of the wicked are said to be crushed in the gate; that is, they lose their cause, and are condemned in the court of judgment. The psalmist (cxxvii. 5.) speaking of those whom God has blessed with many children, says that they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate; that is, those who are thus blessed, shall courageously plead their cause, and need not fear the want of justice when they meet their adversaries in the court of judicature. Compare Prov. xxii. 22. and xxxi. 23. Lament. v. 14. Amos v. 12., in all which passages the gate, and elders of the land or of the gate, respectively denote the seat of justice and the judges who presided there. And as the gates of a city constituted its strength, and as the happiness of a people depended much upon the wisdom and integrity of the judges who sat there, it may be that our Saviour alluded to this circumstance, when he said The gates of hell shall not prevail against his church (Matt. xvi. 18.); that is, neither the strength nor policy of Satan or his instruments shall ever be able to overcome it.

III. From these inferior tribunals, appeals lay to a higher court, in cases of importance. (Deut. xvii. 8-12.) In Jerusalem, it is not improbable that there were superior courts in which David's sons presided. Psal. cxxii. 5. seems to allude to them: though we do not find that a supreme tribunal was established at Jerusalem earlier than in the reign of Jehoshaphat. (2 Chron. xix. 8-11.) It was composed of priests and heads of families, and had two presidents, one in the person of the high priest, and another who sat in the name of the king. The judicial establishment was reorganised after the captivity, and two classes of judges, inferior and superior, were appointed. (Ezra vii. 25.) But the more difficult cases and appeals were brought, either before the ruler of the state, or before the high priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a supreme judicial tribunal was instituted, which is first mentioned under Hyrcanus II.1

This tribunal (which must not be confounded with the seventytwo counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil administration of the government, but who never fulfilled the office of judges,) is by the Talmudists denominated SANHEDRIN, and is the great Council so often mentioned in the New Testament. It was instituted in the time of the Maccabees, and was composed of seventy or seventy-two members, under the chief presidency of the high priest, under whom were two vice-presidents; the first of whom, called the Father of the Council, sat on the right, as the second vice-president did on the left hand of the president. The other assessors, or members of this council, comprised three descriptions of persons, viz. 1. The Agxgsis, or Chief Priests, who were partly such priests as had executed the Pontificate, and partly the princes or chiefs of the twenty-four courses or classes of priests, who enjoyed this honourable title;-2. The ПgerBurgos or Elders, per

1 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiv. c. 9. § 3.

haps the princes of tribes or heads of families;-and 3. The гgauparsis, Scribes or men learned in the law. It does not appear that all the elders and scribes were members of this tribunal: most probably, those only were assessors, who were either elected to the office, or nominated to it by royal authority.

The Talmudical writers assert that the Sanhedrin held its sittings in the Temple; but they are contradicted by Josephus,1 who speaks of a council house in the immediate vicinity of the temple, where this council was in all probability convened; though in extraordinary emergencies it was assembled in the high priest's house, as was the case in the mock trial of Jesus Christ. The authority of this tribunal was very extensive. It decided all causes, which were brought before it, by appeal from inferior courts: and also took cognizance of the general affairs of the nation. Before Judæa was subject to the Roman power, the Sanhedrin had the right of judging in capital cases, but not afterwards; the stoning of Stephen being (as we have already observed) a tumultuary act, and not in consequence of sentence pronounced by this Council.

Besides the Sanhedrin, the Talmudical writers assert that there were other smaller councils, each consisting of twenty-three persons, who heard and determined petty causes: two of these were at Jerusalem, and one in every city containing one hundred and twenty inhabitants. Josephus is silent concerning these tribunals, but they certainly appear to have existed in the time of Jesus Christ; who, by images taken from these two courts, in a very striking manner represents the different degrees of future punishments, to which the impenitently wicked will be doomed according to the respective heinousness of their crimes. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the JUDGMENT; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the COUNCIL; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of HELL FIRE. (Matt. v. 22.) That is, whosoever shall indulge causeless and unprovoked resentment against his Christian brother, shall be punished with a severity similar to that which is inflicted by the court of judgment. He, who shall suffer his passions to transport him to greater extravagances, so as to make his brother the object of derision and contempt, shall be exposed to a still severer punishment, corresponding to that which the Council imposes. But he who shall load his fellow Christian with odious appellations and abusive language, shall incur the severest degree of all punishments, equal to that of being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom which, having formerly been the scene of those horrid sacrifices of children to Moloch by causing them to pass through the fire, the Jews in our Saviour's time used to denote the place of the damned.

