sages besides those quoted above. In Numb. xi. 16, they are the persons of respectability from among whom the supreme senate of 70 is chosen. In Deut. i. 15, mention is made of Schoterim appointed by Moses in the wilderness, although the people had previously had such magistrates in Egypt; most probably he only filled the places of those who were dead. In Deut. xx. 5, we see them charged with orders to those of the people that were selected to go to war; which is perfectly suited to my explanation of the nature of their office. In Deut. xxix. 10, xxxi. 28, Josh. viii. 33, xxiii. 2, we find them as representatives of the people in the Diets, or when a covenant with God is entered into. In Josh. i. 10, they appear as the officers who communicated to the people the general's orders respecting military affairs; and this, again, corresponds to the province of muster-masters. In 2 Chron. xxvi. 11, we have the chief Schoter, under whose command the whole army stands after the general, if indeed he himself be not so. In 1 Chron. xxvii. 1, the name of the office alone is mentioned.-MICHAELIS.

CHAPTER XVII.

Ver. 16. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

The king was not to keep a strong body of cavalry, nor an immoderate number of horses. As Palestine was a mountainous country, and on the more level side bounded by the Arabian deserts, in which an enemy's cavalry could not advance for want of forage, a powerful cavalry was almost unnecessary for its defence; and nothing but the spirit of conquest could prompt any king to violate the prohibition of Moses. But how little such a spirit accorded with the views of their divine lawgiver, we have already seen, in treating of the boundaries of the land. For agricultural purposes, the Israelites made no use of horses; but only (which in an economical point of view is far more profitable) of oxen and asses. The latter were also most commonly employed as beasts of burden in travelling; but the people made most of their journeys on foot. A king, therefore, could have no occasion for a great number of horses, unless he had it in view to carry on foreign wars.-MICHAELIS.

Ver. 17. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. The king was not to take many wives, ver. 17. This law stands most in need of illustration; for as Moses did not forbid polygamy to the Israelites in general, it could not be his intention to confine the king within narrower limits, in this respect, than the citizen. Most probably, therefore, Moses had no objection to his having four wives, as seems to have been allowed to every Israelite. Even the high-priest, Jehoiada, of whom the Bible always gives a good character, gave two wives to King Joash: nor did he think that in this he was trespassing the Mosaic precept, of which he was by his office the authentic expounder; 2 Chron. xxiv. 3.-But the oriental seraglio now goes far beyond this moderate polygamy. There, more for state than for connubial purposes, great multitudes of women are brought together, and compelled to be miserable. Now it is only this excessive polygamy, this seraglio, as a part of royal state, that Moses appears to have forbidden. The nature of the thing itself shows, that it tends to make kings effeminate; and history confirms this to a much greater extent than could have been presupposed. That it exposes a reigning family to the danger of becoming extinct, we have at present a proof in the Turkish empire; for of the house of Othman there are so few heirs remaining, that now (1774) while I am adding this remark for the second edition, they are apprehensive of losing the very last of them in infancy.-The imitation of the practice too, by people of rank and opulence, carries polygamy to such a pitch, that, as contributing to the depopulation of a country, it is much more destructive than even the pestilence. To the Mosaic polity it was peculiarly unsuitable, for this

special reason, that the most beautiful women of all nations are collected for a seraglio: and Moses, as he expressly mentions, was afraid lest such foreign beauties should win the heart of the king, and make him a proselyte to idolatry; and that his fears were not groundless, the example of Solomon is a striking proof. No law of Moses was less observed than this. It would appear that Saul had a seraglio, and that too belonging to him as king; for David (2 Sam. xii. 8) is said to have succeeded to it. David, before he was king, had, besides Michal, other two wives, Abigail and Ahinoam, 2 Sam. ii. 2. His first wife, Michal, had indeed been taken from him by his father-in-law; but he received her again while king of Judah. But after he had reigned some years in Hebron, we find him, besides these, in possession of four new wives, Maacha, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, 2 Sam. iii. 2-8. This, however, was but a moderate superabundance for the king of a single tribe, considering, that seven years after, when he could less plead youth and passion in excuse, we find him, as king of all Israel, with still more wives and concubines, 2 Sam., v. 13; the latter, indeed, in such numbers, that on his flight from Absalom, he left ten of them to look after the palace, 2 Sam. xv. 16. To what excess Solomon, the father of but one heard of the Bible. It is difficult to believe that he could son, carried polygamy, is known to every one who has but have known all the inmates of his seraglio; indeed it required a good memory to have been able to call them by their names. After his time, we have, in the books of the Chronicles, accounts of the polygamy of the kings, not indeed on such an immoderate and magnificent scale, but still far exceeding the degree permitted by Moses.-MI

