"A wife he left,

To rend in Phylace her bleeding cheeks,

And an unfinished mansion."-COWPER.

6. "Planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it."-This must, by parity of reason, be understood to extend also to orchards, olive-yards, and the like. The Jews say that five trees planted together, and in good order, sufficed for a ground of exemption from military service. This must have operated for five years, as the law did not regard fruits as fit for use in the first three years; the fourth produced the first fruits, which were to be taken to the place of the sanctuary, and eaten there; and thus the produce did not become wholly the proprietor's own until the fifth year.

7. "Betrothed a wrfe, and hath not taken her."-This refers to the custom still common among Oriental nations, in which persons are often betrothed to each other a long time before the marriage is actually completed and the bride taken home. In chap. xxiv. 5 there is a sequel to this law, directing that a man should be exempt from service a year after marriage. As there could be no want of men in a country where every man was liable to serve, the Jews always seem to have interpreted these exemptions in the largest possible sense. Their utility in a nation so constituted must be apparent. Josephus touches on one good reason for them, that men, when taken from that which had much engaged their attent on and were preparing to enjoy, would not be likely to serve very cheerfully, and might be rather too careful to preserve their lives. Michaelis states the result still more clearly. "These four immunities, independent of their manifest equity, were attended with two very great political benefits, in promoting, first, marriages, and, secondly, the culture of the soil, which are never more necessary than in time of war. The worst evil of war does not, perhaps, consist in this, that thousands perish in battle, but that the fields, from fear, remain untilled, and that few marriages are concluded, so that the next generation must necessarily fall off in point of numbers...The above mentioned immunities, however, which are very happily defined, served in some measure to counteract the disasters inseparable from war. Whenever a war threatened, or broke out, every man who had no great inclination to take the field, and yet did not choose publicly to declare himself a poltroon, would naturally think of taking a wife, if not already married, or of planting a vineyard, or of doing some of those other things that, by their tendency to make amends for the mischiefs of war, would entitle him to exemption from its duties." These observations apply with peculiar force to Oriental warfare, and to the condition of an eastern country when at war with its neighbours.

8. "What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted?"—One would think that no man would avail himself of such an immunity as this, which involved a voluntary declaration of cowardice. But the fact was otherwise, of which we have a remarkable instance in the history of Gideon, more than two-thirds (22,000 out 32,000) of whose army left him when permission was proclaimed for the "fearful and fainthearted" to retire. (Judges vii. 3) The truth is, that much as the Jews came to be ultimately distinguished for their valour and prowess, they were, for a considerable period after the exode, a timid and unwarlike people, who recovered but slowly from the depressing influence which the "hard bondage" in Egypt had exercised upon their mind and character. This the more magnifies the Divine power, which put such a people in possession of Palestine, notwithstanding the numerous and warlike adversaries by whom they were opposed. The manner in which the forces were levied was not calculated to excl: de the usual proportion of cowardly people from the original levy, and hence the present after-process was resorted to for getting rid of those who were likely to do double mischief, by the example they set and by the disorder their conduct would occasion. This was of the more importance in an irregular militia, such as was the Hebrew force. "In our standing armies," observes Michaelis, "the strictness of military discipline compels the most dastardly cowards, as they are confined in close ranks, to fight nearly as well as the bravest warriors. Some thousand years ago, however, the case was in all points very different. Military operations were not so artificial and mechanical as now." We read of some ancient generals who resorted to some such expedient as the present to clear their armies of cowards; but we do not know of any but the Hebrew nation which had a standing law calculated for that object.

10. "When thou comest nigh unto a city," &c.-From hence to verse 15, we have the regular war-law; that is, the law applicable to all ordinary wars, as distinguished from those with the seven devoted nations, who were to be treated under the special law which we find in verses 16-18. In other words, we have first the general law, and then the exception. The details claim the attention of those who would enter into the principles on which we see that future wars were conducted.

