Exercitation 21

The sanction of the Law in promises and threatnings. The Law considered several ways. As the rule of the old Covenant. As having a new end put to it. As it was the instrument of the Jewish Polity. The sanction of it in those senses. Punishments threatned to be inflicted by God himself. By others. Promises of three sorts. To be fulfilled by God himself. By others. Parents how they prolong the lives of their children. Punishment [illegible] what. Providential punishments. Partial. Total. Persons entrusted with power of punishment. The original distribution of the people. Task-masters and Officers in Egypt, who. The authority of Moses. The distribution of the people in the Wilderness. Institution of the Sanhedrin. Judges. Kings. Penalties Ecclesiastical. The three degrees of it explained and examined. Causes of Niddui. Instance, John 9:20. Of Cherem. And Shammatha. Forms of an Excommunication. The Sentence, Ezra 10:7, 8. explained. Civil Penalties and Capital. The several sorts of them.

By the sanction of the Law we intend the promises and penalties wherewith, by God, the observation of it, and obedience to it, was enforced. This the Apostle has respect to in sundry places of this Epistle, the principal whereof are reported in the fore-going Dissertation. To represent this distinctly, we may observe, that the Law falls under a three-fold consideration: First, as it was a Repetition and Expression of the Law of Nature, and the Covenant of Works established thereon; Secondly, as it had a new end and design put upon the Administration of it, to direct the Church to the use and benefit of the Promise given of old to Adam, and renewed to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; Thirdly, as it was the instrument of the rule and government of the Church and People of Israel, with respect to the Covenant made with them in and about the Land of Canaan. And in this three-fold respect it had a three-fold sanction.

First, as considered absolutely, it was attended with promises of life, and threatnings of death, both Eternal. The original promise of life upon obedience, and the curse on its transgression were inseparably annexed to it; yes, were essential parts of it, as it contained the Covenant between God and Man. See (Genesis 2; Deuteronomy 27:26; Romans 6:23; Romans 4:4; Romans 10:5; Romans 11:6; Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 29:11; Galatians 3:12, 13).

Now in the Administration of the Law, the Church was thus far brought under the obligation of these promises and threatnings of life and death eternal, so far interested in the one, and made obnoxious to the other, as that if they used not the Law according to the new dispensation of it, wherein it was put into a subserviency to the Promise (as Galatians 3:19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24), that they were left to stand and fall according to the absolute tenure of that first Covenant and its ratification, which by reason of the entrance of sin proved fatally ruinous to all that cleaved to it (Romans 8:3; chapter 9:31).

Secondly, the Law had in this Administration of it, a new end and design put upon it, and that in three things. First, that it was made directive and instructive to another end, and not merely preceptive as at the beginning. The Authoritative Institutions that in it were super-added to the Moral commands of the Covenant of Works, did all of them direct and teach the Church to look for righteousness and salvation, the original ends of the first Covenant, in Another, and by another way; as the Apostle at large disputes in this Epistle, and declares positively, Galatians 3. throughout. Secondly, in that it had a dispensation added to the commands of obedience and interpretation, [illegible], by condescension, given by God himself, as to the perfection of its observance, and manner of its performance, in reference to this new end. It required not absolutely perfect obedience, but perfectness of heart, integrity and uprightness in them that obeyed. And to the Law thus considered, the former promises and threatnings are annexed. For the neglect of this use of it left the transgressors obnoxious to the curse denounced in general against them that continued not in the whole Law to do it. Thirdly, it had merciful relief provided against sin, for the supportment and consolation of sinners, as we shall see in the consideration of their Sacrifices.

Thirdly, it may be considered as it was the instrument of the rule and government of the People and Church of Israel, according to the tenure of the Covenant made with them about the Land of Canaan, and their living to God therein. And in this respect it had four things in it. First, that it represented to the people the holiness of God, the effects whereof are implanted in the Law according to its original constitution; whereupon in it they are so often called to be holy, because the Lord and Law-giver was holy. Secondly, a representation of his grace and condescension, pardoning of sin in the Covenant of mercy, in as much as he allowed a compensation by Sacrifices for so many transgressions, which in their own nature were forfeitures of their interest in that Land. Thirdly, that it was a righteous rule of obedience to that People, as to their especial Covenant condition. Fourthly, that it fully represented the severity of God against wilful transgressors of his Covenant, as now renewed in order to the Promise, seeing every such transgression was attended in their Administration of rule, with death without mercy.