CHAELIS.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ver. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

All idolatrous ceremonies, and even some which, though innocent in themselves, might excite suspicions of idolatry, were prohibited. Of these, human sacrifices are so conspicuous, as really the most abominable of all the crimes to which superstition is capable of hurrying its votaries, in defiance of the strongest feelings of humanity, that Í must expatiate a little upon them. For this species of cruelty is so unnatural, that to many readers of the laws of Moses, it has appeared incredible. Against no other sort of idolatry, are the Mosaic prohibitions so rigorous, as against this; and yet we find that it continued among the Israelites to a very late period; for even the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who survived the ruin of the state, and wrote in the beginning of the Babylonish captivity, take notice of it, and describe it, not as an antiquated or obsolete abomination, but as what was actually in use but a little before, and even during their own times. For a father to see his children suffering, is in the highest degree painful; but that he should ever throw them to the flames, appears so utterly improbable, that we can hardly resist the temptation of declaring any narrative of such inhuman cruelty an absolute falsehood. But it is nevertheless an undoubted fact, that the imitation of the neighbouring nations, of which Moses expresses such anxious apprehensions in his laws, had, in spite of all the punishments denounced against it, kept up the abominable custom of offering children in sacrifice; and hence we see how necessary it was to enact the most rigorous laws against the idolatry, which required sacrifices of such a nature. The lives of children were to be secured against the fury of avaricious priests, and the fears of silly fools; and if the punishments of the law did not completely produce that effect, we can hardly avoid thinking, how much it is to be regretted that they were not more severe. To many, both Jewish and Christian expositors, it has appeared so incredible that the Israelites should have sacrificed their own children, that wherever, in the laws, or in the history, they find the expression, making their sons pass through the fire to Moloch, (for it was chiefly to that god that human sacrifices were offered,) they are fain to explain it on the more humane principle of their merely dedicating their sons to Moloch, and in token thereof, making them pass between two sacrifice-fires. In confirmation of this idea,

the Vulgate version of Deut. xviii. 10, may be adduced; Qui lustret filium suum aut filiam, ducens per ignem. In this way, the incredible barbarity of human sacrifices would appear to have no foundation in truth; and I very readily admit, that of some other passages, such as Lev. xviii. 21. 2 Kings xxi. 6. xxiii. 10. Jer. xxxii. 35, an explanation on the same principle may be given with some show of truth.— More especially with regard to the first of these passages, I may remark, as Le Clerc has done before me, that we find a variety of lection which makes a material alteration of the sense; for instead of (way) Haobir, to cause to pass through, the Samaritan text, and the LXX., read (2) Haabid, to cause to serve, or, to dedicate to the service of. In my German version, I have, on account of this uncertainty, here made use of the general term Weihem, to dedicate, as the Vulgate had already set me the example, in rendering the clause, De semine tuo non dobis, ut consecretur idolo Moloch. I was the less inclined to employ the term burn here, because no mention is made of fire, transire facere per ignem, as in other passages; but it is merely said, transire facere. At the same time I really believe, from the strain of other passages to be mentioned immediately, that burning is here meant.-With regard, in like manner, to 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, where it is expressly said, that Ahaz had, in imitation of the abominable practice of the nations whom Jehovah drove out before the Israelites, burnt his sons with fire, the weighty objection may be made, that there is a various reading, and that, instead of (y) Veibor, he burnt, almost all the ancient versions, such as the LXX., Syriac, Chaldee, and Vulgate, had read (y) Veiober, he made to pass through, by the mere transposition of the second radical into the place of the first. The following passages, however, are decisive of the reality of sacrificing their children.

