After a certain number of citations, as we are told, the law granted to the debtor thirty days of grace to raise the sum, for which he was accountable. After the thirty days had expired, if the debtor had not discharged the debt, he was led to the praetor, who delivered him over to the mercy of his creditors. These bound him and kept him in chains for the space of sixty days. Afterwards, for three market days successively, the debtor was brought to the tribunal of the praetor. Then a public crier proclaimed in the forum the debt, for which the prisoner was detained. It often happened, that rich persons redeemed the prisoner by paying his debts. But if no person appeared in his behalf, after the third day, the creditor had a right to inflict the punishment, appointed by the law. The law may be translated into the following words. "Let him on the third market day, be punished with death, or sold beyond the Tiber, as a slave."* 6. It will give some further knowledge of the moral state of the ancient heathen, to consider their treatment of slaves. That a large proportion of the population in the States of antiquity consisted of slaves, is well known. Throughout almost all Greece, says the Abbe Barthelemy, quoting from Athenaeus, the number of slaves infinitely exceeds that of citizens. A similar, but more definite account is given by Mitford. Anach. 1.242. In Lacedaemon, slaves were treated with great severity. Nothing, it appears, could exceed their cruelty to their slaves, who cultivated their grounds for them, and performed all their works and manufactures. These slaves, says Dr. Leland, had no justice done them, whatever insults or injuries they suffered. Among the Spartan youth, it was customary, not only to hunt wild beasts, but to lie in ambush for the Helots, or slaves. Thus were these unhappy men, to whom the State was so much indebted, attacked and slain, for the purpose of rendering their masters' sons adroit in the use of arms. * Encycl. Brit. Art. Slavery. There is another passage in the Lacedaemonian history, which clearly shows how much reason the Helots had to complain, not only of the cruelty, but also of the perfidy of their masters. When, in the midst of the Peloponnesian war, the Spartans had cause to entertain fears of the Helots, proclamation was made that such as thought themselves worthy of meriting by good conduct in arms, the honor of freemen, should present themselves before the magistrate. Two thousand presented themselves, and were all secretly slain! (Mitford 1. 292. Thucyd. 1. 360.) Herodotus informs us, that the Scythians, praised as they have been for their innocence, put out the eyes of their slaves.* Nor does it appear, that slavery at Rome assumed a milder aspect, than in other ancient nations. It was not unusual, we are informed, for masters to put their old, sick and infirm slaves, on an island in the Tiber, where they were suffered to perish. (Leland 11. 67.) Masters had an absolute power over their slaves. (Juv. vi. 219.) They might scourge, or put them to death at pleasure. (See Potter's Antiq. Art. Helots.) When the former of these punishments was inflicted, the slave was suspended with a weight tied to his feet, that he might not move. them. When they were punished capitally, it was commonly by crucifixion. Even this dreadful punishment according to Juvenal, might result from caprice, or a sudden gust of passion in a profligate mistress. The following account I find quoted by three respectable authors. Vedius Pollio, an intimate friend of Augustus, literally fed his fishes with the flesh of his slaves. "This cruelty was discovered, when one of his servants broke a glass in the presence of the emperor, who had been invited to a feast. The master ordered the servant to be seized. But he threw himself at the feet of the emperor, begging him to interpose, and not suffer him to be devoured by fishes. Upon this, the causes of Herod. 4. 2. his apprehensions were examined; and Augustus, astonished at the barbarity of his favorite, caused the servant to be dismissed and all the fish ponds to be filled up, and the chrystal glasses of Pollio to be broken to pieces."* Here, you will observe, that this horrible punishment was to have been inflicted for no greater crime, than the casual breaking of a piece of furniture ;-that this Vedius Pollio lived in the Augustan age, when Roman literature and refinement were carried to the greatest perfection; and that though the emperor ordered that his fish ponds should be destroyed, and his glasses broken, the favorite received no other punishment. We may form some opinion of the extent of human sufferings, occasioned by slavery in the Roman Empire, if, in addition to these facts, we consider, that a single individual, seven years before the Christian era, had slaves to the number of four thousand one hundred and sixteen; and that if any one of these made an unsuccessful attempt to regain his liberty, he was marked on the forehead, with a red hot iron.t In another lecture, by divine permission, the subject will be resumed; and further proof will be exhibited of the moral degradation of the heathen, whether of ancient or modern times. Lempriere, Leland, and Encycl. Brit. LECTURE XVI. HEATHEN MORALS. In the present lecture, the subject of the last will be further pursued. Additional evidence will be exhibited of the corrupt state of morals, prevailing among pagans, whether of ancient or modern times. 1. We notice the crime of unchastity. After what has been already said on the moral character of the heathen divinities, and on the nature of those rites, which were observed in their worship, much evidence will not be required to convince you, that chastity, as inculcated by Christianity, and by every rational system of moral philosophy, made no very conspicuous figure in the pagan character. For this reason, as well as for others, not less obvious, you will neither expect nor desire, that a long series of proofs should be adduced. That both the Greeks and Romans suffered to pass without censure, and openly tolerated those connexions, which Christianity pronounces criminal, and for which, it declares, that the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience, is well known. That which was allowed by such philosophic statesmen, as Solon and Cato, would scarcely excite a scruple in an ignorant, unbridled populace.* Alluding to licentious intercourse among persons, who had not acknowledged the sacredness of hymenial obligations, Cicero in his oration for Caelius,† makes the following extraordinary appeal. Quando enim hoc non factum est? Quando Potter's Gr. Antiq. 1. 190. 2. 313. Orat. pro Caelio, § 20. reprehensum? Quando non permissum? Quando denique fuit, ut quod licet, non liceret? We may have occasion hereafter to animadvert upon this sentiment, as showing how unqualified were the most enlightened among the heathen to become guides to others, either in the science or practice of morality. But, at present, we consider it only, as indicating the licentiousness of the senate, before which the sentiment was uttered, and the licentiousness of the Roman nation, even in its better days. For, of any one, who should condemn the liberty of which he speaks, it is added: abhorret non modo ab hujus seculi licentia, verum etiam a majorum consuetudine atque concessis. Even in that interesting and sacred relation, from which proceeds so much of the enjoyment and purity of domestic life, the Greeks and Romans were little acquainted with those better and finer feelings, which Christianity inspires. The Spartans could hardly be said to have an individual existence. They were, in every thing, identified with the State. Marriage was little more, than an institution for keeping up their military establishment; and to this purpose, Lycurgus himself, designed that it should be made grossly subservient. At Athens, before the age of Pericles, wives were treated merely as a better kind of servants. From them they differed little in their education. They lived in a secluded part of the house with their female slaves, associating little with each other, and scarcely at all with men, even their nearest relations. Thus ignorant and degraded, the Athenian matrons gradually lost, first the respect of their husbands, and by unavoidable consequence, their affection. Unhappily there existed at this time. at Athens a set of profligate females, whose intellects and manners were more cultivated. To associate with these, became customary, not only for the thoughtless and dissipated, but even for statesmen and philosophers, whose example ought to have inflicted on vice the brand of infamy. Set free from the restraints of shame, and emboldened by |