-“Proclaim peace unto it."―That is, that the lives and property of the inhabitants should be safe, if they surrendered the place on certain conditions. Tribute is the only condition here mentioned; but the Jewish writers add, that they were also to renounce idolatry, and become subject to the Jews. There are not three things, as they state them, but two-subjection being implied in tribute. If the Rabbins were right, it is more probable that these two things were proposed rather as alternatives than as conditions, and that the enemy would have been at liberty to accept either, but not bound to accept both. In fact, we find the Jews rendering nations tributary without requiring them to become proselytes. We are convinced, however, that the whole opinion is wrong, as there is nothing in the Pentateuch, or elsewhere in the Bible, which sanctions an attempt to compel a people to change their religion. This, however, which the Rabbins attribute to their law, was actually the war-law of Mohammedanism, by which tribute or conversion were proposed as the only alternatives of peace. Their law on this point is thus stated in the Mischat-ul-Masabih,' in accordance with the Koran:-"When you meet your enemies the polytheists, invite them to three things; and whichever they accept of, approve of in them, and refrain from troubling them: invite them to Islam, and if they accept it, then do not spill their blood or take their property. But if they refuse to become Musselmans, call upon them to pay a poll-tax; and if they refuse to give it, then ask assistance from God, and fight them." The law of the present chapter seems to leave it doubtful whether terms of peace were, in the first instance, to be offered to the devoted nations; and Biblical scholars are rather divided on the subject. Some Jewish writers of authority think in the affirmative, and say that Joshua actually did send three deputations to the Canaanites, two with offers of peace, and the third with a declaration of war. But we do not see how this can be rendered compatible with the strong injunctions to "make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them" (Deut. vii. 2); or with the conduct of the Gibeonites, who, when they wished to save their lives by timely submission, only hoped to do so by deceiving Joshua into the belief that they did not belong to any one of the seven nations. This last difficulty they indeed obviate by saying, that the Gibeonites had previously refused the alternatives of peace, and wished, though late, to repair their error. Even these authorities, however, do not state that conversion was one of the alternatives proposed by Joshua to the Canaanites. The first message, they say, was, "Let him flee who will;" the second, "Let him surrender who will;" and the third, "Let him fight who will."

12. "Besiege it."-Some details concerning ancient sieges will more properly be brought out by the account given

in Scripture of several which actually took place. Meanwhile, our wood-cut, after an engraving in the Description de l'Egypte,' will suggest some leading ideas on the subject. It is copied from the walls of what is commonly called the "Memnonium," at Thebes, and is unquestionably the most ancient representation extant of an attempt to take a fortified place. As such, it has much engaged the attention of antiquarians, and various explanations have been given. All that is essential to the illustration of the subject the eye will readily discover. We shall have some future occasion to refer back to it.

13. "Smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword."-We are not told how the Hebrew assailants were to act in the event that, in the further progress of the siege, the inhabitants offered to capitulate and sued for quarter. Probably they were allowed the same, or nearly the same, conditions which had first been offered. At any rate, the execution here permitted seems to proceed on the supposition that the place had been taken by storm. Mohammed did not omit to provide for such a contingency as we have mentioned, thus:-" When you besiege a fort, if the people of the fort demand quarter in the name of God and his messenger (Mohammed), then do not grant it; but pledge to them your own faith and that of your companions; for if you break your own faith and that of your companions, it is easier than to break that of God and his messenger." Mohammedans in general have been but too ready to act on this vile intimation. The effect of the law now before us is, that all the males fit to bear arms were to be put to death; but that all the females, and the males not of age to bear arms (which is the usual meaning of "little ones"), were to be spared. We do not see any use in going far for an explanation of this direction. Its severity, as compared with the usages of modern European warfare, must at once be admitted. But that severity was not confined to the Hebrew mode of warfare; it formed the common war-law of all ancient nations, among whom the male prisoners capable of bearing arms were not only put to death, but were often previously subjected to the most horrid and barbarous tortures. It was only slowly that men learned to consider it more advantageous to retain their captives, or to sell them as slaves, than to kill them; and the plan of keeping prisoners to be exchanged for those taken by the enemy was only introduced when wars became of longer duration than they usually were in the first ages. The treatment of prisoners partly resulted from the peculiarities of ancient warfare. The subjugation of a people was not then the result of a succession of