1. Ezek. xvi. 21, (where we find the first-mentioned expression,) Thou hast slain my sons, and given them, to cause them pass through to them. Here it is evident that, to pass through, or to cause to pass through the fire, can be nothing else than burning, because the sons were previously slain.

2. The passages where the word (w) Saraf, to burn, is used; and where no suspicion of any various reading can take place; Deut. xii. 31. Jer. vii. 31. xix. 5.

3. Psalm cvi. 37, 38. "Their sons and daughters they sacrificed unto devils. They shed the innocent blood of their children, and offered it to the gods of Canaan, and the land was profaned with blood."

The punishment of those who offered human sacrifices was stoning; and that, as I think, so summarily, that the bystanders, when any one was caught in such an act, had a right to stone him to death on the spot, without any judicial inquiry whatever. Whatever Israelite, says Moses, in Lev. xx. 2, or stranger dwelling among you, gives one of his children to Moloch, shall die; his neighbours shall stone him to death. These are not the terms in which Moses usually speaks of the punishment of stoning judicially inflicted; but, all the people shall stone him; the hands of the witnesses shall be the first upon him. Besides, what follows a little after, in verses 4 and 5, does not appear to me as indicative of any thing like a matter of judicial procedure; If the neighbours shut their eyes, and will not see him giving his children to Moloch, nor put him to death, God himself will be the aven ger of his crime. I am therefore of opinion, that in regard to this most extraordinary and most unnatural crime, which, however, could not be perpetrated in perfect secrecy, Moses meant to give an extraordinary injunction, and to let it be understood, that whenever a parent was about to sacrifice his child, the first person who observed him was to hasten to its help, and the people around were instantly to meet, and to stone the unnatural monster to death. In fact, no crime so justly authorizes extrajudicial vengeance, as this horrible cruelty perpetrated on a helpless child; in the discovery of which we are always sure to have either the lifeless victim as a proof, or else the living testimony of a witness who is beyond all suspicion; and where the mania of human sacrifices prevailed to such a pitch as among the Canaanites, and got so completely the better of all the feelings of nature, it was necessary to counteract its effects by a measure equally extraordinary and summary.-MICHAELIS.

Ver. 11. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Sorcery is the fruitful source of numerous evils in the East. Charms and counter-charms call for the ingenuity, the property, the hopes, and fears of thousands. They are often used to effect the most diabolical purposes, and inany a seduction is attributed to their supernatural power. The prophet Isaiah gives a description of the voice of a famillar spirit, and of its proceeding like a whisper from the dust. "Thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." Isa. xxix. 4. The margin has, for whisper, "peep or chirp." Lev. xix. 31. 1 Sam. xxviii. 7. The deluded Hindoos, in great emergencies, have recourse to familiar spirits, for the purpose of knowing how they may avoid the evil which is expected, or has in part already come. In the distraction of their minds, they run to the “consulter with familiar spirits," make known their desperate case, and entreat him to lend his assistance. Those "wizards that peep and that mutter," and who seek "for the living to the dead," Isa. viii. 19, are generally frightful in their persons, and disgusting in their manners. See the aged impostor, with a staff in his hand: his person bent by years; his wild, piercing, cat-like eye; a scowling, searching look; a clotted beard; a toothless mouth; dishevelled hair; a mumbling unearthly voice; his more than half-naked body, covered with ashes; a wild unsteady gait, joined with the other insignia of his office;-give a fearful influence to his infernal profession. A man who is in distress, and who has resolved to consult with a familiar spirit, sends for two magicians: the one is called the Mantheravathe, i. e. he who repeats the incantations; the other, the Anjanam-Parkeravan, i. e. he who looks, and who answers to the questions of the former. His hand is rubbed with the Anjanam, which is made of the burnt bones of the sloth, and the scull of a virgin; and when the ceremonies have commenced, he looks steadily into his hand, and can never wink or take off his eyes till all shall be finished. On the ground are placed rice, cocoa-nuts, plantains, areca nuts, betel leaves, milk, camphire, and frankincense. The chief magician then, with a loud voice, begins to invoke the nine gods-Ammon, Pulliär, Scandan, Aiyenar, lyaner, Veerapatteran, Anjana, Anuman, Viraver. He then falls to the earth (as do all present) nine times, and begins to whisper and "mutter," while his face is in the "dust," and he who looks in the hand "peeps" and stares for the beings who have to appear. All then stand up, and the first wizard asks the second, "What do you see?" He replies, "My hand is cracked, has opened, and I see on the ground." "What else do you see?"-" All around me is light-come, Pulliar, come." He comes! he comes!" (His person, shape, and dress, are then described.) The other eight gods are now entreated to appear; and as they approach, the second person says, They come they come!" and they are invited to be seated in the places prepared for them. The first magician then inquires of the assembled gods, what is the cause of the affliction, adversity, or danger of the person, for whom the ceremonies have been instituted? He who "peeps" in the hand then replies, and mentions the name of the evil spirit, who has produced all the mischief. The malignant troubler is summoned to appear, and to depart; but should he refuse, he is bound, and carried off by the gods. Is it not probable that Saul, and the woman who had "a familiar spirit at Endor," were engaged in a similar way? Saul was in great distress, for the Lord would neither answer him " by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets;" and being wound up to desperation, he determined to consult "with familiar spirits." He took "Two men" with him, who were probably qualified like the Two used by the Hindoos. From the fear which the woman showed, it is probable her incantations had not exactly answered her expectations, because "she cried with a loud voice" when she saw Samuel, proving that she did not expect to see him, and that, therefore, he was sent by some other power; Saul inquired, "What sawest thou?" which agrees with the question proposed by the first magician to his assistant, as to what he saw through the crack of his hand in the earth. The witch then replied to Saul, "I saw gods ascending out of the earth," which naturally reminds us of the nine gods which are believed to ascend after the incantations of the wizard. Saul then asked, "What form is he of?" and the witch said he was

