does not in this instance deserve the least attention. No such punishment for any crime is mentioned in the law of Moses, or indeed in all the Bible, nor even in Josephus. Stoning was the general capital punishment, and we may always understand it as the punishment inflicted where no particular form of capital punishment is specified, just as we, when a man is condemned to death, understand, without any explanation, that he will be hanged. Besides, we see in other cases that crimes which the law, in the same form of words, punishes with death, were in practice punished with stoning in the life-time of Moses. (Compare Exod. xxi. 14, and xxxv. 2, with Num. xv. 32.) Other crimes, such as unchastity, not amounting to adultery, were punished with stoning (Deut. xxii. 20-24), and it is not therefore likely that the greater crime received the milder punishment. Indeed, it seems from John viii. 7, that stoning was in actual operation as the punishment of adultery so late as the time of our Saviour. To this we may add, that Mohammed distinctly understood that stoning was the punishment which the Pentateuch assigned, and thought that in prescribing a similar punishment he was following its authority. The Jews of his time had abolished capital punishment for adultery altogether, substituting stripes: and in this Mohammed was so far from concurring, as Michaelis seems to think he was, that he reproached them with the neglect of their law. The following anecdote, which forms one of the traditions which the Mohammedans consider most authentic, will illustrate this subject:-" A Jew came to the Prophet and said, 'A man and woman of ours have committed adultery: and the Prophet said, 'What do you meet with in the Bible in the matter of stoning? The Jew said, 'We do not find stoning in the Bible, but we disgrace adulterers and whip them.' Abdullah-bin-Salam, who was a learned man among the Jews, and had embraced Islam, said, 'You lie, O Jewish tribe! verily the order for stoning is in the Bible.' Then the Bible was brought and opened; and a Jew put his hand over the revelation for stoning, and read the one above and below it; and Abdullah said, 'Lift up your hand;' and he did so; and behold the revelation for stoning was produced in the Bible: and the Jews said, 'Abdullah spoke true, O Mohammed! the stoning revelation is in the Bible.' Then his highness ordered the man and woman to be stoned: and they were so." Mischat-ul-Masabih.

14. “Burnt with fire."-See the note on Gen. xxxviii. 24. There is only one other crime against which this punishment is denounced in the law (chap. xxi. 9). It seems, upon the whole, very doubtful whether these and other texts of the same import in the early books of the Old Testament, express the punishment of burning alive, or of the ignominious burning of the body after execution. It is certain we have no instance of the former punishment; but we have of the latter, as resulting from such a law as that expressed in the text. Thus, in Josh. vii. Î5, it is declared that the unknown person who had taken of the accursed thing should be "burnt with fire ;" and when the man was discovered, we find that this intention was executed not by burning him alive, but by stoning him first and then burning his remains (v. 15). We therefore lean to the opinion that stoning, being the common and well-known punishment, is understood in these texts, and that only the additional punishment of burning the body is expressed. Michaelis thinks that burning alive was not sanctioned by the Mosaic law: but Horne, who generally follows him, seems to consider that both burning alive and burning after death are among the punishments mentioned by Moses; and it is rather odd that he cites the same texts in proof of both-namely, the one before us and that in the next chapter. The testimony of the Rabbins is worth very little in this matter, as many capital punishments were in later times introduced, of which the law of Moses takes no notice. They say, that because the bodies of Nadab and Abihu were not consumed by the fire which slew them, it was thought unlawful to burn a criminal alive; but that he was put to death by melted lead being poured down his throat. We may accept this so far as to show that persons were not consumed alive in the fire; but we are bound to reject the other part, as wholly unsanctioned by the law of Moses. It is possible that they may have had this punishment in after times, when the meaning of the law had been greatly perverted by absurd glosses and inferences.

CHAPTER XXI.

1 of the priests' mourning. 6 Of their holiness. 8 Of their estimation. 7, 13 of their marriages. 17 The priests that have blemishes must not minister in the sanctuary.

AND the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

2 But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,

3 And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.

4 But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.

5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the

corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

6 They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer therefore they shall be holy.

:

7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

8 Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.

9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated

1 Or, being an husband among his people he shall not defile himself for his wife, &c.

2 Chap. 19, 27.

to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;

12 Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.

13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

15 Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.

16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing 'superfluous.

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

Verse 5. "Baldness upon their head."-See Deut. xiv. 1. "Neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard.”—In chap. xix. 28, this is made a general law, not peculiar to the priests. They are here forbidden to do that which had already been prohibited to the people in general. There is a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the text. Some think that it is to be understood generally, as interdicting the shaving of the beard. If thus understood, there seems an adequate reason for it in the contrary practice of the Egyptians, who did shave their beards (see note on Gen. xli. 14); and its repetition to the priests may have been to show them that they were not exempted from the general law, as they might have been led to conclude from having observed the peculiar scrupulosity of the Egyptian priests on this point, who, as we are informed by Herodotus, were particularly careful to shave all the hair off their bodies every third day. The other alternative is that which has the sanction of our translation, and by which it appears we are to understand the whiskers, or upper extremities of the beard. The object would then appear to be to keep them a distinct people from the Arabs, who either shaved their whiskers or cropped them short. We must not forget that it was one great object of many of the Mosaic laws to keep the Israelites separate from all the neighbouring nations; and, whether the Egyptians or the Arabs were in view, it is certain that a different fashion of the beard would have a more marked effect in assisting such a distinction than can be readily calculated by those who hold that appendage in light esteem. That such a distinction as we have mentioned did exist, is not only manifested by existing usages, but by ancient accounts. Mohammed perceived the effect of this distinction-for many Jews resided in Arabia in his time-and strictly enjoined that it should be kept up. According to the traditions, he used to clip his own whiskers; and frequently said, "He who does not lessen his whiskers is not our ways:" and he expressly said that he inculcated this practice in opposition to the Jews, who were not accustomed to clip either their beards or whiskers. In these counter regulations we seem here to perceive the object of the apparently trivial injunction of the Hebrew legislator.

Cuttings in their flesh."-See Deut. xiv. 1.

13. "He shall take a wife in her virginity, &c."-Compare this and the following verse with verse 7, where the prohibited marriages of common priests are mentioned. The difference is, that widows are mentioned among those whom the high-priest might not marry, but not among those with whom the common priest is forbidden to contract alliance. It would therefore seem that the common priest was allowed to marry a widow, as Josephus declares; Grotius and others, however, think that a priest could not marry any widow, but one whose deceased husband had also been a priest. This is inferred from Ezek. xliv. 22. The high-priest, being precluded from marrying a widow, was of course exempt from the common obligation of marrying the widow of a brother who died without children. It is possible that the real or apparent difference between the regulation, in this matter, for the high-priests and that for the common priests, suggested to the Oriental Christian churches the establishment of a difference as to the marriages of their superior and inferior dignitaries. The patriarchs and bishops are not married at all; but the common priests usually are so that is, they usually marry before they take orders, and afterwards retain their wives: but if they become widowers, they are not in general allowed to marry again. Thus, although there are married priests, a priest may not marry. This, we believe, is the common rule; but there may be variations in different sects. If the common priests were allowed to marry widows-what happened when one who had married a widow became high-priest? Probably, as in the case we have just stated, it was lawful for him to retain a connection previously formed, which it would not have been lawful to form after his elevation. The Mohammedans have no regulations on this subject, being, in fact, without any distinct priestly order. But in India it is not lawful for the priests to marry any but virgins.

17. “Blemish.”—A similar regulation operated in most ancient nations, excluding from the priesthood all persons labouring under any bodily defects or deformities. This appears to have arisen from a natural enough feeling that it was a sort of indignity to the gods to consecrate a blemished or imperfect man to their service. A general opinion pre306

vailed that the presence of a priest who was defective in any member was to be avoided as ominous of evil. Such persons were seldom however admitted to the priesthood or allowed to remain in it. Candidates were examined with great care; and if it happened that a priest, after consecration, suffered any bodily deprivation, he was expected to lay down his office. Several instances of this occur in the Roman history. Metellus, who lost his sight in preserving the Palladium from the flames which destroyed the temple of Vesta, was obliged to resign his priestly office; as was also M. Sergius when he lost his right hand in defence of his country. The most complete parallel to the present regulation is, however, perhaps to be found in the state of things now existing in India. The illustration is furnished by Mr. Roberts, who observes: "The priesthood among the Hindoos is hereditary, but a deformed person cannot perform a ceremony in the temple; but he may prepare the flowers, fruits, oils, and cakes for the offerings, and also sprinkle the premises with holy water. The child of a priest deformed at the birth will not be consecrated. A priest having lost an eye or a tooth, or being deficient in any member or organ, or who has not a wife, cannot perform the ceremony called Teevasam, for the manes of departed friends. Neither will his incantations, or prayers, or magical ceremonies have any effect."

2 Heb. running of the reins. 3 Exod. 22. 31. Ezek. 44. 31. 4 Heb. with the purchase of his money.

6 Chap. 10. 14. 7 Or, lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating. 8 Dent, 15. 21, and 17. 1.

peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or 'sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

22 Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.

23 Either a bullock or a "lamb that hath any thing "superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.

24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.

25 Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you.

26 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

27 When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

28 And whether it be cow or "ewe, ye shall not kill it "and her young both in one day.

29 And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will.

30 On the same day it shall be eaten up; shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the LORD.

ye

31 Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD.

