PENALTIES
885
PENANCE
provision had been made. The penalty of banishment does not appear in the Mosaic law ; for the phrase " cut off from among his people" cannot be thus understood [see Execution] ; nor is such a punishment at all in the spirit of the theocratic law. The accidental killing of a man led to temporary exile, but within a free citj' of the Holy Land itself. All these penalties bear an un- mistakable air of mildness, in view of the crimes against which they are denounced and the character of the people, and especially when compared with those in- liicted by other ancient nations (e. g. the Egyptians, Diod. Sic. i, 77). Nor did they bring infamy upon the criminal, for punishments involving social and civil degradation were unknown to the jNIosaic law. They were also free from torture ; nor was this admitted even in the case of an inquisition until the time of the Her- ods (Josephus, Ant. xvi, 8, 4; 10, 3; xvii, 4, 1). Jo- sephus, indeed (Apion, ii, 30), speaks of the Mosaic pen- alties as more severe than those inflicted among other nations. But this is merely comparative. The freedom of the Mosaic law from torture will appear the more to its honor if we remember that the most civilized na- tions have onlj' begun to refrain from it, and to punish the worst criminals with simple death, in very recent time (Abegg, Lehrh. d. Strafrechstinssensch, p. 187). The pardoning power, with which the administration of justice is associated in modern states, accords with this character of punishment; but prescription, in the criminal law (prascriptio criminis), corresponds merely to the ancient right of blood-revenge. Of a gradation of penalties, increasing with each repetition of the of- fence, the Mosaic law knows nothing (comp. Abegg, Op. cit. p. 230), but it appears in the criminal jurisprudence of the later Jews (Mishna, Sunhedr. ix, 5). The expi- ation by children of the offences of their parents is no- where ordered in the law, although it was usual among other ancient nations (Cicero, Ad Brut. 15). On the contrary, Deut. xxiv, IG directly opposes this practice (comp. 2 Kings xiv, G; 2 Chron. xxv, 4). But in Josh. vii, 24 some understand that the whole family were sharers in the guilt. (But see Aciian. Keil's remarks on the passage are childish.) It may be seen from 2 Kings ix, 2G that lawless tyranny sometimes punished children with the father; but the children in the case of Naboth were heirs, and Ahab's main design could not be fultilled while they remained alive (I Kings xxi). The punishment of whole nations at the will of an in- dividual (see Esther iii, G) is a work of Oriental despot- ism, of which examples have been witnessed even in modern times (Arvieux, i, 391 sq.). The only excep- tion was the case of the children of insolvent debtors, who were made bondmen l)y hard-hearted creditors (2 Kings iv, 1 ; Matt, xviii, 25). The threat in Exod. xx, 5 has nothing to do with civil jurisprudence (see Weg- ner's Interpretatio of the passage, Viteb. 1790).
There remains for examination the vexed question, which has an important bearing on the determination of the date of the crucitixion, whether the criminal tri- als and executions of the Jewisli authorities could take place on the Sabbath and high feast-days. There can be no doubt, in the nature of the case, that offenders could be arrested on these days, and that it was done appears from John vii, 32; Acts xii, 3. But it cannot be shown from the Mishna {Sanhedr. Ixxxviii, 1) that sessions of the Sanhedrim were held on such days. See I'ASSOviiu. They certainly were not then usual (]Mish- na. Join Tob, v, 2) ; and even on the preceding day they were avoided, if possible, lest in any way they should be held over into the Sabbath. It appears also from Acts xii, 4 that condemnation, where possible, was post- poned uiilil after the festivals. But that executions were helil during the feast cannot be doubted (Mishna, Sdiihed/: xi, 4; comp. Deut. xvii, 12, 13). Yet we can- not suppose that tlie Sabbath, or a feast-day which was regarded as a Sabbath, could be chosen for such a pur- pose (see esp. Bleek, Beitr. znr Ki-anrjelienkritik, p. 140 sq.) — Winer, ii, 536, See Punishment.
Penance (Lat. panitentiu) is the outward profes- sion of sorrow, as repentance (q. v.) is the principle and inward feeling of sorrow for sin. The word is used in a neyatire antl a positive sense. In a negative sense pen- ance is manifested in the neglect of ordinary attention to dress, to the care of the person, to the use of food. In a positive sense the word is used to designate the per- formance of some ads of ecclesiastical disci jiline, en- joined or authoritatively imposed either as a punish- ment for offences by which the party has exposed him- self to the censures of that ecclesiastical body called the Church, or as an expression of his penitence. For the sake of affording a historical treatment of the subject, we shall first consider the views and practices of the early Christian Church. (A pretty full account is given by Bingham, Origines Ecclesia, and a more concise one by Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, and upon these we shall mainly depend in the first part of this article.)