old, and covered with a mantle, which also finds a parallel in the description of "the shape and dress" given of Pulliar by the second magician. I am, therefore, of opinion, that God allowed Samuel to come to Saul, or sent him; and that the witch was confounded and terrified at the result of her incantations.-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER XIX.

Ver. 14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's land-mark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

When the sons of Israel had conquered the land of promise, it was, by the divine command, surveyed and divided by lot, first among the twelve tribes; and then the portion of each tribe was laid out in separate inheritances, according to the number of the families composing the tribe; and thus every man in the nation had his field, which he was directed to cultivate for the support of himself and his family. To prevent mistake and litigation, these fields were marked off by stones set up on the limits, which could not be removed without incurring the wrath of heav

en.

The divine command, in relation to this matter, runs in these terms. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's land-mark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess." In Persia, landmarks are still used: in the journey from Arzroum to Amasia, Morier found the boundaries of each man's possession, here and there, marked by large stones. Landmarks were used in Greece long before the age of Homer; for when Minerva fought with Mars, she seized with her powerful hand, a piece of rock, lying in the plain, black, rugged and large, which ancient men had placed to mark the boundary of the field.-PAXTON.

CHAPTER XX.

Ver. 19. When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down, (for the tree of the field is man's life,) to employ them in the siege.

Can it be a matter of surprise that the Orientals have a great aversion to cut down any tree which bears fruit, when it is known that they principally live on vegetable productions? Ask a man to cut down a cocoa-nut or palmirah tree, and he will say, (except when in want, or to oblige a great person,)" What! destroy that which gives me food? from which I have thatch for my house to defend me from the sun and the rain? which gives me oil for my lamp, a ladle for my kitchen, and charcoal for my fire? from which I have sugar for my board, baskets for my fruits, a bucket for my well, a mat for my bed, a pouch for my betel leaf, leaves for my books, a fence for my yard, and a broom for my house? Destroy such a tree? Go to some needy wretch who has pledged his last jewel, and who is anxious to eat his last meal."-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER XXI.

Ver. 6. And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley. When a great man refuses to grant a favour to a friend or relation, the latter asks, "What! are you going to wash your hands of me?" "Ah! he has washed his hands of all his relations;" which means, he will not have any thing more to do with them; he is entirely free, and will not be accountable for them. Hence the Tamul proverb, Avon ellatilum kai kaluvi nitkerän, i. e. "He has washed his hands of all."-ROBERTS.