It is essential to the ends of justice, that the proceedings of the courts should be committed to writing, and preserved in archives or

1 De Bell. Jud. lib. v. c. 4. § 2. lib. vi. c. 6. § 3.

registries: Josephus informs us that there was such a repository at Jerusalem, which was burnt by the Romans, and which was furnished with scribes or notaries, for recording the proceedings. From this place, probably, St. Luke derived his account of the proceedings against the protomartyr Stephen, related in Acts vi. and vii. These tribunals also had inferior ministers or officers (ungerai, Matt. v. 25.), who probably corresponded with our apparitors or messengers; and others whose office it was to carry the decrees into execution, viz. 1. The gaxroges, or exactors, whose business it was to levy the fines imposed by the court; and 2. The Baravisas, or tormentors, those whose office it was to examine by torture: as this charge was devolved on jailors, in the time of Christ, the word βασανίζης came to signify a jailor.

III. It appears from Jer. xxi. 12. that causes were heard, and judgment was executed in the morning. According to the Talmud3 capital causes were prohibited from being heard in the night, as also were the institution of an examination, pronouncing of sentence, and the carrying of it into execution, on one and the same day; and it was enjoined that at least the execution of a sentence should be deferred until the following day. How flagrantly this injunction was disregarded in the case of Jesus Christ, it is scarcely necessary to mention. According to the Talmud also, no judgments could be executed on festival days; but this by no means agrees with the end and design of capital punishment expressed in Deut. xvii. 13. viz. That all the people might hear and fear. It is evident from Matt. xxvi. 5. that the chief priests and other leading men among the Jews were at first afraid to apprehend Jesus, lest there should be a tumult among the people: it is not improbable that they feared the Galilæans more than the populace of Jerusalem, because they were the countrymen of our Lord. Afterwards, however, when the traitor Judas presented himself to them, their fears vanished away.

IV. In the early ages of the Jewish history, judicial procedure must have been summary, as it still is in Asia. Of advocates, such as ours, there is no appearance in any part of the Old Testament. Every one pleaded his own cause; of this practice we have a memorable instance in 1 Kings iii. 15-28. As causes were heard at the city gate, where the people assembled to hear news or to pass away their time, Michaelis thinks that men of experience and wisdom might be asked for their opinion in difficult cases, and might sometimes assist with their advice those who seemed embarrassed in their own cause, even when it was a good one. Probably this is alluded to in Job xxix. 7-17. and Isa. i. 17.5 From the Romans, the use of advocates, or patrons who pleaded the cause of another,

1 Josephus, De Bell. Jud. lib. vi. c. 3. § 3.

2 Schleusner's and Parkhurst's Lexicon, in voce.

3 Sanhedrin, IV.

4 And also among the Marootzee, a nation inhabiting the interior of South Africa.-Campbell's Travels in the Interior of South Africa, vol. ii. p. 236. (London, 1822. 8vo.) From this, and other coincidences with Jewish observances, Mr. C. thinks it probable that the Marootzee are of Jewish or Arabian origin. 5 Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv. pp. 320–323.

might have passed to the Jews. In this view the word ragaxλnros, or παράκλητος, advocate, is applied to Christ, our intercessor, who pleads the cause of sinners with his father. (1 John ii. 1.) The form of proceeding appears to have been as follows:

1. Those who were summoned before courts of judicature, were said to be προγεγραμμένοι εις κρισιν, because they were cited by posting up their names in some public place, and to these judgment was published or declared in writing. The Greek writers applied the term goysygaμμevous, to those whom the Romans called proscriptos or proscribed, that is, whose names were posted up in writing in some public place, as persons doomed to die, with a reward offered to whoever would kill them. To this usage there is an allusion in the epistle of Jude (verse 4.), where the persons who are said to be προγεγραμμένοι εις τουτο το κρίμα, ordained to this condemnation, denote not only those who must give an account to God for their crimes, and are liable to his judgment, but who moreover are destined to the punishment which they deserve, as victims of the divine anger.1 In the sacred writings all false teachers and impure practices have been most openly proscribed and condemned, and in the following verses of the same epistle the apostle distinctly specifies who these persons

are.

