who pleaded their own causes before King Solomon, in a simple and summary way, as much as, or more so than would now be done in a police office. Sometimes a friend, or even a bystander, known for his wisdom, might be asked to assist, Job xxix, 7-17; Isa. i, 17. The Hebrew name for a widow signifies one that is dumb. But when the Romans had the power, regular advocates were employed, especially in matters that fell under their judicature. notable specimen of this class was Tertullus, who was brought forward by the high priest to vilify the apostle Paul, Acts xxiv, 1.

A

Complaints were first made to the judges, who sent offi-* cers with the complaining party to bring the accused before them. This is described by our Saviour, Matt. v, 25. In the latter times, judges were attended by notaries, who wrote their sentences. There is probably an allusion to this before the captivity, Isa. x, 1, (margin.) The judges sat while the accused stood, Matt. xxvii, 11.

CHAPTER XIV.

PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED AMONG THE JEWS.

THE tribunals having been described, the course of proceeding next claims attention. The transactions of these courts of judicature necessarily would be preserved in writing. Josephus describes a repository at Jerusalem for such documents, Bell. Jud. vi, 6, 3. The tribunals were attended by officers to execute their proceedings; such are the officers, Matt. v, 25. There were others, whose business it was to exact the fines imposed by the tribunal, and also the tormentors, who inflicted torture or punishments. Early in the day was the lawful time for administering justice, as appears from Jer. xxi, 12: "O house of David, thus saith the Lord; Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go out like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." The Talmud states that it was not lawful to proceed in the night, or to execute sentences on the day they were pronounced. Neither were

sentences to be executed on festivals. All these regulations were openly violated in the case of our blessed Lord. "He was taken from prison and from judgment," Isa. liii, 8. In criminal cases, one of the first proceedings was to exhort the criminal to confess, if guilty. If he denied the act, the accusation was gone into, and the accused was then heard. Of this Nicodemus reminded the Sanhedrim, who were ready to prejudge our Lord: John vii, 51: "Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" In the last and worst times of the Jews, their judges did not hesitate to act with harshness towards the accused, as in the case of our Lord, and would even cause the prisoner to be silenced by blows. Thus Paul was treated, Acts xxiii, 2. Such injustice is too frequently exhibited in the East at the present time.

One peculiar manifestation of equity in the Jewish law, was that regarding testimony, that there should be the concurrent testimony of two or three credible witnesses, Num. XXXV, 30; Deut. xvii, 6, 7; xix, 25. These directions do not object to the evidence of females; nor is there reason

to suppose they were excluded, when the manner in which Jewish females came forward is considered, as shown by Esther, Abigail, Deborah, and others. But in later times, when the nation had become more mixed up with heathen Eastern nations, Josephus relates that the testimony of females, as well as that of servants, was excluded. Here is one instance, to which many others might be added, of the advantage that females derive from regard to the precepts of the Bible. Even in the present day the minds of modern Jewesses appear to be in a neglected and uncultivated state.

The witness, as already stated, listened to the adjuration read, held up his right hand, and replied, Amen. This explains Psa. cxliv, 8; Lev. v, 1; 1 Kings viii, 31. Every one solemnly adjured, by legal authority, was constrained to reply thus the Lord Jesus Christ answered to the inquiry of the high priest, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God!" "Thou hast said; nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." False testimony was severely punished, Exod. xx, 16; xxiii, 1–3; yet in evil times there was much perjury, and witnesses were suborned, 1 Kings xxi, 16; Acts vi, 11.

At times, when there was no other means of coming to a decision, casting lots was resorted to, Prov. xvi, 33; xviii, 18; 1 Sam. xiv, 41; Josh. vii, 16. This would generally be in cases respecting property, and might arise from the inquiry by Urim and Thummim, which seems to have been a proceeding of this nature, to discover guilty parties, or decide in doubtful cases. Written documents were produced, else they would not have been taken in affairs of property, Jer. xxxii, 14. The trial of the woman suspected of adultery was an appeal of this nature, and it is remarkable that a somewhat similar proceeding has been found among some of the African tribes.

