ not only remarked, that it abrogated
the fifth commandment, but he likewise added, as
a counter-doctrine, that Moses, their own legis-
lator, had expressly declared, that "the man who
cursed father or mother deserved to die." Now,| 36–46.*
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 merely imprecating upon them a curse,
which may evaporate into air; but it is fulfilling
the curse, and making it, to all intents and pur-
poses, effectual.

2. Striking a parent is, if possible, a higher species of moral delinquency than that already noticed, because it must proceed from a state of inveterate wickedness. It was accordingly denounced as a heinous crime, and, like the former one, punished with death, Exod. xxi. 15.

3. There is a statute in Deut. xxi. 18-21, which inflicts the punishment of death upon a mischierous, profligate, and disobedient son. Michaëlis conceives that this law does not apply so much to the punishment of any particular crime against parents, as to the case of parents having a son addicted to drinking, and who, in his fits of drunkenness, was apt to pick quarrels, and endanger the safety of others. The statute has been deemed severe; but there are circumstances connected with it, which, if taken into consideration, will abate its apparent rigour. First, The stoning to death of such persons was to be inflicted with all proper solemnity, and as an example; others in Israel might hear, and be deterred from the like wickedness;" and not until his parents had found themselves compelled, after many unsuccessful efforts with him, and the trial of every possible method to reclaim him, judicially to acknowledge, that they were not capable of keeping him in order, and answering for the safety of others. Secondly, The just remark of Montesquieu

"that

§3.-The Civil Law.

Of the civil laws instituted by Moses, the following only require to be noticed.

the Israelitish laws deviate so far from our own, as 1. Concerning DEBTS.-In nothing, perhaps, do in regard to matters of debt. We have already remarked, that imprisonment was unknown amongst the Hebrews, and they were equally free from those long and expensive modes of procedure to which we are subjected for the recovery of debts. Their laws in this respect were simple, but efficient. Where a pledge was lodged with a creditor for the payment of a debt, which was not discharged, the creditor was allowed to appropriate the pledge to his own benefit, without any interposition of a magistrate, and to keep it as rightfully as if it had been bought with the sum which had been lent for it. But, besides the pledge, every Israelite had various pieces of property, on which execution for land, the produce of which might be attached till the debt might readily be made: as, (1) His hereditary sole exception of those of the Levites, might be sold year of jubilee.-(2) His houses, which, with the in perpetuity, Lev. xxv. 29, 30.—(3) His cattle, household furniture, and ornaments, appear also to

have been liable to have been taken in execution.

it.-(4)

See Job xxiv. 3; Prov. xxii. 27. From Deut. xv.
1-11, we see that no debt could be exacted from a
poor man, in the seventh year; because the land lying
fallow, he had no income whence to pay
The person of the debtor might be sold, along with
his wife and children, if he had any. See Lev.
XXV. 39; Job xxiv. 9; 2 Kings iv. 1; Isai. i. 1;

xxv.

also claims attention; that in southern countries, drunkenness is attended with far more formidable * Michaelis on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv., pp. 1-312.

Neh. v.
of Moses that suretiship was practised among the
Hebrews, in cases of debt. In the Proverbs of
Solomon, however, there are many admonitions
respecting it. Where this warranty was given,
the surety was treated with the same severity as
if he had been the actual debtor; and if he could
not pay, his very bed might be taken from under
him, Prov. xxii. 27. There is a reference to the
custom observed in contracting this obligation, in
Prov. xvii. 18, "A man void of understanding
striketh hands," &c.; and also in chap. xxii. 26,
"Be not thou one of them that strike hands," &c. |
It is to be observed, that the hand was given, not
to the creditor, but to the debtor in the creditor's
presence. By this act the surety intimated that
he became in a legal sense one with the debtor.

We have no intimation in the writings | the case of injuries committed upon the property
of another, he has nevertheless made some express
ordinances on this subject, from the analogy of
which we may conclude that this was the tenor of
his law. See Lev. xxiv. 18; Exod. xxi. 23, 24,
32, 35, 36, xxii. 5.*

§ 4.-Modes of Punishment, and Treatment of Prisoners.