2. He, who entered the action, went to the judges, and stated his affair to them and then they sent officers with him to seize the party and bring him to justice. To this our Lord alludes, when he says, (Matt. v. 25.) Agree with thine adversary while thou art in the way with him, before thou art brought before the judge, lest thou be condemned. On the day appointed for hearing the cause, the plaintiff and defendant presented themselves before the judges; who at first sat alone. (Deut. xxv. 1.). In later times, the Jewish writers inform us, that there were always two notaries belonging to the court, one of whom stood on the right hand of the judge, who wrote the sentence of acquittal; and the other, on his left hand, who wrote the sentence of condemnation. To this custom probably our Saviour referred (Matt. xxv. 23.) when, speaking of the last judgment, he says, that he will set the sheep on his right hand, in order to be acquitted, and the goats on his left, in order to be condemned. appears that the judicial decrees were (as they still are in the East) first written by a notary, and then authenticated or annulled by the magistrate. To this the prophet Isaiah alludes when he denounces a woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and to the writers that write grievousness. (Isa. x. 1. marginal rendering.) The judges sat, while the defendants stood, particularly during the examination of witnesses. Thus, Jesus stood before the governor. (Matt. xxvii. 11.)

It

3. In criminal cases, when the trial came on, the judge's first care was to exhort the criminal to confess his crime, if he really were guilty: Thus Joshua exhorted Achan to give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him. (Josh. vii. 19.) To this

1 Parkhurst and Schleusner's Lexicon to the New Testament, voce Пpoypapw. 2 Harmer's Observations, vol. ii. pp. 519–521.

custom of the Jews, St. Paul seems to allude, when he says, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth (Rom. xiv. 22.); that is, who being convinced of the truth of a thing, does not really and effectually condemn himself in the sight of God by denying it. After the accusation was laid before the court, the criminal was heard in his defence, and therefore Nicodemus said to the chief priests and pharisees, Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doth? (John vii. 51.)

4. In matters of life and death, the evidence of one witness was not sufficient in order to establish a charge, it was necessary to have the testimony of two or three credible and unimpeachable witnesses. (Numb. xxv. 30. Deut. xvii. 6, 7. xix. 15.) Though the law of Moses is silent concerning the evidence of women, Josephus says that it was prohibited on account of the levity and boldness of their sex! He also adds that the testimony of servants was inadmissible, on account of the probability of their being influenced to speak what was untrue, either from hope of gain or fear of punishment. Most likely, this was the exposition of the scribes and pharisees, and the practice of the Jews, in the last age of their political existence.1 In general, the witnesses to be sworn did not pronounce the formula of the oath, either when it was a judicial one, or taken on any other solemn occasion. A formula was read, to which they said Amen. (Lev. v. 2. Prov. xxix. 34. 1 Kings viii. 31.) Referring to this usage, when Jesus Christ was adjured or put upon his oath, he immediately made an answer. (Matt. xxvi. 63.) All manner of false witness was most severely prohibited. (Exod. xx. 13. xxiii. 1—3.)

5. In questions of property, in default of any other means of decision, recourse was had to the lot. In this manner, it will be recollected that the land of Canaan was divided by Joshua, to which there are so many allusions in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Psalms. And it should seem, from Prov. xvi. 33. and xviii. 18. that it was used in courts of justice, in the time of Solomon, though probably only with the consent of both parties. In criminal cases, recourse was had to the sacred lot, called Urim and Thummim, in order to discover, not to convict the guilty party (Josh. vii. 14-18. 1 Sam. xiv. 37-45.); but it appears to have been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed, which the whole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name.

A peculiar mode of eliciting the truth was employed in the case of a woman suspected of adultery. She was to be brought by her husband to the tabernacle,-afterwards to the temple; where she took an oath of purgation, imprecating tremendous punishment upon herself. The form of this process (which was the foundation of the trial by ordeal that so generally prevailed in the dark ages) is detailed at length in Numb. v. 11-31., to which the rabbinical writers have added a variety of frivolous ceremonies. If innocent, the woman suffered no inconvenience or injury; but if guilty, the

1 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iv. c. 8. § 15.