battles, in which prisoners remained with both parties; but a single battle usually decided the fate of a nation, so that prisoners only remained with the exasperated victors. When armies became more disciplined, and nations learned to manage their resources, so that even defeated armies would repeatedly rally, and a nation could endure a succession of defeats before it was conquered or a peace concluded, prisoners necessarily remained in the hands of both parties, and were, after a time, preserved by both, to be exchanged at the conclusion of the war. We venture to think that this is as good an explanation as can be given of the imputed severity of the Hebrew military law. Michaelis, who has given much attention to this subject, has many excellent remarks, of which, it will be seen, we have availed ourselves in the illustration of this chapter. He does not enter into the view which we have here been led to take; but, on the text before us, he observes, "The Israelites could not regulate their conduct by our more merciful law of nations, which is, by several thousand years, of later date; but they acted precisely as their vanquished foes would have done, had they been lucky enough to have been the conquerors; and they therefore merit the praise of magnanimity, if, to lessen the evils of war, we see them refraining in the smallest degree from insisting on requital of like for like to the utmost. The enemies with whom the Israelites had to deal were wont not merely to put the vanquished to death, but at the same time to exercise great cruelties upon them. The Bible is full of relations to this purport...... The law of nations, according to which the Israelites had to carry on war, was made by these nations themselves; for this law is founded on the manners of nations, and on the permission which we have to treat others as they treat us." Michaelis also, very properly, cites, in corroboration of the Scripture statements, the testimony of the Romans, who, although they behaved much more severely to their enemies than we do, complained grievously of the barbarous conduct of the Carthaginians towards their prisoners; and these Carthaginians were the direct descendants of the Canaanites, and had an Asiatic law of nations. It must also be remarked, as partly accounting for the destruction of the adult males, that among the ancient nations there was no such distinction between a citizen and a soldier as among us, and that every one who could bear arms, actually did so when occasion required.

16. "Thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth."―This is the exception to that general war-law to which the preceding note refers; and it is an exception which has provoked more animadversion than even the general law itself. Some thing has been incidentally said on the subject in the notes to Num. xxxi. 14, and in a note, above, to verse 10. We may now further observe, that the general law was applicable to distant countries, which the Hebrews were not intended to occupy, and which they had therefore no object in depopulating, and might leave in the occupation of the old inhabitants on their consenting to pay tribute, or, at the worst, were only authorized to enfeeble that nation by the destruction of the males able to bear arms. But the present law is intended to meet a different case. It applies to nations whose country the Israelites were to occupy as their own and peculiar land; and, from the degraded and corrupt character of the old inhabitants, and their principles being most adverse to those of the Hebrew constitution, it was in the highest degree dangerous that they should be suffered to remain in the land along with the Hebrews. The principal reason, therefore, which the Scripture assigns for this law of extermination, was the extraordinary condition of profligacy and impiety at which the Canaanites had arrived. This was notorious even in the time of Abraham: but the measure of their iniquity was not then full, that is, their enormities had not attained that height which rendered their destruction judicially necessary. Their destruction is scarcely ever enjoined without their guilt being assigned as a cause, and therefore it is right to give that cause the principal weight. "Now," says Bishop Watson, "it will be impossible to prove that it was contrary to God's moral justice to exterminate so wicked a people. He made the Israelites the executors of his vengeance; and, in doing this, he gave such evident and terrible proof of his abomination of vice as could not fail to strike the surrounding nations with astonishment and terror, and to impress upon the minds of the Israelites what they were to expect if they followed the example of the nations whom he commanded them to cut off. Ye shall not commit any of these abominations, that the land spue you not out also, as it spued out the nations which were before you.' (Levit xviii. 28.) How strong and descriptive is this language! The vices of the inhabitants were so abominable that the very land was sick of them, and forced to vomit them forth as the stomach disgorges deadly poison." (Apology for the Bible.") This view takes the matter in its broadest and strongest meaning, and assumes the real intention to be that which is clearly and repeatedly declared, without seeking inferential conclusions to show that the injunction is to be understood less severely than its plain terms indicate. It is better at once to avow that the Canaanites were to be judicially exterminated, on the same grounds and under the same principle as that on which the far more awful judgment of the Deluge had before been brought upon the world. It is, however, certain that the Canaanites had the alternative of migration before them, and it appears that many of them did adopt this alternative. And although it does not appear that the Jews had any authority to propose to them a change of religion as an alternative-which would have been to convert them by the sword-there is much that favours the conclusion that, if any city or people had been spontaneously impressed by the evidences of Divine power which marked the wondrous progress of the Hebrews, and had been struck by the beauty and purity of the faith established among them, and had then turned from their idols and their abominations, humbling themselves before the God of Israel, they might, and would, have been excepted from the general sentence of condemnation. Josh. xi. 19, 20, seems to imply that, if their hearts had not, to the last, been hardened, they might have found favour. There are instances which lead to this conclusion, particularly that of Rahab, who, with all her family, was preserved, with the full sanction of Joshua, when her city was destroyed. This was her reward for concealing the Hebrew spies; her doing which is stated by the Apostle to have been the result of her faith in Jehovah. (Josh. vi. 17, 22-25; Heb. xi. 31.) For some observations as to the manner in which this law was obeyed, see the note on Judges ii. 2, 3.

19. (For the tree of the field is man's life.")-The word "life" is not in the original, and the clause reads more correctly without it. There have been many various readings, of which Dr. Boothroyd's is perhaps the best: "Thou shalt not cut them down to employ them in the siege; for the fruit-trees of the field are for the support of man." The meaning of the whole very clearly is, that, in the case of a long siege, where there might be a want of wood for raising works against the town, they were to abstain from using for the purpose those trees that bore fruit while others equally fit for their occasions could be procured. Of course, this precept would absolutely prohibit the unnecessary destruction of fruit-trees as an act of wanton aggression. As, in the East, a much more considerable part of man's subsistence is derived from fruit-bearing trees than in our climates, the wanton destruction of such trees is considered little less than an act of impiety. Mohammed in one of his wars cut down the date-trees of the Beni-Nadr (a tribe of Jews), and burnt them. This act must evidently have been viewed with strong disapprobation even by his own people, for he found it necessary to affirm that he had received a revelation from heaven sanctioning the deed: "This revelation came down: What palm-trees ye cut down, or left standing on their roots, were so cut down or left by the will of God, that he might disgrace the evil-doers."" (Koran,' chap. lix.; Mischat-ul-Masabih,' chap. v.) It is very probable that Mohammed did not dare to repeat the experiment.

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to for an inheritance.

1 Heb. mouth. 2 Heb. in the midst. 3 Or, suffer to grow.

4 Heb. make, or dress. 5 Heb. that is found with him. 7 Heb. the curse of God.

Verse 4. “Bring down the heifer unto a rough valley.”—in ɔ, nahal aithan, “rough valley," in our version ; but which is more properly rendered, as by Boothroyd, "an overflowing torrent ;" that is, not one of those numerous streams which, in Palestine, cease to flow in summer; but one that maintains its course throughout the year. The reason for this probably was that it might be certain the stream would carry away the blood of the heifer, leaving none of what represented the impure blood of the murderer to pollute the land. The solemnity of the ceremonies of purgation, as well as the terms of the law, expressing the deep pollution of the land stained with innocent blood, are admirably calculated to impress an Oriental mind with a strong sense of the respect due to the life of man and the deep guilt of murder. These were things the Hebrews probably needed to learn, for we observe, even at this day, that Orientals in general regard the waste of human life with great and culpable indifference. These ceremonies might also be useful in another respect, by tending to make the fact of the murder generally known, and thus leading to the detection of the murderer. The necessity of often taking the victim heifer to a considerable distance before a perennial stream could be found, would also contribute much to the same result. Only those who have lived in the East, where there is no printing or newspapers, or any of our own familiar and effective methods of communicating intelligence, and have observed the little notice which the most atrocious murders attract, will fully estimate the importance of such solemnities as the present, calculated to make the fact generally known.

11." Wouldest have her to thy wife."-Most commentators apprehend that the marriages here mentioned were not absolutely approved, but that the direction is intended as far as possible to obviate the evils of a practice which could not be wholly eradicated. The woman of course was the man's slave, whom he might either sell or retain in his own household; but if he was bent on making her his wife, the following directions were not to be neglected.