It is of the Law, under this third consideration, though not absolutely as the instrument of the government of the People in Canaan, but as it had a representation in it of that Administration of grace and mercy which was contained in the promises whereof we treat. Concerning this, or the Law in this sense, we may consider; first, the promises, then the threatnings of it. And the promises are of two sorts. First, such as God took immediately upon himself the accomplishment of; Secondly, such as others, by his institution and appointment were to communicate the benefit of to the obedient.

§ 7 The first are of three sorts. First, of life temporal, as it was an instrument of their government, and eternal with God, as the promise or Covenant of Grace was exemplified or represented therein (Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). Secondly, of a spiritual Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, really to effect what the ordinances of institution did represent, so to save them eternally, to be exhibited in the fulness of time, as we have at large already proved. Thirdly, there are given out with the Law various promises of intervenient and mixed mercies to be enjoyed in earthly things in this world, that had their immediate respect to the mercy of the Land of Canaan, representing spiritual grace, annexed to the then present administration of the Covenant of Grace. Some of these concerned the collation of good things; others, the preventing of, or delivery of them from evils, both expressed in great variety.

§ 8 Of the promises, whose accomplishment depended on the institution of God by others, that is the principal and comprehensive of the rest, which is expressed (Exodus 20:12): Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged. This, says our Apostle, is the first commandment with promise (Ephesians 6:2). Not that the fore-going precepts have no promises annexed to the observation of them, nor merely because this has a promise literally expressed, but that it had the special kind of promise, wherein parents, by God's institution, have power to prolong the lives of obedient children, [in non-Latin alphabet] They shall prolong your days; that is, negatively, in not cutting of their life for disobedience, which was then in the power of natural parents; and possibly by praying for their prosperity, blessing them in the name of God, and directing them into the ways and means of universal obedience, whereby their days might be multiplied: and on sundry other accounts.

§ 9 For the penalties annexed to the transgression of the Law, which our Apostle principally has respect to in his discourses on this subject, they will require somewhat a larger consideration; and they were of two sorts: first, such as God took upon himself to inflict; and secondly, such as he appointed others to see to the execution of.

The first are of three sorts. First, that eternal punishment which he threatened to them that transgressed, and disannulled his Covenant, as renewed and ordered in the administration of the Law, and the ordinances thereof. This we have manifested elsewhere to be the importance of the curse, which every such transgressor was obnoxious to. Secondly, the punishment which the Jews express by [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet] Excision, or cutting off. It is first mentioned (Genesis 17:14) in the matter of Circumcision. Sometimes emphatically (Numbers 15:31): [in non-Latin alphabet] Cutting off — that soul shall be cut off from among his people; and frequently afterwards (Exodus 12:15, 19; chapter 31:14; Leviticus 7:10; chapter 20:3, 5, 6). It is rendered by the Apostle [in non-Latin alphabet] (Acts 3:23): shall be destroyed from among the people, that is, by the hand of God, as is declared (1 Corinthians 10:10; Hebrews 11:28). Twenty five times is this punishment threatened in the Law, still to such sins as disannul the Covenant, which our Apostle expressly respects (chapter 2:2), as shall be declared on that place.

Now this punishment the Jews generally agree to be [in non-Latin alphabet] by the hand of § 10 Heaven, or that which God himself would immediately inflict; and it is evidently declared so to be in the interpretation given of it (Leviticus 17:10; chapter 20:4, 5, 6).

But what this punishment was, or wherein it did consist, neither Jews nor Christians are absolutely agreed; the latter on this subject doing little more than representing the opinions and judgments of the other, which course also we may follow. Some of them say, that untimely death is meant by it, so Abarbinel on Numbers 5:22: [in non-Latin alphabet] It is the cutting off the days of the sinner, and his death before the natural term of it inflicted by the hand of Heaven. This untimely death they reckon to be between the years of twenty and sixty; from where Schindler, [in non-Latin alphabet] exterminium; cum quis praematurâ morte inter vigessimum & sexagessimum annum à Deo è medio tollitur; ita tamen ut relinquat liberos: Cutting off, is, when any one is taken away by untimely death, between the twentieth and sixtieth year of his age; yet so, as that he leave children. That clause or condition, so that yet he leave posterity or children behind him, is, as far as I can find, nowhere added by them, nor does any thing in the Scripture give countenance thereunto. Yes, many of the Hebrews think, that this punishment consisted in this, that such a one should leave no children behind him, but that either he should be wholly [in non-Latin alphabet], without children, or if he had any before his sin, they should all die before him, and so his name and posterity be cut off, which, say they, is to be cut off from among his people. So Aben-Ezra on Genesis 17:14. And this opinion is not without its countenance from the Scripture itself. And therefore Jarchi on the same place, with much probability, puts both these together, He shall be cut off by untimely death, and leave no children behind him to continue his name or remembrance among the people, [in non-Latin alphabet] as they speak. He that has no children is accounted as dead; but he that has, is as if he lived, and his name is not cut off.

They have a third opinion also, that by this cutting off, the death of the soul is intended, especially when the word is ingemminated, Cutting off he shall be cut off, as (Numbers 15:31). So Maimonides, [in non-Latin alphabet] that soul shall perish, it shall not live or subsist any more for ever. Few embrace this opinion, as being contrary to their general persuasion of eternal punishments for the transgressions of the Covenant. Therefore it is disputed against by Abarbinel on Numbers 15, who contends, that the death of the soul in everlasting separation from God, is intended in this threatening. And both the principal parts of these various opinions, namely, that of immature corporal death, and eternal punishment, are joined together by Jonathan, in his Targum on Numbers 15:31. He shall be cut off in this world, and that man shall be cut off in the world to come, and bear his sin in the day of Judgment. For my part, as I have showed, that eternal death was contained in the curse of the Law, so this especial [in non-Latin alphabet] or extermination from among the people, seems to me to intend some especial judgment of God, in taking away the life of such a person, answering to that putting to death by the Judges and Magistrates in such cases, when they were known, which God did appoint. And herein also was an eminent representation of the everlasting cutting off of obstinate and final transgressors of the Covenant.

Thirdly, in judgments to be brought providentially upon the whole nation by pestilence, famine, sword and captivity, which are at large declared, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

Fourthly, total rejection of the whole body of the people, in case of unbelief and disobedience, upon the full and perfect revelation that was to be made of the will and mind of God upon the coming of the Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:18; Acts 3:32; Hosea 2:23; Isaiah 10:22, 23; Romans 9).

These are the heads of the punishments, which God took upon himself to inflict in an extraordinary manner, on the transgressors of the Law, that is, those who proceeded to do it so with an high hand, as that his Covenant was made void thereby as to all the ends of its re-establishment in the administration of the Law.

The second sort of penalties annexed to the transgression of the Law, were such as men, by God's institution and appointment, were enabled to inflict; concerning which, we must consider, First, who, and what the persons were, who were enabled and authorised to inflict these penalties. Secondly, of what sort these penalties were, and for what transgressions necessarily inflicted.

The original division of the people after the days of Jacob was into [in non-Latin alphabet], Tribes, whereof at first there were twelve, which by dividing the Tribe of Joseph into two, were increased into thirteen, and upon the matter reduced again to twelve by the special exemption of the Tribe of Levi from inheritances, and their separation to the worship of God. Secondly, [in non-Latin alphabet], families, or [in non-Latin alphabet], houses of fathers, which on many probabilities may be supposed to have been seventy, the number of them who went down with Jacob into Egypt, each of which constituted a particular family. And [in non-Latin alphabet] particular households, all which are enumerated (Joshua 7:14). This distribution continued among the people while they were in Egypt; and this only, they being not capable to cast themselves into any civil order there, by reason of their oppressions, and therefore contented themselves with that which was natural. Accordingly there were three sorts of persons that were in some kind of dignity and preeminence among the people, although it may be after their oppression began, they were hindered from exercising the authority that belonged to them. First, as to the Tribes there were some who were [in non-Latin alphabet], the princes, or heads of the Tribes (Numbers 1:16), twelve in number according to the number of the Tribes. Secondly, for the families or principal houses of the fathers there were [in non-Latin alphabet], the elders who presided over them. These Moses and Aaron gathered together at their first coming into Egypt (Exodus 4:29). And these, as I said before, being the rulers of the first families, were probably in number seventy; from where afterwards was the constitution of seventy elders for rule (Exodus 24:1). Thirdly, [in non-Latin alphabet] or priests, it may be in every private household, the first born, which are mentioned, and so called before the constitution of the Aaronical priesthood (Exodus 19:21). Besides these, there were officers who attended the service of the whole people, as to the execution of justice and order, called [in non-Latin alphabet], Shoterim, which we have rendered by the general name of officers (Exodus 5:14). And they are afterwards distinguished from the elders and judges (Deuteronomy 16:18). For there are two sorts of persons mentioned, that were over the people in respect of their works, even in Egypt, [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], exactors or task-masters, and officers (Exodus 5:6); the former, or the Nogheshim the Jews say were Egyptians, and the latter, or the Shoterim, Israelites, which occasions that distinct expression of them: Pharaoh commanded the same day the task-masters of the people, and their officers: and v. 13, 14. And the task-masters hasted them, saying, fulfill your works, and the officers of the children of Israel were beaten. And they tell us in Midrash Rabba, on Exodus, Sect. 1, that one of these Nogheshim was over ten of the Israelitish officers; and one of them over ten Israelites; from where was the following division of the people into tens and hundreds, and to this in the same place, they add a putid story of an exactor killed by Moses.

What was the authority of these, and how it was executed by them in Egypt nothing is recorded. Probably, at the beginning of their works and afflictions they were made use of only to answer for the pretended neglects or miscarriages of the multitude of their brethren, as (Exodus 5:14).

After their coming up out of Aegypt, during their abode in the Wilderness, Moses presided over them with all manner of authority, as their law-giver, king and judge. He judged and determined all their causes, as is frequently affirmed, and that alone, until by the advice of Jethro, he took in others to his assistance (Exodus 15:16, 25). And there is mention of four particular cases that he determined. One religious, one civil, and two capital relating to religion; in these he made especial enquiry of God. The first was about the unclean that would keep the Passover (Numbers 9:7, 8). The second about the daughters of Zelophead, who claimed their inheritance (Numbers 27:4, 5). The third about the blasphemer (Leviticus 24). The last about him that profaned the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32, 33, 34). In which also, as the Jews say, he set a pattern to future judges, as determining the lesser causes speedily, but those wherein blood was concerned, not without stay and much deliberation.

§ 16 In the Wilderness the body of the people was cast into a new distribution, of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, all which had their peculiar officers or rulers chosen from among themselves (Exodus 18:25; Deuteronomy 1:13, 14). And Moses is said to choose them, because being chosen by the people, he approved of them, as the places foregoing compared, do manifest. The principal distributions of these, planting themselves together in the cities or towns of Canaan, however afterward they multiplied or were decreased, continued to be called by the names of the thousands of Israel, or Judah. So Bethlehem Ephratah is said to be little among the thousands of Judah (Micah 5:2). One of those thousands that had their especial head and ruler over them, and their distinct government, as to their own concernments among themselves, sate down at Bethlehem, which colony afterwards variously flourished or drew towards a decay.

After these things, by God's appointment was constituted the great court of the § 17 Sanhedrin, which because we have treated of apart elsewhere, with those lesser courts of justice which were instituted in imitation of it, sufficiently to our purpose, I shall here wholly omit. Neither shall I need to mention their judges raised up extraordinarily of God, for the general rule of the whole people. Nor of their kings continued by succession in the family of David, because their story in general is sufficiently known, and the especial consideration of their power, with the manner of the administration of it, would draw us too far out of the way of our present design. And these are they to whom the Lord in their several generations committed the execution of those punishments that he had allotted to the transgression of the law.

The penalties themselves with the especial causes of them are lastly to be considered. § 18 And these in general were of two sorts. First, ecclesiastical; secondly, civil. Ecclesiastical penalties were the authoritative exclusion of an offending person from the society of the church, and the members of it. That such an exclusion is prescribed in the law in sundry cases, has in several instances been by others evidenced. Many disputes also have been about it, both concerning the causes of it, the authority whereby it was done, with its ends and effects. But these things are not of our present consideration, who intend only to represent things as they are in facto instituted or observed.

Of this exclusion, the Jews commonly make three degrees, and that not without § 19 some countenance from the Scripture. The first they call, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] Niddui. The second [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], Cherem; and the third [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] Shammatha. That which they call Niddui, from [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], to expel, to separate, to cast off, is with the most of them the first and lowest degree of this separation and exclusion. And persons who are to pronounce this sentence and put it into execution, are according to the Jews, any court from the highest Sanhedrin of seventy one at Jerusalem, to the meanest in their synagogues. Yes, any ruler of a synagogue, or wise man in authority, might according to them, do the same thing. And many ridiculous stories they have about the mutual excommunication and absolution of one another by consent. The time of its continuance, or the first space of time given to the persons offending to repent, was thirty days, to which on his neglect he was left to sixty, and then to ninety, when upon his obstinacy he was obnoxious to the Cherem. As the causes of it they reckon up in Jerusalem Talmud, moed Katon, twenty four crimes, on the guilt whereof any one may be thus dealt withal. 1. He that despises a wise man, that is, a rabbi, master, or doctor, even after his death. 2. He that contemns a minister or messenger of the house of judgement. 3. He that calls his neighbor, servant or slave. 4. He to whom the judge sends and appoints him a time of appearance, and he does not appear. 5. He that despises the words of the scribes, much more, the words of the law of Moses. 6. He that does not obey, and stand to the sentence denounced against him. 7. He that has any hurtful thing in his power, as a biting dog, and does not remove it. 8. He that sells his field to a Christian, or any heathen. 9. He that gives witness against an Israelite in the courts of the Christians. 10. A priest that kills cattle, and does not separate the gifts that belong to another priest. 11. He that profanes the second holy day in captivity. 12. He that does any work in the afternoon before the Passover. 13. He that takes the name of God in vain on any account. 14. He that induces others to profane the name of God. 15. He that draws others to eat of holy things without the Temple. 16. He that computes the times, or writes calendars, or almanacs, fixing the months out of the land of Israel. 17. He that causes a blind man to fall. 18. He that hinders others from doing the work of the law. 19. He that makes profane the killing of any creature by his own fault. 20. He that kills and does not show his knife beforehand before a wise man, whereby it may appear to be fit. 21. He that is unwilling to, or makes himself difficult in learning. 22. He that puts away his wife, and afterwards has commerce with her in buying and selling, which may induce them to cohabitation. 23. A wise man of evil fame and report. 24. He that excommunicates him who deserves not that sentence.

An instance of this exclusion, we have expressly in the Gospel, John 9:20. The Jews had already agreed, that if any man should confess he was Christ, he should be put out of the Synagogue. He should be Menuddeh; put under the sentence of Niddui. And according to this sentence they proceeded with the blind man, whose eyes were opened by the Lord Christ, v. 34, that is, says the Margin of our Translation, they excommunicated him. But that is not the signification of the word; it denotes only their causing him to be thrust out of the Synagogue by their Officers, although there is no doubt, but that at the same time they pronounced sentence against him.

If a man died under this sentence, they laid a stone upon his bier, intimating that he deserved lapidation if he had lived. Howbeit they excluded him not from teaching or learning of the Law, so that he kept four paces distant from other persons. He came in, and went out of the Temple at the contrary door to others, that he might be known. All which with sundry other things were of their traditional additionals, to the just prescriptions of the Word.

In case this process succeeded not, and upon some greater demerits, the sentence of Cherem was to be proceeded to.

This is an high degree of authoritative separation from the congregation, and is made use of either when the former is despised, or as was said upon greater provocations. This sentence must not be denounced, but in a congregation of ten at least, and with such a one that is thus anathematized, it is not lawful so much as to eat.

The third and last sentence in this kind which contains a total and irrecoverable exemption of a person from the communion of the congregation, is called Shammatha. Some of the Talmudical Rabbins in moed katon give the etymology of this word, as if it should be as much as Sham metha, death is there. But it is generally agreed, that it is from to exclude, expell, cast out, that is, from the Covenant of Promise, and commonwealth of Israel. And this the most take to be total and final, the persons that fall under it being left to the judgement of God without hope of reconciliation to the Church. Hence it is called in the Targum (Numbers 21:25; Deuteronomy 7:27) the curse, the execration of God; and by the Talmudists, the anathema of the God of Israel. But yet it cannot be denied, but that in many places, they speak of it as the general name for any excommunication, and so as not at all to difference it from Niddui, which is taken to be the least degree thereof. The most learned Buxtorf has given us out of an ancient Hebrew Manuscript, a form of this excommunication which is truly ferale carmen, as sad and dismal an imprecation, as according to their principles could well be invented. It is indeed by him applied to the Cherem, but as L'Empereur has observed in his Annotations on Bertram, it was doubtless only made use of in the last and greatest exclusion, which is supposed to be the Shammatha. The form of the curse is as ensues.

