least the inferior ones (like the rahdars, or toll-gatherers, in | modern Persia,' and the mirigees, or collectors of customs, in Asia Minor, were generally rapacious, extorting more than the legal tribute; whence they were reckoned infamous among the Greeks, and various passages in the Gospels show how odious they were to the Jews (Mark ii. 15, 16. Luke iii. 13.), insomuch that the Pharisees would hold no communication whatever with them, and imputed it to our Saviour as a crime that he sat at meat with publicans. (Matt. ix. 10, 11. xi. 19. xxi. 31, 32.) The payment of taxes to the Romans was accounted by the Jews an intolerable grievance: hence those who assisted in collecting them were detested as plunderers in the cause of the Romans, as betrayers of the liberties of their country, and as abettors of those who had enslaved it; this circumstance will account for the contempt and hatred so

often expressed by the Jews in the evangelical histories against the collectors of the taxes or tribute.3

The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke xviii. 10-13.) will derive considerable illustration from these circumstances. Our Saviour, in bringing these two characters together, appears to have chosen them as making the strongest contrast between what, in the public estimation, were the extremes of excellence and villany. The Pharisees, it is well known, were the most powerful sect among the Jews, and made great pretences to piety: and when the account of the Persian rahdars, given in the preceding page, is recollected, it will account for the Pharisee, in addressing God, having made extortioners, and the unjust, almost synonymous terms with publicans; because, from his peculiar office, the rahdar is almost an extortioner by profession.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF THE HEBREWS, AND PUBLIC MEMORIALS OF EVENTS.

I. On the Genealogical Tables of the Hebrews.-II. Public Memorials of Events.

I. THE Hebrews were very careful in preserving their and Babylon, or in any other place whithersoever their priests GENEALOGIES, or the history of the successions of families. were carried, were careful to preserve their genealogies." Vestiges of these histories of families appear in Gen. v. and Such priests after the captivity as could not produce their X. In proportion as the Hebrews increased in numbers dur-genealogies were excluded from the sacerdotal office. Hence, ing their residence in Egypt, it became an object of growing when in Heb. vii. 3. Melchizedek is said to have been withimportance carefully to preserve the genealogical tables of out descent (years, that is, without genealogy), the meanthe whole nation, in order that each tribe might be kept per- ing is, that his name was not found in the public genealogical fectly distinct. The charge of these genealogies was, most registers: his father and mother, and ancestors were unknown, probably, confided, in the first instance, to the shoterim, or whence his priesthood was of a different kind, and to be rescribes, of whom a short account is given in p. 42. supra, and garded differently from that of Aaron and his sons. afterwards to the Levites; at least in the time of the kings, we find that the scribes were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4. 2 Chron. xix. 8-11. xxxiv. 13.) "This was a very rational procedure, as the Levites devoted themselves particularly to study; and, among husbandmen and unlearned people, few were likely to be so expert in writing, as to be intrusted with keeping registers so important. In later times the genealogical tables were kept in the temple."s

From similar public registers Mathew and Luke derived the genealogies of our Saviour; the former of which, from Abraham to Jesus Christ, embraces a period of nearly two thousand years, while the genealogy of Luke, from Adam to Christ, comprises a period of about four thousand years. It is well known that the Jews carried their fondness for genealogies to great excess, and prided themselves on tracing their pedigrees up to Abraham. Jerome says that they were as well acquainted with genealogies from Adam to Zerubbabel as they were with their own names.7 Against such unprofitable genealogies Paul cautions Timothy (1 Tim. i. 4.) and Titus. (iii. 9.) Since the total dispersion of the Jews in the reign of Adrian, the Jews have utterly lost their ancient genealogies.