32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but "I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,

33 That brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD.

13 Deut. 22. 6. 14 Chap. 7. 15. 15 Chap. 10.3.

9 Or, goats. 10 Or, kid. 11 Chap. 21. 18. 12 Or, she-goal. Verse 8. "Dieth of itself.”—This is a general interdiction for all the people, as given elsewhere. No remote reason need be sought for it, as its obvious propriety has recommended it to the adoption of all civilized nations. The Hebrews, however, without any express interdiction, would have been precluded from eating animals dying naturally or from disease, by the operation of that other law which forbade them to eat meat with its blood; that is, which had not been slaughtered so that its blood might be freely discharged. Mohammed, who in these matters mostly followed the law of Moses, allowed an animal apparently dying to be eaten, provided it was slaughtered before its death actually took place; but we do not know whether this would have been tolerated by the law of Moses. Mohammed was, however, also very anxious that animals used for food should be properly slaughtered, so that the blood should be fully discharged. One of his doctrines on this subject is very curious:-"Verily, God ordained it as proper to do good in all things, even in killing men and slaying animals: therefore when you kill (a man), do it well; and when you slay an animal, do it properly." That which died from a blow or a fall he equally interdicted with that which died by itself, and there is no doubt that such also was the intention of Moses.

"Torn with beasts."-This law also is in conformity with our own usages and those of the Arabians; and perhaps we should not be far wrong in considering the laws of Mohammed in these matters as forming a commentary on those of Moses, with whose writings the Arabian legislator was intimately conversant. As with us, if an animal torn by beasts was found while life remained and then properly slaughtered, it might be eaten. Mohammed says generally that whatever died by teeth or claws might not be used for food, neither an animal gored to death by a horned beast; and it was doubtless the intention of the present law to understand "torn" in the same large sense, not merely restricting it to the case of those animals destroyed by wild beasts. In Exod. xxii. 31, it is directed that meat thus rendered unfit for food should be cast to the dogs. This instruction is different from that concerning the flesh of animals which died of themselves, which was to be given or sold to strangers-a fact which shows that the neighbouring people were in the habit of eating such food. As there seems no obvious reason for the distinction, for that which was torn by beasts would seem more fit for human food than that which died of itself, the instruction concerning the former would suggest a question, whether the Hebrews were in the habit of hunting with dogs? We are not aware of any text which could be adduced to prove that they were. They evidently had dogs, and, except those which attended their flocks, probably kept them on much the same terms as the Mohammedans, who do not properly domesticate them, nor, in general, appropriate them as individual property; but allow them to establish themselves in their streets, and provide in some degree for their wants and accommodation. But among the Moslems, also, though they certainly regard the dog as not less unclean than the Hebrews considered it, there are dogs trained with great care to assist in the chace. If we reasoned merely from probabilities, which we are on all occasions reluctant to do while illustrating the sacred volume, we should conjecture that the Hebrews did the same; for the value of the dog's services for the purpose of capturing the fleet and valuable wild animals, of the deer kind, which were allowed them for food, must have been very apparent to them. But then, the difficulty would arise as to whether an animal torn and killed by dogs in the chace was to be considered fit for food. The instruction, on this point, which Mohammed gave to the great sportsman Adiibn-Hatim-the son of the renowned Hatim Tai, whose generosity remains a proverb in the East-is the authority on which Moslems usually act in this case:-"When you send your dog in pursuit of game, repeat the name of God, as at slaying an animal; then if the dog holds the game for you, and you find it alive, then slay it; but if you find your dog has killed it, but not eaten of it, then eat it; but if the dog has eaten of it, do not you eat it, the dog has then kept it for himself. Then if you find another dog along with yours, and the game killed, do not eat of it; for verily you know not which of the dogs killed it; and if the other dog killed it, it might so be that when he was let loose after the game, the name of God might not have been repeated." In another case he particularly provided that game killed by the dog of a fire-worshipper should not be eaten.

27. "It shall be seven days under the dum."-The Rabbins think that this command was because the world was created in seven days, or else that it was for the purpose that one sabbath might pass over it before it was slain. The more likely reason is that the animal was not considered pure or perfect until the eighth day. A similar regulation prevailed among the Romans, as we learn from Pliny, who states that the young of a sheep were not fit for sacrifice until the eighth day after their birth, nor of an ox until the thirtieth day.

28. "Not kill it and her young both in one day."-Some of the Rabbins understand this to apply also to the male parent. The Talmudical and other Jewish writers are probably correct in understanding that this law, like several others, was intended to encourage kind and merciful feelings towards animals.

AARON ENTERING THE HOLY PLACE ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, WITH THE RELATIVE SITUATIONS OF THE CANDLESTICK, ALTAR OF INCENSE, AND TABLE OF SHEWBREAD.

CHAPTER XXIII.

15 The

1 The feasts of the Lord. 3 The sabbath. 4 The
́passover. 9 The sheaf of firstfruits.
feast of Pentecost. 22 Gleanings to be left for
the poor. 23 The feast of trumpets. 26 The day
of atonement. 33 The feast of tabernacles.
AND the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

3 'Six days shall work be done but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it

Exod. 20. 9. Deut. 5. 13. Luke 13, 14.

is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

4 ¶ These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.

5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.