By the sentence of the Lord of Lords, let such a one, the Son of such a one, be in anathema, or be accursed in each house of judgement, that above, and that below, (that is, by God and his Church) in the curse of the holy Ones on high; in the curse of the Seraphims and Ophannim, (the Wheels or Cherubims in Ezekiel's Vision) in the curse of the whole Church from the greatest to the least; let there be upon him strokes great and abiding; diseases great and horrible: let his house be an habitation of Dragons, or Serpents; let his Star, or Planet, be dark in the Clouds; let him be exposed to indignation, anger and wrath; and let his dead body be cast to wild beasts and Serpents; let his enemies and adversaries rejoice over him: and let his silver and gold be given to others: and let all his children be cast at the doors of his adversaries: and let posterity be astonished at his day: let him be accursed out of the mouth of Addiriron, and Athariel; from the mouth of Sandalphon, and Hadraniel; from the mouth of Ansisiel, and Pathiel; from the mouth of Seraphiel, and Sagansael; from the mouth of Michael, and Gabriel; from the mouth of Raphiel, and Mesharethiel; let him be accursed from the mouth of Zazabib, and from the mouth of Havabib, who is the great God; and from the mouth of the seventy names of the great King; and from the mouth of Tzorlak the great Chancellor (these names partly significant, and partly insignificant, coined to strike a terror into the minds of weak and distempered persons, they invent and apply at their pleasure to Angels, good and bad; not unlike the monstrous names which the Gnostics gave to the Aeons who borrowed many things from the Tradition of the Jews, and returned them again to them with an improvement, but they proceed) let him be swallowed up as Corah and his company; and let his soul depart with fear and terror: let the rebuke of the Lord slay him, and let him be strangled like Achitophel: let his leprosy be as the leprosy of Gehazi; neither let there be any restoration of his ruin; let not his burial be in the burials of Israel; let his wife be given to strangers; and let others humble her in his death. Under this curse, let such a one the Son of such a one be, with his whole inheritance. But to me, and all Israel, let God extend his peace and blessing. Amen.

Now, because it is certain, that this is a form of the greatest and last anathema, of a final and total excommunication, and yet he who is devoted, is every where said to be Muchram, and under the Cherem, it is almost evident, that these three degrees are not distinguished as is commonly supposed, namely, that the Shammatha should exceed the Cherem, and that only the Niddui, the highest and extremest sentence in this solemn form, being so often called the Cherem. Shammatha therefore is only a general name for the expulsion of a person, sometimes with the Niddui, and sometimes with the Cherem, which yet I do not suppose was always thus horrid and fierce.

To add to the terror of this Sentence, they used to accompany the pronouncing of it with the sound of Trumpets and Horns, as the Targum says Barak did in his cursing of Mezoz (Judges 5:23). He shammatized him with four hundred Trumpets. And herein have they been imitated by the Church of Rome, in their shaking of Candles, and ringing of Bells on the like occasion.

I have not reported these things, as though for matter and manner, they wholly belonged to the penalties of the Law that were of Divine Institution. Many things in the manner of their performance, as they are now expressed by the Rabbins, were certainly of their own arbitrary invention. When their use among them first began, is unknown; though it be not improbable, that sundry things of this nature were practised by them before the destruction of the Second Temple, when they had mixed many of their own superstitions with the worship of God, as is evident from the Gospel.

But this also is certain, that God in sundry cases had appointed that some transgressors should be separated from the Congregation, devoted to destruction, and be cut off. An instance of the execution of which Institution we have (Ezra 10:7, 8). They made a Proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the Children of the Captivity, that they should gather themselves together to Jerusalem, and that whoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the Princes, and the Elders, all his substance should be divided, and himself separated from the Congregation of those that had been carried away. A double penalty is here threatened upon disobedient persons; the one concerned the person of such a one, [in non-Latin alphabet], He shall be separated from the Congregation of the Captivity; that is, of Israel then returned out of Captivity: and this was the Niddui or expulsion from Sacred communion which we before described: He should be esteemed as a Heathen.