Whatever injury the public genealogies might have sustained in consequence of the Babylonish captivity, it was repaired on the restoration of the Jewish polity, as far at least as was practicable. (Ezra ii. viii. 1-14. Neh. vii. xii.) Hence it is, that a very considerable portion of the first book of Chronicles is composed of genealogical tables: the com- In exhibiting genealogical tables with any specific design, parison of which, as well as of the genealogy recorded in some of the sacred writers, for the sake of brevity, omitted Gen. v. with the tables in Matt. i. and Luke fií. will contri- names which were of less importance, and distributed the bute materially to show the fulfilment of the prophecies re-genealogies into certain equal classes. Examples of this lative to the advent of the Messiah. Josephus states that the Jews had an uninterrupted succession of their high-priests preserved in their records for the space of nearly two thousand years; and that the priests in Judæa, and even in Egypt

The rahdars, or toll-gatherers, are appointed to levy a toll upon Kafilhes or caravans of merchants; "who in general exercise their office with so much brutality and extortion, as to be execrated by all travellers. The police of the highways is confided to them, and whenever any goods are stolen, they are meant to be the instruments of restitution; but when they are put to the test, are found to be inefficient. None but a man in power can hope to recover what he has once lost....The collections of the toll are farmed, consequently extortion ensues; and as most of the rahdars receive no other emolument than what they can exact over and above the prescribed dues from the traveller, their insolence is accounted for on the one hand, and the detestation in which they are held on the other." Morier's Second Journey, p. 70. * At Smyrna, the mirigee sits in the house allotted to him, as Matthew sat at the receipt of custom (or in the custom-house of Capernaum); "and receives the money which is due from various persons and commodities, entering into the city. The exactions and rude behaviour of these men" (says Mr. Hartley, who experienced both)" are just in character with the conduct of the publicans mentioned in the New Testament."....When men are guilty of such conduct as this, no wonder that they were detested in ancient times, as were the publicans; and in modern times, as are the mirigees." (Hartley's Researches in Greece, p. 239.)

Lardner's Credibility, part i. book i. c. 9. $10, 11. Carpzovii Appara tus Antiquitatum Sacri Codicis, pp. 29, 30. As the Christians subsequently were often termed Galilæans, and were represented as a people hostile to all government, and its necessary supports, St. Paul in Rom. xiii. 6. studiously obviates this slander; and enjoins the payment of tribute to civil governors, because, as all governments derive their authority from God, rulers are his ministers, attending upon this very thing, viz. the public administration, to protect the good and to punish the evil doer. (Gilpin and Valpy on Rom. xiii. 6.)

Morier's Second Journey, p. 71.
Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 250.

kind occur in Exod. vi. 14-24. 1 Chron. vi. 12-15. compared with Ezra i. 5. and in Matt. i. 17. The Arabs have not unfrequently taken a similar liberty in their genealogies.8

II. From the remotest ages, mankind have been desirous of perpetuating the memory of remarkable events, not only for their own benefit, but also in order to transmit them to posterity; and in proportion to the antiquity of such events has been the simplicity of the PUBLIC MEMORIALS employed to preserve the remembrance of them. When, therefore, any remarkable event befell the patriarchs, they raised either a rude stone or a heap of stones in the very place where such event had happened. (Gen. xxviii. 18. xxxi. 45, 46.) Sometimes, also, they gave names to places importing the nature of the transactions which had taken place (Gen. xvi. 14. xxi. 31. xxii. 14. xxviii. 19. xxxi. 47—49.); and symbolical names were sometimes given by them to individuals. (Gen. xxv. 26. 30.) To this usage the Almighty is represented as vouchsafing to accommodate himself, in Gen. xvii. 5. 15. and xxxii. 28, 29.

Conformably to this custom, Moses enjoined the Israelites to erect an altar of great stones on which the law was to be inscribed, after they had crossed the river Jordan (Deut.

xxvii. 1—4.), and also gave to those places, which had been signalized by the previous conduct of the Israelites, significant names which would be perpetual memorials of their rebellion against God. (Exod. xvii. 7.) The same custom obtained after their arrival in the land of Canaan. (Josh. iv.) In like manner, Samuel erected a stone at Mizpeh, to commemorate the discomfiture of the Philistines. (1 Sam. vii. 12.) In progress of time more splendid monuments were erected (1 Sam. xv. 12. 2 Sam. viii. 13. xviii. 18.); and symbolical memorial names were given both to things and persons. Thus, the columns which were erected in the temple of Solomon, Jachin he shall establish, Boaz, in it is strength, most probably denoted the devout monarch's hope, that Jehovah would firmly establish that temple in the entrance of which they were placed. To the same practice Pareau

ascribes the origin of the name of Maccabæus with which Judas was first distinguished (1 Macc. ii. 4.), (who was sur named ɔ, MACABA, or the Hammer, on account of his singular valour and success against the enemies of his nation); and also the new name given by our Lord to Peter (Matt. xvi. 18. John i. 43.), and the name given to the field which was bought with the purchase-money of Judas's treason. (Matt. xxvii. 8. Acts i. 19.) The great festivals, prescribed by Moses to the Jews, as well as the feasts and fasts instituted by them in later times, and the tables of the law which were to be most religiously preserved in the ark, were so many memorials of important national transactions.

In more ancient times proverbs sometimes originated from some remarkable occurrence. (Gen. x. 9. xxii. 14. 1 Sam x. 12. xix. 24.)2

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE TREATIES OR COVENANTS, CONTRACTS, AND OATHS OF THE JEWS.

I. Whether the Jews were prohibited from concluding Treaties with heathen Nations.-II. Treaties, how made and ratified. -Covenant of Salt.-III. Contracts for the Sale and Cession of alienable Property, how made.—IV. Of Oaths.

doubtless, with a view to the great Sacrifice, who was to purge our sins in his own blood; and the offering of these sacrifices, and passing between the parts of the divided victim, was symbolically staking their hopes of purification and salvation on their performance of the condition on which it was offered.1

I. A TREATY is a pact or covenant made with a view to by believers and heathens at their solemn leagues; at first, the public welfare by the superior power. It is a common mistake, that the Israelites were prohibited from forming alliances with heathens: this would in effect have amounted to a general prohibition of alliance with any nation whatever, because at that time all the world were heathens. In the Mosaic law, not a single statute is enacted, that prohibits the conclusion of treaties with heathen nations in general; although, for the reasons therein specified, Moses either commands them to carry on eternal war against the Canaanites and Amalekites (but not against the Moabites and Ammonites), or else forbids all friendship with these particular nations. It is however, clear, from Deut. xxiii. 4-9., that he did not entertain the same opinion with regard to all foreign | nations for in that passage, though the Moabites are pronounced to be an abomination to the Israelites, no such declaration is made respecting the Edomites. Further, it is evident that they felt themselves bound religiously to observe treaties when actually concluded: though one of the contracting parties had been guilty of fraud in the transaction, as in the case of the treaty with the Gibeonites. (Josh. ix.) David and Solomon lived in alliance with the king of Tyre; and the former with the king of Hamath (2 Sam. viii. 9, 10); and the queen of Sheba cannot be regarded in any other light than as an ally of Solomon's. Even the Maccabees, who were so laudably zealous for the law of Moses, did not hesitate to enter into a compact with the Romans. The only treaties condemned by the prophets are those with the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, which were extremely prejudicial to the nation, by involving it continually in quarrels with sovereigns more powerful than the Jewish monarchs; and the event always showed, in a most striking manner, the propriety of their reproofs.

II. Various solemnities were used in the conclusion of treaties; sometimes it was done by a simple junction of the hands. (Prov. xi. 21. Ezek. xvii. 18.) The Hindoos to this day ratify an engagement by one person laying his right hand on the hand of the other. Sometimes, also, the covenant was ratified by erecting a heap of stones, to which a suitable name was given, referring to the subject-matter of the covenant (Gen. xxxi. 44-54.); that made between Abraham and the king of Gerar was ratified by the oath of both parties, by a present from Abraham to the latter of seven ewe lambs, and by giving a name to the well which had given occasion to the transaction. (Gen. xxi. 22-32.) It was, moreover, customary to cut the victim (which was to be offered as a sacrifice upon the occasion) into two parts, and so placing each half upon two different altars, to cause those who contracted the covenant to pass between both. (Gen. xv. 9, 10. 17. Jer. xxxiv. 18.) This rite was practised both In like manner Charles, mayor of the palace to the king of France, received the name of Martel, or the Hammer, from the irresistible blows he is said to have given to the Saracens or Moors, who were utterly dis. comfited in the memorable battle fought near Poictiers, in 733.-Another, and more generally received origin of the appellation Maccabees, has been given in p. 50. supra.

2 Pareau, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 320-322.

• Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 328.

The editor of the Fragments supplementary to Calmet is of opinion that what is yet practised of this ceremony may elucidate that passage in Isa. xxviii. 15.:—We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves. As if it had been said :-We have cut off a covenant Sacrifice, a purification offering with death, and with the grave we have settled, so that the scourge shall not injure us. May not such a custom have been the origin of the following superstition related by Pitts? If they (the Algerine corsairs) at any time happen to be in a very great strait or distress, as being chased, or in a storm, they will gather money, light up candles in remembrance of some dead marrabot (saint) or other, calling upon him with heavy sighs and groans. If they find no succom from their before-mentioned rites and superstitions, but that the danger rather increases, then they go to sacrificing a sheep (or two or three upon occasion, as they think needful), which is done after this manner: having cut off the head with a knife, they immediately take out the entrails, and throw them and the head overboard; and then, with all the speed they can (without skinning) they cut the body into two parts by the middle, and throw one part over the right side of the ship, and the other over the left, into the sea, as a kind of propitiation. Thus those blind infidels apply them selves to imaginary intercessors, instead of the living and true God." In the case here referred to, the ship passes between the parts thus thrown on each side of it. This behaviour of the Algerines may be taken as a pretty accurate counterpart to that of making a covenant with death and with imminent danger of destruction, by appeasing the angry gods.

Festivities always accompanied the ceremonies attending covenants. Isaac and Abimelech feasted at making their covenant (Gen. xxvi. 30.), And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. (Gen. xxxi. 54.) Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread. This practice was also usual amongst the heathen nations.7

4 This remarkable practice may be clearly traced in the Greek and Latin writers. Homer has the following expression:

Afterwards, when the Mosaic law was established, and the people were settled in the land of Canaan, the people feasted, in their peace offerings, on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their reconciliation with God (Deut. xii. 6, 7.): and thus, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we renew our covenant with God, and (in the beautiful language of the communion office of the Anglican church) "we offer and present ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice" unto Him, being at His table feasted with the bread and wine, the representation of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood; who by himself once offered upon the cross has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and atonement for the sin of the whole world.

Sometimes the parties to the covenant were sprinkled with the blood of the victim. Thus Moses, after sprinkling part| of the blood on the altar, to show that Jehovah was a party to the covenant, sprinkled part of it on the Israelites, and said unto them, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. (Exod. xxiv. 6. 8.) To this transaction St. Paul alludes in his Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 20.), and explains its evangelical meaning.

The Scythians are said to have first poured wine into an earthen vessel, and then the contracting parties, cutting their arms with a knife, let some of the blood run into the wine, with which they stained their armour. After which they themselves, together with the other persons present, drank of the mixture, uttering the direst maledictions on the party who should violate the treaty.'

Another mode of ratifying covenants was by the superior contracting party presenting to the other some article of his own dress or arms. Thus, Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to the sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. (1 Sam. xviii. 4.) The highest honour, which a king of Persia can bestow upon a subject, is to cause himself to be disapparelled, and to give his robe to the favoured individual.2

cup, said, This is (signifies or represents) my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. (Matt. xxvi. 28.) By this very remarkable expression, Jesus Christ teaches us, that as his body was to be broken or crucified, par, in our stead, so his blood was to be poured out (exxvvvv, a sacrificial term) to make an atonement, as the words remission of sins evidently imply; for without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. ix. 22.), nor any remission by shedding of blood but in a sacrificial way. Compare Heb. ix. 20. and xiii. 12.

III. What treaties or covenants were between the high contracting powers who were authorized to conclude them, that contracts of bargain and sale are between private indi

viduals.

Among the Hebrews, and long before them among the Canaanites, the purchase of any thing of consequence was concluded and the price paid, at the gate of the city, as the seat of judgment, before all who went out and came in. (Gen. xxiii. 16-20. Ruth iv. 1, 2.) As persons of leisure, and those who wanted amusement, were wont to sit in the gates, purchases there made could always be testified by numerous witnesses. From Ruth iv. 7-11. we learn another singular usage on occasions of purchase, cession, and exchange, viz. that in earlier times, the transfer of alienable property was confirmed by the proprietor plucking off his shoe at the city gate, in the presence of the elders and other witnesses, and handing it over to the new owner. origin of this custom it is impossible to trace: but it had evidently become antiquated in the time of David, as the author of the book of Ruth introduces it as an unknown custom of former ages.

The

In process of time the joining or striking of hands, already mentioned with reference to public treaties, was introduced as a ratification of a bargain and sale. This usage was not unknown in the days of Job (xvii. 3.), and Solomon often alludes to it. (See Prov. vi. 1. xi. 15. xvii. 18. xx. 16. xxii. 26. xxvii. 13.) The earliest vestige of written instruments, sealed and delivered for ratifying the disposal and transfer of property, occurs in Jer. xxxii. 10-12., which the prophet commanded Baruch to bury in an earthen vessel in order to be preserved for production at a future period, as evidence of the purchase. (14, 15.) No mention is expressly made of the manner in which deeds were anciently cancelled. Some expositors have imagined that in Col. ii. 14. Saint Paul refers to the cancelling of them by blotting or drawing a line across them, or by striking them through with a nail: but we have no information whatever from antiquity to authorize such a conclusion.*

IV. It was customary for those who appealed to the Deity in attestation of any thing, to hold up their right hand towards heaven; by which action the party swearing, or making OATH, signified that he appealed to God to witness the truth of what he averred. Thus Abram said to the king of Sodom-I have LIFT UP MY HAND unto the LORD the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,.....that I will not take any thing that is thine. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23.) Hence the expression, "to lift up the hand," is equivalent to making oath. In this form of scriptural antiquity, the angel in the Apocalypse is represented as taking a solemn oath. (Rev. x. 5.)

In Num. xviii. 19. mention is made of a covenant of salt. The expression appears to be borrowed from the practice of ratifying their federal engagements by salt; which, as it not only imparted a relish to different kinds of viands, but also preserved them from putrefaction and decay, became the emblem of incorruptibility and permanence. It is well known, from the concurrent testimony of voyagers and travellers, that the Asiatics deem the eating together as a bond of perpetual friendship: and as salt is now (as it anciently was) a common article in all their repasts, it may be in reference to this circumstance that a perpetual covenant is termed a covenant of salt; because the contracting parties ate together of the sacrifice offered on the occasion, and the whole transaction was considered as a league of endless friendship. In order to assure those persons to whom the divine promises were made, of their certainty and stability, the Almighty not only willed that they should have the force of a covenant; but also vouchsafed to accommodate himself (if we may be permitted to use such an expression) to the received customs. Thus, he constituted the rainbow a sign of his covenant with mankind that the earth should be no more destroyed by a deluge (Gen. ix. 12-17.); and in a vision appeared to Abraham to pass between the divided pieces of the sacrifice, which the patriarch had offered. (Gen. xv. 12-17.) Jehovah further instituted the rite of circumcision, as a token of the covenant between himself and Abraham (Gen. xvii. 9—14.); and sometimes sware by nimself (Gen. xxii. 16. Luke i. 73.), that is, pledged his eternal power and godhead for the fulfilment of his promise, there being no one superior to himself to whom he could make appeal, or by whom he could be bound. Saint Paul beautifully illustrates this transaction in his Epistle to the Hebrews. (vi. 13—18.) Lastly, the whole of the Mosaic constitution was a mutual covenant between Jehovah and the Israelites; the tables of which being preserved in an ark, the latter was thence termed the ark of the covenant, and as (we have just seen) the blood of the victims slain in ratifica-3. tion of that covenant, was termed the blood of the covenant. (Exod. xxiv. 8. Zech. ix. 11.) Referring to this, our Saviour, when instituting the Lord's supper, after giving the 1 Herodotus, lib. iv. c. 70. vol. i. p. 273. Oxon. 1809. Doughtæi Analecta, 1. p. 69. Harmer's Observations, vol. ii. p. 94. Burder's Or. Cust. vol. i. p. * Some pleasing facts from modern history, illustrative of the covenant of salt. are collected by the industrious editor of Calmet, Fragments, VOL. II.

206.

No. 130.

L

Among the Jews, an oath of fidelity was taken by the servant's putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, as Eliezer did to Abraham (Gen. xxiv. 2.); whence, with no great deviation, is perhaps derived the form of doing homage at this day, by putting the hands between the knees, and within the hands of the liege. Sometimes an oath was accompanied with an imprecation, as in 2 Sam. iii. 9. 35. Ruth i. 17. 1 Kings ii. 23. 2 Kings vi. 31.: but sometimes the party swearing omitted the imprecation, as if he were afraid, and shuddered to utter it, although it was, from other sources, sufficiently well understood. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23. Ezek. xvii. 18.) At other times he merely said, "Let God be a witness," and sometimes affirmed, saying, "As surely as God liveth." (Jer. xlii. 5. Ruth iii. 13. 1 Sam. xiv. 45. xx. 21.)

These remarks apply to the person who uttered the oath 4 Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, cap. 14. de Foederibus et Contractibus, pp. 130-132.; Pareau, Antiquitas Hebraica, part iii. § 2. cap. 3. de Fœde ribus et Contractibus, pp. 322-325. Bruning, Antiquitates Hebrææ, cap. 26. pp. 242-245. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 310–313.

This mode of swearing has descended even to our own times and nation, being still used in Scotland, and there allowed by act of Parliament to those dissenters who are styled Seceders. The Solemn League and Covenant, in the time of Charles I., was taken in this form." Dean Woodhouse, on Rev. x. 5.

Paley's Mor. and Polit. Philosophy, Book iii. ch. 16. § 1.

CHAPTER VIII.

LAWS RESPECTING STRANGERS, AGED, DEAF, BLIND, AND POOR PERSONS.

I. Of Strangers.-II. Of the Aged, Blind, and Deaf.-III. Of the Poor.

ALL wise legislators have deemed it an important branch | the Hebrews, appear to have been placed in favourable cirof political economy, to direct their attention towards aliens and to the poor and the humanity and wisdom of the Mosaic regulations in this respect will be found not unworthy of a divinely inspired legislator.

viling the one or putting a stumbling-block in the way of the other. In Deut. xxvii. 18. a curse is denounced against him who misleads the blind.

III. With regard to those whom misfortune or other circumstances had reduced to poverty, various humane regulations were made: for though Moses had, by his statutes relative to the division of the land, studied to prevent any Israelites from being born poor, yet he nowhere indulges the hope that there would actually be no poor. On the contrary he expressly says (Deut. xv. 11.), THE POOR shall never cease out of thy land; and he enjoins the Hebrews to open wide their hands to their brethren, to the poor and to the needy in their land. He exhorts the opulent to assist a decayed Israelite with a loan, and not to refuse even though the sabbatical year drew nigh (Deut. xv. 7-10.); and no pledge was to be detained for the loan of money that served for the preservation of his life or health (Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.), or was necessary to enable him to procure bread for himself and family, as the upper and nether mill-stones. During harvest, the owner of a field was prohibited from reaping the corn that grew in its corners, or the after-growth: and the scattered ears, or sheaves carelessly left on the ground, equally belonged to the poor. After a man had once shaken or beaten his olive trees, he was not permitted to gather the olives that still hung on them: so that the fruit, which did not ripen until after the season of gathering, belonged to the poor. (Lev. xix. 9, 10. Deut. xxiv. 19, 20, 21. Ruth ii. 219.) Further, whatever grew during the sabbatical year, in the fields, gardens, or vineyards, the poor might take at pleasure, having an equal right to it with the owners of the land. Another important privilege enjoyed by the poor was, what were called second tenths and second firstlings. "Besides the tenth received by the Levites, the Israelites were obliged to set apart another tenth of their field and garden produce; and in like manner, of their cattle, a second set of offerings, for the purpose of presenting as thank offerings at the high festivals.' Of these thank offerings only certain fat pieces

were consumed on the altar: the remainder, after deducting the priest's portion, was appropriated to the sacrifice feasts, to which the Israelites were bound to invite the stranger, the widow, and the orphan. "When any part of these tenths remained, which they had not been able to bring to the altar or to consume as offerings, they were obliged every three years to make a conscientious estimate of the amount, and, without presenting it as an offering to God, employ it in benevolent entertainments in their native cities." (Deut. xii. 5-12. 17-19. xiv. 22-29. xvi. 10, 11. xxvi. 12, 13.)1

But though Moses has made such abundant provision for the poor, yet it does not appear that he has said any thing respecting beggars. The earliest mention of beggars occurs in Psal. cix. 10. In the New Testament, however, we read of beggars, blind, distressed, and maimed, who lay at the doors of the rich, by the way sides, and also before the gate of the temple. (Mark x. 46. Luke xvi. 20, 21. Acts iii. 2.) But "we have no reason to suppose, that there existed in the time of Christ that class of persons called vagrant beggars, who present their supplications for alms from door to door, and who are found at the present day in the East, although less frequently than in the countries of Europe. That the custom of seeking alms by sounding a trumpet or horn, which prevails among a class of Mohammedan monastics, Kalendar or Karendal, prevailed also in the time of Christ, may be inferred from Matt. vi. 2.; where the verb axons, which possesses the shade of signification, that would be attached to a corresponding word in the Hiphil form of the Hebrew verbs, is to be rendered transitively, as is the case with many other verbs in the New Testament. There is one thing characteristic of those orientals, who are reduced to the disagreeable necessity of following the vocation of mendicants, which is worthy of being mentioned; they do not appeal to the pity or to the alms-giving spirit, but to the justice of their benefactors. (Job Xxii. 7. xxxi. 16. Prov. iii. 27, 28.)"3

CHAPTER IX.

OF THE MILITARY AFFAIRS OF THE JEWS AND OTHER NATIONS MENTIONED IN

THE SCRIPTURES.

SECTION I.

ON THE MILITARY DISCIPLINE OF THE JEWS.

I. The earliest Wars, predatory Excursions.-II. Character of the Wars of the Israelites.-Their Levies how raised.— Mosaic Statutes concerning the Israelitish Soldiers.—III. Divisions, and Officers of the Jewish Armies ;—which were sometimes conducted by the Kings in Person-Military Chariots.-IV. Encampments.-V. Military Schools and Training.— VI. Defensive Arms.-VII. Offensive Arms.-VIII. Fortifications.-IX. Mode of declaring War.-X. Military Tactics.Order of Battle.-Treatment of the Slain, of captured Cities, and of Captives.-XI. Triumphant Reception of the Conquerors.-XII. Distribution of the Spoil.-Military Honours conferred on eminent Warriors.—A military Order established by David.-XIII. Trophies.

discomfited them. (Gen. xiv. 14-16.) The other patriarchs also armed their servants and dependants, when a conflict was expected. (Gen. xxxii. 7-12. xxxiii. 1.)

II. Although the Jews are now the very reverse of being a military people (in which circumstance we may recognise the accomplishment of prophecy), yet anciently they were eminently distinguished for their prowess. But the notices concerning their discipline which are presented to us in the Sacred Writings, are few and brief.

The wars in which the Israelites were engaged, were of two kinds, either such as were expressly enjoined by divine

I. THERE were not wanting in the earliest ages of the world men who, abusing the power and strength which they possessed to the purposes of ambition, usurped upon their weaker neighbours. Such was the origin of the kingdom founded by the plunderer Nimrod (Gen. x. 8—10.), whose name signifies a rebel, and it was most probably given him, from his rejection of the laws both of God and man, and supporting by force a tyranny over others. As mankind continued to increase, quarrels and contests would naturally arise, and, spreading from individuals to families, tribes and nations, produced wars. Of the military affairs of those times we have very imperfect notices in the Scriptures. These wars, however, appear to have been nothing more than predatory incursions, like those of the modern Wahabees and Bedouin Arabs, so often described by oriental travellers. The patriarch Abraham, on learning that his kins-military affairs of the Hebrews with so much accuracy and knowledge, as man Lot had been taken captive by Chedorlaomer and his confederate emirs or petty kings, mustered his trained servants, three hundred and eighteen in number; and coming against the enemy by night, he divided his forces, and totally

This section is chiefly translated from Calmet's Dissertation sur la Milice des anciens Hebreux, inserted in the third volume of his Commen taire Littérale sur la Bible, and also in vol. i. pp. 205-240. of his Dissertations qui peuvent servir de Prolegomènes de l'Ecriture; which, in the judgment of the celebrated tactician, the Chevalier Folard, discusses the to leave scarcely any room for additions. (Dissertation on the Military Tactics of the Hebrews, in vol. iii. p. 535. of the folio English translation of Calmet's Dictionary.) The Dissertation of the Chevalier Folard has also been consulted; together with Alber's Inst. Herm. Vet. Test. tom. i. pp. 239-247.; Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, pp. 132-146; Jahn. Archæ ologia Biblica, §§ 266-296.; Ackermann, Archæologia Biblica, $$ 260-299.; Home's Hist. of the Jews, vol. ii. pp. 303-316.; Bruning, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 74-91.; Carpzovii Antiquitates Gentis Hebrææ, pp. 665-671. See Lev. xxvi. 36. Deut. xxviii. 65, 66.