The most usual manner of executing criminals among the Jews was by stoning; of this there were instances in the wilderness, Lev. xxiv. 14; Num. xv, 35. At that time there were no regular executioners of the law, but the whole assembly proceeded to put the sentence into execution. This custom was continued, the witnesses themselves casting the first stone, Deut. xvii, 7. In the time of Ste

phen the witnesses threw off their clothes, that they might be the more active in the fatal work, committing their garments to the care of Saul, who afterwards was known as the great apostle Paul. Here also should be noticed our Lord's words to the Pharisees, respecting the woman taken in adultery, John viii, 7.

It was not unfrequent for persons of rank to execute criminals and prisoners: Gideon did so, (Judg. viii, 21,) and perhaps Samuel, 1 Sam. xv, 33. In other cases a military officer was sent to execute the prisoner. Thus Benaiah put Joab and Adonijah to death. A soldier, or one of the

guard of Herod, was sent to behead John the Baptist. Such customs still remain in the East. If the criminal were in the presence of the king they covered his face, as Haman's, (Esth. vii, 8,) and in such cases the execution often immediately followed the sentence.

In the latter days of the Jewish state, the power and influence of the Romans introduced many of their laws and judicial practices, especially in all cases of importance.

Upon the whole, these were far more equitable than those of the absolute monarchs of the East, yet corruption in many instances prevailed so far as to influence their decisions. The principle of the Roman law was the same as the English. No one could be condemned before he was heard. Paul reminds Lysias of this, Acts xxii, 25; and Felix and Festus acted upon it. But that privilege was restricted to Roman citizens: others were liable to caprice and punishment at the will of the magistrates. Thus Paul and Silas were treated at Philippi; and it was not until the judges found they were Roman citizens, that they were alarmed for having so done, Acts xvi, 37. Even from the courts of the provincial governors, appeal was permitted to the tribunal of the emperor, for Roman citizens, not for provincials or slaves.

Where the Romans settled, there they erected their tribunals in a permanent form. That of Pilate was raised on a platform, the floor ornamented with a tesselated pavement, formed of pieces of marble or stones of various colors, John xix, 13. Such Roman remains have repeatedly been found in Britain. Observe, Pilate made at least five attempts to protect Jesus from the fury of his accusers; but while this testifies to the innocence of our blessed Lord, in

whom no fault was found, it only aggravates the conduct of the Roman governor, in sacrificing the innocent. He feared their accusations on account of his own evil practices, and therefore he sacrificed Jesus.

The Romans allowed the nations they had subjugated to retain their own tribunals, as appears not only in the case of the Jewish Sanhedrim, but in that of the Areopagus at Athens, (Acts xvii) and the proceedings at Ephesus, Acts xix. All of these seem to have been allowed full liberty in the exercise of their religions.

Among the arbitrary heathens of the East, the great object or design of punishment was forgotten. The good of the community was less sought than executing vengeance on the individual. But the reverse was manifested in the Jewish law, Deut. xiii, 11; xvii, 13; xix, 20. "And all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you." This principle led to the departure from the heathen practice of punishing the family with the offender; the contrary is expressly directed, Deut. xxiv, 16; and wherever this rule appears to be departed from, on examination there will be found reason to believe that the members had been sharers in the guilt, as in the case of the family of Achan, (Josh. vii,) who must have been privy to his act.

The inferior punishments were the following:

Scourging. This was the most common. St. Paul states that he had endured it five times, 2 Cor. xi, 24; and in his day it was inflicted even in the synagogues, Matt. x, 17; xxiii, 34; Acts xxii, 19. But the law expressly provided a limit to this infliction: "Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed, lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these, with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee," Deut. xxv 3; that is, lest he should be so lacerated or injured as to be despised or contemptible. These stripes were usually inflicted by a whip with three thongs, thirteen blows making up the number to thirty-nine stripes; when more severe punishment was intended, pieces of bone, metal, or thorns, were fixed on the end of the thongs. These were called scorpions, 1 Kings xii, 14. The Roman scourging by rods was far more severe, always disgraceful, and sometimes mortal. Christ was thus scourged, John xix, 1. Paul also was beaten with rods.