transaction between Boaz and the nearer kinsman of Ruth was at the gate of Bethlehem.

This explains Job v. 4, where the children of the wicked are said to be crushed in the gate, and Psalm cxxvii. 3, where it is said of those blessed with families, that they shall not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate. Also Prov. xxii. 22, Neither oppress the afflicted in the gate, and Lam. v. 14, The elders have ceased from the gate. Many consider that our Lord makes allusion to this, Matt. xvi. 18, when he says, the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church. In eastern cities generally the same custom has existed. The Turkish sove

reign has long been called the Porte, a name derived from the performance of public business at the gate of the palace.

When the Israelites left Egypt, they had no arranged system for the administration of justice, which doubtless had been carried before the Egyptian tribunals. All matters and disputes, therefore, were brought before Moses, who devoted much of his time to settle them. But it was obvious that some other plan must be adopted among so vast a multitude. The particulars of the change are recorded, Exod. xviii. Before the Israelites entered Canaan, the administration of justice there throughout the land was noticed, Deut. xvi. 18, and the appointment of administrators for every locality was an important measure. In the following chapter, various provisions relative to their proceedings are given, with directions for obtaining further judgment in matters of importance. There is no particular account of them before the captivity, except in reference to the proceedings of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 8—11, though at first the judges, and afterwards the kings, superintended the administration of justice in matters of difficulty. Thus Deborah appears to have acted, Judg. iv. 5, while the general administration was conducted by others, probably those noticed ch. v. 10. The eastern mollahs, or men of the law, have been thus distinguished in later days.

After the captivity, Ezra appointed two classes of judges, Ezra vii. 25, but difficult cases were still brought before the high-priest or ruler, until the time of the Maccabees, when a supreme tribunal was appointed. This was the Sanhedrim, or great council, as it is often called in the New Testament, consisting of seventy-two persons, under a president and vice-president. From the time of B. C. the office

of president was held distinct from that of high-priest, and became of considerable importance. The method of appointment to this council is not clearly stated, but it consisted of three classes, these were the chief-priests, the

elders, perhaps the heads of tribes and the scribes, or men learned in the law. This council appears to have sat daily, at first in a room between the inner and outer courts of the temple, afterwards in other places. Its authority was very great; it decided all causes brought before it from inferior courts, and directed the affairs of the nation generally. Especially it decided upon those who claimed to be prophets, who were numerous in the latter days of the Roman state. From this council a deputation was sent to John the Baptist, in order to examine his pretensions and proceedings, John i. 19. This council also sat upon our blessed Lord, but the assembly by which he was condemned was hastily and illegally summoned, and came together determined to condemn him, Matt. xxvi. 59, seeking false witnesses to give a colour to their proceedings. When the Roman power became paramount in Judæa, the power of ordering the punishment of death was taken from this assembly. The stoning of Stephen was a tumultous act, not a regular sen

tence, Acts vii. 57. When the rulers were powerful and arbitrary this council could not exercise much power. Under Herod, who, at the beginning of his reign, had caused the whole number, except three, to be beheaded, they could not act with independence. Latterly, though the Romans ruled in Palestine, the Sanhedrim exercised more independent authority in matters connected with the Jewish privileges and religion. Thus it filled up the measure of the national iniquity, by its bitter persecution of the Christians, of which many details are recorded in the Acts of the apostles, and also in the Epistles. The seventy elders chosen by Moses in the wilderness, under the Divine direction, seem to have been a council, or senate, that assisted him in governing the people. There is no trace of their having sat as judges, or mention of them after the arrival in Canaan.

There were also smaller councils of local authority. These are thought to be referred to by our blessed Lord, as the judgment, Matt. v. 22. But the inferior courts of judicature are not clearly described by any writers upon whom reliance can be placed; for the Talmudists are not worthy of credit. However, there were judges in every city and town, who were assisted by two Levites, that tribe being devoted to the study of the law, and best skilled in its precepts. In reference to these tribunals, great care was taken to inculcate the necessity for the strict and correct administration of justice and the prohibition of bribery. See Exod. xxiii. 8; Levit. xix. 15; Deut. i. 17-19. They were even cautioned against leaning too much to the feelings of compassion, Lev. xix. 15. They were in fact the representatives of the Most High as the Supreme Ruler, and therefore must act without respect of persons. Yet bribery and corruption prevailed with other evils, which the prophets frequently reproved. Amos even testifies to the taking a bribe so paltry as a pair of wooden sandals, ch. ii. 6. The administration of justice among heathen and Mohammedan nations, in the east, has usually been very corrupt, and the judges have almost openly exacted bribes from the parties applying to them.

There were also courts of judicature held in the synagogues before the rulers of them, who inflicted punishment by scourging, Matt. x. 17; Acts xxii. 19-20. Something of this sort still exists among the Jews, and frequently, as of old, it is made the means of oppression and persecution. The assemblies mentioned by St. James, ch. ii. 2, are con

cluded to have been similar courts among the early Christians. The context evidently refers to matters of judgment, in which the poor were oppressed, rather than to public worship, though it must be admitted that too little attention has been given to the accommodation of the poor, even in our days. There has been, however, considerable improvement in this respect in our own land.

Hired pleaders or advocates were unknown in early times. Each man spoke in his own cause. Of this there are many proofs, Prov. xviii. 17; 2 Sam. xix. 15; Jer. xxvi. 12—15; but none could be stronger than that of the two mothers, 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. A notable specimen of this class was Tertullus, who was brought forward by the high-priest to vilify the apostle Paul, Acts. xxiv. 1.

Complaints were first made to the judges, who sent officers 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. Judg. 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 pre-judge 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.