Secondly, As to his substance [in non-Latin alphabet], All his substance his goods and possessions should be anathematized, devoted, put under Cherem, taken away for Sacred Uses. Hence some have made this distinction between the three degrees of excommunication.

First, The Niddui concerned only the person, and his separation from Sacred Offices: Cherem had also confiscation of goods attending of it; the substance of the transgressor being devoted; and Shammatha was accompanied with the death of the devoted person; which carnal penalties under the Gospel being removed, that great and sore revenge which disobedient sinners are to expect from the hand of God at the last day, is substituted by our Apostle in the room of them all (Hebrews 10:28, 29).

Civil punishments next succeed, and they were of three sorts. First, Corporeal: Secondly, Such as respect the outward estate and condition of the offender: Thirdly, Capital.

First, Corporeal punishment was that only of stripes, not exceeding the number of forty (Deuteronomy 25:23). An account of the Jews' opinions, and the manner of their execution of this punishment, is given us by many; in particular, exactly by Buxtorf in his Preface to his Bibliotheca Rabbinica, where I refer the Reader. They call it [in non-Latin alphabet], or beating by strokes, and sometimes [in non-Latin alphabet], the beating of forty, or with forty. And he that was liable to it, was [in non-Latin alphabet], filius plagarum. Many crimes doubtless rendered persons obnoxious to this penalty; but they are not directly expressed in the Law. The Jews now reckon up seven instances of unlawful copulation with women, free and unmarried, for adultery, as is known, was capital by the express sentence of the Law. As 1. With a Sister. 2. A Father's Sister. 3. A Mother's Sister. 4. A Wife's Sister. 5. A Brother's Widow. 6. An Uncle's Widow. 7. A Woman separated. Many other crimes also they reckon up with reference to Ceremonial Institutions, as eating of fat, and blood, and leaven on the Passover, making an oil like the holy oil; even all such transgressions as are threatened with punishment, but have no express kind of punishment annexed to them.

Secondly, Punishments respecting state and condition, were of two sorts. First; Pecuniary in a quadruple restitution in case of theft. Secondly, Personal in banishment, or confinement to the City of Refuge for him that had slain a man at unawares (Numbers 35:25).

Thirdly, Capital punishments they inflicted four ways. First, By Strangulation which was inflicted on six sorts of transgressors: 1. Adulterers. 2. Strikers of Parents. 3. Men-stealers. 4. Old Men exemplarily rebellious against the Law. 5. False Prophets. 6. Prognosticators by the Names of Idols. Secondly, Burning (Leviticus 20:14). And this the Jews say, was inflicted by pouring molten Lead into their mouths; and the crimes that this punishment were allotted to, were 1. The Adultery of the Priest's Daughter. 2. Incest; 1. With a Daughter. 2. With a Son's Daughter. 3. A Wife's Daughter. 4. A Wife's Daughter's Daughter. 5. A Wife's Son's Daughter. 6. A Wife's Mother. 7. The Mother of her Father. 8. The Mother of her Father in Law. Thirdly, Death was inflicted by the Sword (Deuteronomy 20:21): 1. On the voluntary Man-slayer. 2. On the Inhabitants of any City that fall to Idolatry. Fourthly, By Stoning: Which was executed for Incest: 1. With a Mother: 2. A Mother in Law: 3. A Daughter in Law: 4. Adultery with a betrothed Virgin: 5. Unnatural uncleanness with Men: 6. With Beasts by Men: 7. With Beasts by Women: 8. Blasphemy: 9. Idolatry: 10. Offering to Moloch: 11. A Familiar Spirit of Ob: 12. Of Jiedeoni: 13. On Impostors: 14. On Seducers: 15. On Enchanters or Magicians: 16. Profaners of the Sabbath: 17. Cursers of Father or Mother: 18. The dissolute and stubborn Son: Concerning all which it is expressly said, that they shall be stoned.

To the execution of these penalties there was added, two cautionary Laws. First, That they that were put to death for the increase of their ignominy, and terror of others, should be hanged on a Tree (Deuteronomy 21:21). Secondly, That they should be buried the same day (v. 23). And this is a brief abstract of the penalties of the Law, as it was the Rule of the Polity of the People in the Land of Canaan.