I. The purpose of inflicting punishment is expressed by Moses to be, the determent of others from the commission of crime. His language is, "That others may hear and fear, and commit no more any such evil," Deut. xvii. 13, xix. 20.† The punishments among the Jews were either capital or inferior. Some of them were expressly ordained by Moses; others were introduced from the surrounding nations, by whom they were successively subdued, at various periods of their history. Of these the only distinction we shall make

2. OF PLEDGES.—We have above noticed the practice of lending on pledge; but as this was liable to considerable abuse, the following judicial regulations were adopted.-(1) The creditor was not allowed to enter the house of the debtor to fetch the pledge; but was obliged to stand with-is into inferior and capital.

out the door, and wait till it was brought to him, 1. The inferior punishments were, Restitution Deut. xxiv. 10, 11. This law was wisely de- for theft, in certain proportions, Exod. xxii. 1—4. signed to restrain avaricious and unprincipled per- Deprivation of the delinquent's beard, 2 Sam. x. sons from taking advantage of their poor brethren 4. Destroying their houses, Exod. vi. 11; Dan. in choosing their own pledges.-(2) The upper ii. 5, iii. 29. Imprisonment in a dungeon (Jer. garment, which served by night for a blanket xxxviii. 6-aggravated by fetters (Judg. xvi. 21) (Exod. xxii. 25, 26; Deut. xxiv. 12-13), and-by a wooden yoke round the neck (Jer. xxvii. mills, and mill-stones, if taken in pledge, were to 2, xxviii. 13)—by the stocks (Prov. vii. 22; Jer. be restored to the owner before sun-set. The reason of this law was, that these articles were indispensable to the comfortable subsistence of the poor; and for the same reason it is likely that it extended to all necessary utensils. Such a restoration was no loss to the creditor. For he had it in his power at last, by the aid of summary justice, to lay hold of the whole property of the debtor, and if he had none, of his person; and in the event of non-payment, as before stated, to

take him for a bond slave.

3. OF USURY, OR INTEREST.-In the first and second laws relative to the taking of interest (Exod. xxii. 25 ; Lev. xxv. 35-37), mention is made of poor Israelites only, from whom it is expressly prohibited to be taken, not only for money, but also for victuals, and of course for fruits and corn. It was therefore still lawful to lend upon interest to a rich man. But as this was found to give rise tó many abuses, and covert violations of the law, it was ultimately rendered unlawful to take interest of any Israelite, whatever his circumstances have been, Deut. xxii. 19, 20.

may

4. OF INJURIES DONE TO THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS. Although the Hebrew legislator has nowhere enjoined, by a general statute, restitution in

one,

xx. 2)-by hard labour, &c., Judg. xvi. 21;
1 Kings xxii. 27. Confinement in the cities of
refuge till the death of the high-priest, Numb.
Whipping, with a scourge of
25-28.
XXXV.
three cords, so as to give the culprit forty, save
Deut. xxv. 2, 3; 2 Cor. xi. 24, 25. Cutting
off the hands and feet, Judg. i. 6, 7; 2 Sam. iv.
12. Putting out the eyes, Judg. xvi. 21. Seal-
ing up the eyes; which is alluded to in Isai. xliv.
18, where it is said, that God hath shut up the
eyes of idolaters, that they cannot see; whence
we infer that it was a judicial punishment.||
Fighting with wild beasts, which was sometimes
not mortal (1 Cor. xv. 32), though it generally
was so. Slavery till the sabbatical year, or till
compensation was made for theft, Exod. xxi. 2.
Sale of children for their father's debts, 2 Kings
iv. 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Talio, or like for like,
either literally (Exod. xxi. 23–25), or by compen-

Michaelis on the Laws of Moses, vol. ii., pp. 294–367.
+Ibid., vol. iii., p. 404, and iv., p.371.
This mode of punishment is still practised in the East
See Malcolm's Persia, vol. ii., chap. xix., p. 198, note.

See Harmer's Observations, vol. ii., p. 277, &c.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »