of rebellion against the government, and was treated according to the laws of war. Its inhabitants, and all their cattle were put to death; no spoil was made, but every thing which it contained was burnt, together with the city itself; nor was it ever allowed to be rebuilt. (Deut. xiii. 13-19.) This law does not appear to have been particularly enforced; the Israelites (from their proneness to adopt the then almost universally prevalent polytheism) in most cases overlooked the crime of a city that became notoriously idolatrous; whence it happened, that idolatry was not confined to any one city, but soon overspread the whole nation. In this case, when the people, as a people, brought guilt upon themselves by their idolatry, God reserved to himself the infliction of the punishments denounced against that national crime; which consisted in wars, famines, and other national judgments, and (when the measure of their iniquity was completed) in the destruction of their polity, and the transportation of the people as slaves into other lands. (Lev. xxvi. Deut. xxviii. xxix. xxxii.) For the crime of seducing others to the worship of strange gods, but more especially where a pretended prophet (who might often naturally anticipate what would come to pass) uttered predictions tending to lead the people into idolatry, the appointed punishment was stoning to death. (Deut. xiii. 2-12.) In order to prevent the barbarous immolation of infants, Moses denounced the punishment of stoning upon those who offered human sacrifices; which the bye-standers might instantly execute upon the delinquent when caught in the act, without any judicial inquiry whatever. (Levit. xx. 2.)

2. God being both the sovereign and legislator of the Israelites, Blasphemy (that is, the speaking injuriously of his name, his attributes, his government, and his revelation) was not only a crime against Him, but also against the state; it was therefore punished capitally by stoning. (Levit. xxiv. 10-14.)

3. It appears from Deut. xviii. 20-22. that a False Prophet was punished capitally, being stoned to death; and there were two eases in which a person was held as convicted of the crime, and consequently liable to its punishment, viz. (1.) If he had prophesied any thing in the name of any other god,-whether it took place or not, he was at all events considered as a false prophet, and, as such, stoned to death. (Deut. xiii. 2—6.)-(2.) If a prophet spoke in the name of the true God, he was tolerated, so long as he remained unconvicted of imposture, even though he threatened calamity or destruction to the state, and he could not be punished: but when the event which he had predicted did not come to pass, he was regarded as an audacious impostor, and, as such, was stoned. (Deut. xviii. 21, 22.)

4. Divination is the conjecturing of future events from things which are supposed to presage them. The eastern people were always fond of divination, magic, the curious arts of interpreting dreams, and of obtaining a knowledge of future events. When Moses gave the law which bears his name to the Israelites, this

disposition had long been common in Egypt and the neighbouring countries. Now, all these vain arts in order to pry into futurity, and all divination whatever, unless God was consulted by prophets, or by Urim and Thummim (the sacred lot kept by the high priest), were expressly prohibited by the statutes of Lev. xix. 26. 31. xx. 6. 23. 27. and Deut. xviii. 9-12. In the case of person transgressing these laws, by consulting a diviner, God reserved to himself the infliction of his punishment; the transgressor not being amenable to the secular magistrate. (Lev. xx. 6.) The diviner himself was to be stoned. (Lev. xx. 27.)

5. Perjury is, by the Mosaic law, most peremptorily prohibited as a most heinous sin against God; to whom the punishment of it is left, and who in Exod. xx. 7. expressly promises that he will inflict it, without ordaining the infliction of any punishment by the temporal magistrate; except only in the case of a man falsely charging another with a crime, in which case the false witness was liable to the same punishment which would have been inflicted on the accused party if he had been found to have been really guilty (as is shown in p. 135. infra); not indeed as the punishment of perjury against God, but of false witness.

II. CRIMES AGAINST PARENTS and MAGISTRATES constitute an important article of the criminal law of the Hebrews.

1. In the form of government among that people, we recognise much of the patriarchal spirit; in consequence of which fathers enjoyed great rights over their families. The cursing of parents,that is, not only the imprecation of evil on them, but probably also all rude and reproachful language towards them, was punished with death. (Exod. xxi. 17. Levit. xx. 9.); as likewise was the striking of them. (Exod. xxi. 15.) An example of the crime of cursing of a parent, which is fully in point, is given by Jesus Christ in Matt. xv. 4-6. or Mark vii. 9-12.; "where he upbraids the Pharisees with their giving, from their deference to human traditions and doctrines, such an exposition of the divine law, as converted an action, which, by the law of Moses, would have been punished with death, into a vow, both obligatory and acceptable in the sight of God. It seems, that it was then not uncommon for an undutiful and degenerate son, who wanted to be rid of the burden of supporting his parents, and in his wrath, to turn them adrift upon the wide world, to say to his father or mother, Korban, or, Be that Korban (consecrated) which I should appropriate to thy support; that is, Every thing wherewith I might ever aid or serve thee, and, of course, every thing, which I ought to devote to thy relief in the days of helpless old age, I here vow unto God.-A most abominable vow indeed! and which God would, unquestionably, as little approve or accept, as he would a vow to commit adultery. And yet some of the Pharisees pronounced on such vows this strange decision; that they were absolutely obligatory, and that the son, who uttered such words, was bound to abstain from contributing, in the smallest article, to the use of his parents; because

VOL. III.

18

every thing, that should have been so appropriated, had become consecrated to God, and could no longer be applied to their use, without sacrilege and a breach of his vow. But on this exposition, Christ not only remarked, that it abrogated the fifth commandment, but he likewise added, as a counter-doctrine, that Moses, their own legislator, had expressly declared, that the man who cursed father or mother deserved to die. Now, 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 imprecating upon them a curse in the common style of curses, which evaporate into air; but it is fulfilling the curse, and making it to all intents and purposes effectual.1

Of the two crimes above noticed, the act of striking a parent evinces the most depraved and wicked disposition: and severe as the punishment was, few parents would apply to a magistrate, until all methods had been tried in vain. Both these crimes are included in the case of the stubborn, rebellious, and drunkard son; whom his parents were unable to keep in order, and who, when intoxicated, endangered the lives of others. Such an irreclaimable offender was to be punished with stoning. (Deut. xxi. 18-21.) Severe as this law may seem, we have no instance recorded of its being carried into effect; but it must have had a most salutary operation in the prevention of crimes, in a climate like that of Palestine, where (as in all southern climates) liquor produces more formidable effects than with us, and where also it is most probable that, at that time, the people had not the same efficacious means which we possess, of securing drunkards, and preventing them from doing mischief.

2. Civil government being an ordinance of God, provision is made in all well regulated states for respecting the persons of magistrates. We have seen in a former chapter, that when the regal government was established among the Israelites, the person of the king was inviolable, even though he might be tyrannical and unjust. It is indispensably necessary to the due execution of justice, that the persons of magistrates be sacred, and that they should not be insulted in the discharge of their office. All reproachful words or curses, uttered against persons invested with authority, are prohibited in Exod. xxii. 28. No punishment, however is specified; probably it was left to the discretion of the judge, and was different according to the rank of the magistrate and the extent of the crime.

III. The CRIMES or offences AGAINST PROPERTY, mentioned by Moses, are theft, man-stealing, and the denial of any thing taken in trust, or found.

1. On the crime of Theft, Moses imposed the punishment of double (and in certain cases still higher) restitution; and if the thief were unable to make it (which however could rarely happen, as every Israelite by law had his paternal field, the crops of which

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

2 See

P.

85. supra.

might be attached), he was ordered to be sold for a slavé, and payment was to be made to the injured party out of the purchase money. (Exod. xxii. 1.3.) The same practice obtains, according to Chardin, among the Persians. The wisdom of this regulation is much greater than the generality of mankind are aware of: for, as the desire of gain and the love of luxuries are the prevalent inducements to theft, restitution varied according to circumstances would effectually prevent the unlawful gratification of that desire, while the idle man would be deterred from stealing by the dread of slavery, in which he would be compelled to work by the power of blows. If, however, a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed (Exod. xxii. 2.), but not if the sun had arisen, in which case he might be known and apprehended, and the restitution made, which was enjoined by Moses. When stolen oxen or sheep were found in the possession of a thief, he was to make a two-fold restitution to the owner, who thus obtained a profit for his risk of loss. (Exod. xxii. 3.) This punishment was applicable to every case in which the article stolen remained unaltered in his possession. But if it was already alienated or slaughtered, the criminal was to restore four-fold for a sheep, and five-fold for an ox (Exod. xxii. 1.), in consequence of its great value and indispensable utility in agriculture, to the Israelites, who had no horses. In the time of Solomon, when property had become more valuable from the increase of commerce, the punishment of restitution was increased to seven-fold. (Prov. vi. 30, 31.) When a thief had nothing to pay, he was sold as a slave (Exod. xxii. 2.), probably for as many years as were necessary the extinction of the debt, and of course, perhaps for life; though in other cases the Hebrew servant could be made to serve only for six years. If, however, a thief,-after having denied, even upon oath, any theft with which he was charged, had the honesty or conscience to retract his perjury, and to confess his guilt, instead of double restitution, he had only to repay the amount stolen, and onefifth more. (Levit. vi. 2. 5.) In case of debt also, the creditor might seize the debtor's person and sell him, together with his wife and children, if he had any. This is inferred from the words of the statute, in Levit. xxv. 39. There is an allusion to this custom in Job xxiv. 9.); and a case in point is related in 2 Kings iv. 1. This practice also obtained among the Jews in the days of Nehemiah (v. 1-5.), and Jesus Christ refers to in Matt. xviii. 25.

for

2. Man-stealing, that is the seizing or stealing of the person of a free-born Israelite, either to use him as a slave himself, or to sell him as a slave to others, was absolutely and irremissibly punished with death. (Exod. xxi. 16. Deut. xxiv. 7.)

3. "Where a person was judicially convicted of having denied any thing committed to his trust, or found by him, his punishment, as in the case of theft, was double restitution; only that it never, as in that crime, went so far as quadruple, or quintuple restitution; at least nothing of this kind is ordained in Exod xxii. 8. If the person

accused of this crime had sworn himself guiltless, and afterwards, from the impulse of his conscience, acknowledged the commission of perjury, he had only one-fifth beyond the value of the article denied to refund to its owner." (Levit. vi. 5.)

4. The Mosaic laws respecting Debtors were widely different from those which obtain in European countries: the mode of procedure sanctioned by them, though simple, was very efficient. Persons, who had property due to them, might, if they chose, secure it either by means of a mortgage, or by a pledge, or by a bondsman or surety.

(1.) The creditor, when about to receive a pledge for a debt, was not allowed to enter the debtor's house, and take what he pleased; but was to wait before the door, till the debtor should deliver up that pledge with which he could most easily dispense. (Deut. xxiv. 10, 11. Compare Job xxii. 6. xxiv. 3. 7-9.)

(2.) When a mill or a mill-stone, or an upper garment, was given as a pledge, it was not to be kept all night. These articles appear to be specified as examples for all other things with which the debtor could not dispense without great inconvenience. (Exod. xxii. 26, 27. Deut. xxiv. 6. 12.)

(3.) The debt which remained unpaid until the seventh or sabbatic year (during which the soil was to be left without cultivation, and, consequently, a person was not supposed to be in a condition to make payments,) could not be exacted during that period. (Deut. xv. 1-11.) But, at other times, in case the debt was not paid, the creditor might seize, first, the hereditary land of the debtor, and enjoy its produce until the debt was paid, or at least until the year of jubilee; or, secondly, the houses. These might be sold in perpetuity, except those belonging to the Levites. (Levit. xxv. 14-32.) Thirdly, in case the house or land was not sufficient to cancel the debt, or if it so happened that the debtor had none, the person of the debtor might be sold, together with his wife and children, if he had any. This is implied in Lev. xxv. 39.; and this custom is alluded to in Job xxiv. 9. It existed in the time of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 1.) and on the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, some rich persons exercised this right over their poor debtors. (Nehem. v. 113.) Our Lord alludes to the same custom in Matt. xviii. 25. As the person of the debtor might thus be seized and sold, his cattle and furniture were consequently liable for his debts. This is alluded to, by Solomon, in Prov. xxii. 27. It does not appear that imprisonment for debt existed in the age of Moses, but it appears to have prevailed in the time of Jesus Christ. (Matt. xviii. 34.)

(4.) If a person had become bondsman or surety for another, he was liable to be called upon for payment in the same way with the original debtor. But this practice does not appear to have obtained before the time of Solomon, (in whose Proverbs there are several references to it,) when it was attended with serious consequences. It seems that the formality observed was, for the person who became