Ver. 12. Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13. And she shall put the raiment

of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

The margin has, instead of pare her nails, OR SUFFER TO GROW" which is, I doubt not, the true meaning. This woman was a prisoner of war, and was about to become the wife of the man who had taken her captive. Having thus been taken from her native land, having had to leave her earliest and dearest connexions, and now to become the wife of a foreigner, and an enemy, she would naturally be overwhelmed with grief. To acquire a better view of her state, let any woman consider herself in similar circumShe accompanies her husband, or father, to the battle; the enemy becomes victorious, and she is carried off by the hand of a ruthless stranger, and obliged to submit to his desires. Poignant indeed would be the sorrow of her mind. The poor captive was to "shave her head" in token of her distress, which is a custom in all parts of the East at this day. A son on the death of his father, or a woman on the decease of her husband, has the HEAD SHAVED in token of sorrow. To shave the head also, is a punish

stances.

ment inflicted on females for certain crimes. The fair captive, then, as a sign of her misery, was to shave her head, because her father or mother was among the slain, or in consequence of having become a prisoner of war. It showed her sorrow; and was a token of her submission. (See also Job i. 20. See on 2 Chronicles xvi. 14. Isa. vii. 20, and xviii. 2.) But this poor woman was to suffer her nails to grow, as an additional emblem of her distress. That it does not mean she was to PARE her nails, as the text has it, is established by the custom in the East, of allowing them to grow, when in sorrow. The marginal reading, therefore, would have been much better for the text. When people, either in the church or state, are performing penance, or are in captivity, or disgrace, or prison, or are devotees, they suffer their nails to grow; and some may be seen, as were those of the monarch of Babylon, in his sorrow, "like birds' claws," literally folding round the ends of the fingers, or shooting through the backs of their hands. But when men fast, which is sometimes done for one or two years, or when husbands fast during their wives' first pregnancy, they suffer their nails to grow; also a female, when in sorrow from other causes, does not "pare her nails" until she has performed the ceremony called Antherette.-ROBERTS.

There is a passage in Deuteronomy xxi. 12, about the sense of which our translators appear to have been extremely uncertain: translating one clause of the 12th verse, and pare her nails, in the text; and the margin giving the clause a quite opposite sense, "suffer to grow." So that, according to them, the words signify, that the captived woman should be obliged, in the case referred to by Moses, to pare her nails, or, to suffer them to grow, but they could not tell which of these two contradictory things the Jewish legislator required; the Jewish doctors are, in like manner, divided in their opinion on this subject. To me it seems very plain, that it was not a management of affliction and mourning that was enjoined; such an interpretation agrees not with the putting off the raiment of her captivity; but then I very much question whether the paring her nails takes in the whole of the intention of Moses. The precept of the law was, that she should make her nails: so the Hebrew words literally signify. Making her nails, signifies making her nails neat, beautifying them, making them pleasing to the sight, or something of that sort: dressing them is the word our translators have chosen, according to the margin. The 2 Sam. xix. 24, which the critics have cited on this occasion, plainly proves this: "Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, came down to meet the king, and had neither made his feet, nor made his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed, until the day he came again in peace." It is the same word with that in the text, and our translators have rendered it in one clause dressed, in the margin of Deut. xxi. dressed his feet; and in the other trimmed, nor trimmed his beard. Making the feet, seems here to mean washing the feet, paring their nails, perhaps anointing, or otherwise perfuming them, as he was a prince; see Luke vii. 46. As making his beard may mean combing, curling,