12. "Shave her head."-Many think that the directions in this and the following verse were intended with the view of rendering the captive less attractive to the captor, and also to give him time to reconsider well his intention. Others suppose that the personal directions merely refer to ceremonies of mourning or purification. Shaving the woman's head might certainly tend to make her disagreeable to the captor. But as shaving the head, as an act of mourning on the death of friends, was certainly a custom (to which we shall have a future occasion to advert more particularly very common among ancient nations, and is still retained in the East, we are certainly most disposed to consider this and the other particulars as referring to what the woman is to be allowed to do in the month of mourning for her parents. Perhaps the details are specified, in order that her mourning might not be characterized by any of the peculiar rites of her native idolatry.

"Pure her nails.”—The verb in this clause is, asah, and implies making, doing, acting, in so general a sense that its precise force can in most cases only be gathered from the context. In the present instance its force cannot be so gathered, and therefore the best rendering will be to leave it as vague as possible, as, "do her nails," without saying what she should do to them. Now we know of three things that may be done to nails:-1. To pare them, as our version renders. This is certainly analogous to shaving the head, as previously directed; but as people do pare their nails on ordinary occasions, it is difficult to see the reason for a direction to do what was not likely to be left undone. 2. To let them grow, as in the marginal reading. We apprehend this to be the right interpretation. To let the nails grow is in the East an act of mourning, and, as such, it coincided with the direction to cut her hair. Besides, those who contend that the intention of these regulations was to render the woman disagreeable to her captor, will admit that this object was more likely to be attained under this interpretation. 3. To dress her nails, which implies much more in the East than in Europe, as it includes the staining of the nails to the colour of iron rust, by means of a drug prepared with the leaves of a plant called henna. This general custom of the East seems to have been very ancient, as Egyptian mummies have been found with their nails thus coloured, and, apparently, by the same means. We do not believe, however, that this is here intended. It forms an act of personal adornment; and therefore does not coincide either with her condition as a mourner, or with the other directions concerning her hair and dress.

13. "Put the raiment of her captivity from off her."-This doubtless means that in which she was taken captive. We know that it was usual in ancient times for women, when they were so circumstanced as to expect to become captives if their friends were defeated, to put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of obtaining the favourable consideration of the conquerors, should their fears be realized. This direction may therefore have been either in order to render them less attractive in the eyes of the captor, or else, it is part of the permission for the captive to indulge herself in mourning for her parents: it was then usual to lay aside all ornamental and gay attire. "And bewil her father and her mother a full month."-Who, if not slain in the war. were now lost to her probably for ever. The time is that usually spent by the Jews in bewailing their relations. This clause must be regarded as a most humane regulation, well calculated to alleviate the great calamity which had befallen the captive woman. It allowed her an interval for indulging in grief undisturbed, and in which she might learn to view her condition with greater calmness than could at first be expected. The text seems to direct, that if the victor changed his mind after he had treated her as one he intended to marry; or if, after she had for a time lived with him as his wife, he happened not to like her, and was resolved to part with her—in either of these cases it ceased to be in his power to deal with her as a prisoner, by selling her, as such, for his pecuniary profit. She might still, probably, be retained in his family, but, if not, she was certainly to be enfranchised.

17. "The right of the firstborn is his."-The effect of this law must not be overlooked. Before this time the father might, as we see in Genesis, transfer the rights of primogeniture to a younger son; but this law renders the rights of the first-born inalienable. It is very probable that what gave occasion to this law was the too frequent occurrence of instances in which the second and favourite wife had employed her ascendancy in intriguing for the benefit of her own children, and the jealousies and strifes which arose in families in consequence. Such a law as the present seems a necessary result of polygamy, and very expressively points out one of the evils of a practice which the law of Moses seems rather to have tolerated than approved.

22. "Hang him on a tree.”—Hanging alive is not a Hebrew punishment, and is not once mentioned in all the Bible. What our version renders "hanging" always means " gibbeting:" as indeed the context, in most cases, shows. It was an additional punishment, intended to be in the highest degree degrading, and therefore restricted, as some of the Jews inform us, to the crimes of idolatry and blasphemy; although others say, that all who were stoned were also hanged. In the text, Josh. viii. 29, where Joshua is said to have hanged the king of Ai, it must be understood that he had been previously put to death; and in the following chapter (x. 26), where the similar treatment of five kings is mentioned, it is expressly said that they were previously slain. The expression in verse 23, "He that is hanged is accursed of God," led the Jews to consider this subsequent punishment as in the highest degree ignominious, and the object of 490