66

perfuming it; every thing, in a word, that those that were people of distinction, and in a state of joy, were wont to do. Making her nails, undoubtedly means paring them; but it must mean too every thing else relating to them, that was wont to be done for the beautifying them, and rendering them beautiful. We have scarcely any notion of any thing else but paring them; but the modern eastern women have; they stain them with the leaves of an odoriferous plant, which they call Al-henna, of a red, or, as others express it, a tawny saffron colour. But it may be thought, that is only a modern mode of adorning their nails: Hasselquist, however, assures us, it was an ancient oriental practice. "The Al-henna," he tells us, grows in India, and in Upper and Lower Egypt, flowering from May to August. The leaves are pulverized, and made into a paste with water: they bind this paste on the nails of their hands and feet, and keep it on all night. This gives them a deep yellow, which is greatly admired by the eastern nations. The colour lasts for three or four weeks, before there is occasion to renew it. The custom is so ancient in Egypt, that I have seen the nails of mummies died in this manner. The powder is exported in large quantities yearly, and may be reckoned a valuable commodity." It appears by this to be a very ancient practice; and since mummies were before the time of Moses, this custom of dying the nails might be as ancient too; though we do not suppose the mummies Hasselquist saw, with their nails thus coloured, were so old as his time.

If it was practised in Egypt before the law was given, we may believe the Israelites adopted it, since it appears to be a most universal custom now in the eastern countries: Dr. Shaw observing that all the African ladies that can purchase it, make use of it, reckoning it a great beauty; as we learn from Rauwolff, it appears also to the Asiatic females. I cannot but think it most probable then, that making the nails, signifies tinging as well as paring them. Paring alone, one would imagine too trifling a circumstance to be intended here. No commentator, however, that I know of, has taken any notice of ornamenting the nails by colouring them. As for shaving the head, which is joined with making the nails, it was a rite of cleansing, as appears from Lev. xiv. 8, 9, and Num. vi. 9, and used by those who, after having been in an afflicted and squalid state, appeared before persons to whom they desired to render themselves acceptable, and who were also wont to change their raiment on the same occasion. See Gen. xli. 14.-HARMER.

Ver. 17. But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

Next to the father, the first-born of a family possessed the greatest rights. There were not, however, in a family as many first-born as mothers; in other words, to be so called, it was not enough that a man should be the first fruit of the mother, or, as the Hebrews term it, Pheter Rechem, (D) but that he should, at the same time, be the first son of his father, who was called Becor, () and the beginning of his strength. The law of Deut. xxi. 15-17, places this beyond doubt, and the family history of Jacob confirms it. For though Jacob had four wives, and children by them all, yet he gave the birthright to one son only, 1 Chron. v. 1, 2. That right Reuben had forfeited by a great crime; but if he had not done so, he would certainly have been considered as the only first-born, as he alone is indeed called so in the history, Gen. xlix. 3. If, instead of this, the first son of every mother had been denominated the first-born, it would have been impossible that, among a people consisting of 600,000 adult males, and where there must have been at least 300,000 males above 20 years of age, there could be numbered no more than 22,000 firstborn of a month old, and above it; because this would have required that every mother, one with another, had brought 40 (but because it is so incredible I will write the word at length, forty) children into the world. In my Dissertation, De Censibus Hebræorum, to which I here refer the reader, I have illustrated this point at greater length. How the matter was settled when a father had his first-born son by a

widow, that had had children by her former marriage, 1 do not historically know; but this much is certain, that such son could not be called Pheter Rechem, the first-fruit of the mother; and, therefore, could be none of the first-born who, by the Levitical law, (Exod. xiii. 12. Numb. iii. 40— 51,) were consecrated to the Lord; but still he probably enjoyed the rights of a first-born in relation to his brothers. This, however, was a case that could rarely occur, because it appears that the Hebrews seldom married widows who had been mothers; although I do find one example of such a marriage. Besides his double share of the inheritance, the first-born in patriarchal families had great privileges, and a sort of authority over his brethren; just as at present an Arab emir is, for the most part, only the first-born of. the first-born of his family, and, as such, rules a horde, composed merely of his kinsmen. This was also the case under the Mosaic polity, though with some limitation in point of authority; and hence we find in the genealogies of the first book of Chronicles, the first-born is often likewise termed the head () of the family; and in chap. xxvi. 10, it is stated as a circumstance somewhat singular and unusual, that a father constituted one, who was not a first-born, the head. How much further these rights extended, I know not, excepting only in this particular, that the first-born was only the head of the lesser family.-MICHAELIS.

Ver. 19. Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place.

The gates of cities, in these days, and for many ages after, were the places of judicature and common resort. Here the governors and elders of the city went to hear complaints, administer justice, make conveyances of titles and estates, and, in short, to transact all the public affairs of the place. And from hence is that passage in the Psalmist, "They shall not be ashamed when they speak to their enemies in the gate." (Ps. cxxvii. 5.) It is probable that the room, or hall, where the magistrates sat, was over the gate, because Boaz is said to go up to the gate; and the reason of having it built there, seems to have been for the convenience of the inhabitants, who, being all husbandmen, and forced to pass and repass every morning and evening as they went and came from their labour, might be more easily called, as they went by, whenever they were wanted to appear in any business.-BURDER.

Ver. 23. His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in anywise bury him that day.

An Englishman is astonished in the East, to see how soon after death the corpse is buried. Hence a new-comer, on hearing of the death of a servant, or native officer, who died in the morning, and who is to be interred in the evening, is almost disposed to interfere with what is to him apparently a barbarous practice. When the cholera prevails, it is truly appalling to see a man in one hour in health, and the next carried to his long-home. The reason assigned for this haste is the heat of the climate.-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 4. Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.

Whoever saw a beast tottering or lying under the weight of his burden, was bound to help him; and that with the same exertion and perseverance as the owner himself was doing, or would have done. Nor durst he (for this the words of Moses seem to imply) desist, but with the owner; that is, until the owner himself left the beast, seeing him past relief, Exod. xxiii. 5. Both these were incumbent duties even when the beast belonged to an enemy; and the passages above referred to, expressly mention the ox and ass of an enemy. This is reasonable; for we expect that even our enemy will be humane enough to foreget his enmity, and give us his aid in a time of need, or, at any rate, that he will not be so little as to extend his enmity to a beast quite innocent of our quarrel, and that lies in distress

before his eyes. What we expect, we should do in our turn; and if we will not listen to the suggestions of moral obligation, still we must see, that among a nation of husbandmen and herdsmen, it was a matter of great importance to preserve the lives of work-beasts. And upon the same principle, we might perhaps be enjoined to extinguish, if need were, a fire in our enemy's house, as if it were our own. How humane soever this law of Moses may appear, we must at the same time recollect, that it was not given to a people like ourselves, but to a people among whom every individual generally had cattle; so that they could not but be influenced by the great duty of reciprocity, which among us, at least in towns, does not here hold, because but few have cattle. Among the Israelites, none almost could be so unaccustomed to their management, or to their relief in distress, as our town's-people are. This last circumstance is peculiarly deserving of notice. I grant that such a law would, in Germany, be a very strange one, if accompanied with no limitation to certain classes of the community; for he who is not from his infancy conversant with beasts, seldom acquires the confidence or dexterity requisite for their aid when in danger, without hurting himself. He, perhaps, sits perfectly well en horseback, and can do all that belongs to a good rider, when mounted; but to help up with a horse fallen down under his load, or to stop one that has run off, would not be his forte.-Add to this, that among us, neither the ox, nor the ass, but the horse alone, is so honourable, that a gentleman could help up with him, without demeaning himself, and being laughed at. But among a nation of farmers, who ploughed with oxen and asses, and where there were no hereditary noblesse, such a foolish idea, which a legislator must have attended to, could have no place.

We shall find that Moses, throughout his laws, manifests even towards animals a spirit of justice and kindness, and inculcates the avoidance, not only of actual cruelty, but even of its appearance. A code of civil law does not, indeed, necessarily provide for the rights of animals, because they are not citizens; but still, the way in which animals are treated, so strongly influences the manners and sentiments of a people even towards their fellowcreatures, (for he who habitually acts with cruelty and want of feeling to beasts, will soon become cruel and hard-hearted to men,) that a legislator will sometimes find it necessary to attend to it, to prevent his people from becoming savage. -MICHAELIS.

Ver. 6. If a bird's-nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young. 7. But thou shalt in anywise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

It is the command of Moses, that if a person find a bird's-nest in the way, whether on a tree or on the ground, though he may take the eggs, or the young, he shall not take the mother, but always allow her to escape. It is clear that he here speaks, not of those birds which nestle upon people's property; in other words, that he does not, for instance, prohibit an Israelite from totally destroying a sparrow's or a swallow's nest, that might happen to be troublesome to him, or to extirpate to the utmost of his power the birds that infested his field or vineyard. He merely enjoins what one was to do on finding such nests on the way, that is, without one's property: thus guarding against either the utter extinction, or too great diminution of any species of bird indigenous to the country. And this in some coun tries is still, with respect to partridges, an established rule; which, without a special law, is observed by every real sportsman, and the breach of which subjects him to the reproaches of his brethren. Nor would any further illustration be necessary, if Moses spoke only of edible birds, and as if merely concerned for their preservation. But this is not the case. His expression is so general, that we must needs understand it of all birds whatever, even those that are most destructive, besides what are properly birds of prey. And here many readers may think it strange, that Moses should be represented as providing for the preser

vation of noxious birds; yet, in fact, nothing can be more conformable to legislative wisdom, especially on the introduction of colonies into a new country. To extirpate, or even to persecute, to too great an extent, any species of birds in such a country, from an idea, often too hastily entertained, of its being hostile to the interests of the inhabitants, is a measure of very doubtful policy. It ought, in general, to be considered as a part of Nature's bounty, bestowed for some important purpose; but what that is, we certainly discover too late, when it has been extirpated, and the evil consequences of that measure are begun to be felt. In this matter, the legislator should take a lesson from the naturalist. Linnæus, whom all will allow to be a perfect master in the science of natural history, has made the above remark in his Dissertation, entitled, Historia Naturalis cui Bono? and gives two remarkable examples to confirm it: the one, in the case of the Little Crow of Virginia, (Gracula Quiscula,) extirpated, at great expense, on account of its supposed destructive effects, and which the inhabitants would soon gladly have re-introduced at double expense; the other, in that of the Egyptian Vulture, or Racham, (Vultur Percnopterus, Linn.) In the city of Cairo, every place is so full of dead carcasses, that the stench of them would not fail to produce putrid diseases; and where the caravans travel, dead asses and camels are always lying. The Racham, which molests no living thing, consumes these carcasses, and clears the country of them; and it even follows the track of the caravan to Mecca, for the same purpose: and so grateful are the people for the service it thus does the country, that devout and opulent Mohammedans are wont to establish foundations for its support, by providing for the expense of a certain number of beasts to be daily killed, and given every morning and evening to the immense flocks of Rachams that resort to the place where criminals are executed, and rid the city, as it would seem, of their carcasses in like manThese eleemosynary institutions, and the sacred regard shown to these birds by the Mohammedans, are likewise testified by Dr. Shaw, in his Travels. These examples serve pretty strongly to show, that in respect, at least, to birds, we ought to place as much confidence in the wisdom and kindness of Nature, as not rashly to extirpate any species which she has established in a country, as a great, and, perhaps, indispensable blessing. Limit its numbers we certainly may, if they incommode us; but still so as that the race shall not become extinct. Of quadrupeds and insects I say nothing, because, with regard to them, we have not such experience to guide us. No inconvenience has arisen in England, nor even in that populous part of Germany between the Weser and the Oder, from the loss of the wolves; although I cannot understand, but must leave it to naturalists to find out, how it should happen, that, in any country, beasts of prey can be extirpated with less inconvenience than birds; wild cats, for instance, and to bring that parallel closer, than owls, both of which live upon mice? There are yet three peculiar circumstances to be noted, which would naturally make the Israelitish legislator singularly attentive to the preservation of birds.

ner.

1. He was conducting a colony of people into a country with which they were unacquainted, and where they might very probably attempt to extirpate any species of bird that seemed troublesome, without adverting to its real importance; just as the Virginian colonists did, in the case of their crow.

2. Palestine is situated in a climate producing poisonous snakes and scorpions, and between deserts and mountains, from which it would be inundated with those snakes, if the birds that lived on them were extirpated.

3. From the same deserts too, it would be overwhelmed with immense multitudes of locusts and mice, if it were destitute of those birds, that resort thither to feed on them; not to mention the formidable swarms of flies in the East, and particularly in Palestine, of which I have taken notice in my Dissertation on this law.-MICHAELIS.

Ver. 8. When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence.

The roof is always flat, and often composed of branches of wood laid across rude beams, and to defend it from the injuries of the weather, to which it is peculiarly exposed