ance.

I. MARRIAGE was considered by the Jews as a matter of the strictest obligation. They understood literally and as a precept these words uttered to our first parents, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (Gen. i. 28.) Their continual expectation of the coming of the Messiah added great weight to this obligation. Every one lived in the hopes that this blessing should attend their posterity; and therefore they thought themselves bound to further the expectance of him, by adding to the race of mankind, of whose seed he was to be born, and whose happiness he was to promote, by that temporal kingdom for which they looked upon his appearHence celibacy was esteemed a great reproach in Israel; for, besides that they thought no one could live a single life without great danger of sin, they esteemed it a counteracting of the divine counsels in the promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. On this account it was that Jephthah's daughter deplored her virginity, because she thus deprived her father of the hopes which he might entertain from heirs descended from her, by whom his name might survive in Israel, and, consequently, of his expectation of having the Messiah to come of his seed, which was the general desire of all the Israelitish women. For the same reason also sterility was regarded among the Jews (as it is to this day among the modern Egyptians) as one of the greatest misfortunes that could befall any woman, insomuch that to have a child, though the woman immediately died thereupon, was accounted a less affliction than to have none at all; and to this purpose we may observe, that the midwife comforts Rachel in her labour (even though she knew her to be at the point of death) in these terms, Fear not, for thou shalt bear this son also. (Gen. xxxv. 17.)

From this expectation proceeded their exactness in causing the brother of a husband, who died without issue, to marry the widow he left behind, and the disgrace that attended his refusing so to do; for, as the eldest son of such a marriage became the adopted child of the deceased, that child and the posterity flowing from him were, by a fiction of law, considered as the real offspring and heirs of the deceased brother. This explains the words of Isaiah, that seven women should take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. (Isa. iv. 1.) This was the reason also why the Jews commonly married very young. The age prescribed to men by the Rabbins was eighteen years. A virgin was ordinarily married at the age of puberty, that is, twelve years complete, whence her husband is called the guide of her youth (Prov. ii. 17.), and the husband of her youth (Joel i. 8.); and the not giving of maidens in marriage is in Psal. Ixxviii. 63. represented as one of the effects of the divine anger towards Israel. In like manner, among the Hindoos, the delaying of the marriage of daughters is to this day regarded as a great calamity and disgrace.2

II. From the first institution of marriage it is evident that God gave but one woman to one man; and if it be a true, as it is a common, observation, that there are every where more males than females born in the world, it follows that those men certainly act contrary to the laws both of God and nature who have more than one wife at the same time. But though God, as supreme lawgiver, had a power to dispense with his own laws, and actually did so with the Jews for the 1 The most importunate applicants to Dr. Richardson for medical advice were those who consulted him on account of sterility, which in Egypt (he says) is still considered the greatest of all evils. "The unfortunate couple believe that they are bewitched, or under the curse of heaven, which they fancy the physician has the power to remove. It is in vain that he declares the insufficiency of the healing art to take away their reproach. The parties hang round, dunning and importuning him for the love of God, to prescribe for them, that they may have children like other people. 'Give me children, or I die,' said the fretful Sarah to her husband; Give me children, or I curse you,' say the barren Egyptians to their physicians." Dr. Richardson's Travels along the Mediterranean, &c. vol. ii. p. 106. A nearly similar scene is described by Mr. R. R. Madden, who travelled in the East between the years 1824 and 1827. Travels in Turkey, &c. vol. ii. p. 51. 2 Ward's History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 327. Maurice's Indian Antiquities, vol. vii. p. 329. Home's History of the Jews, vol. ii. pp. 350, 351.

more speedy peopling of the world, yet it is certain there is no such toleration under the Christian dispensation, and, therefore, their example is no rule at this day. The first who violated this primitive law of marriage was Lamech, who took unto him two wives. (Gen. iv. 19.) Afterwards we read that Abraham had concubines. (Gen. xxv. 6.) And his practice was followed by the other patriarchs, which at last grew to a most scandalous excess in Solomon's and Rehoboam's days. The word concubine in most Latin authors, and even with us at this day, signifies a woman, who, though she be not married to a man, yet lives with him as his wife; but in the Sacred Writings it is understood in another sense. There it means a lawful wife, but of a lower order and of an inferior rank to the mistress of the family; and, therefore, she had equal right to the marriage-bed with the chief wife; and her issue was reputed legitimate in opposition to bastards: but in all other respects these concubines were inferior to the primary wife: for they had no authority in the family, nor any share in household government. If they had been servants in the family before they came to be concubines, they continued to be so afterwards, and in the same subjection to their mistress as before. The dignity of these primary wives gave their children the preference in the succession, so that the children of concubines did not inherit their father's fortune, except upon the failure of the children by these more honourable wives; and, therefore, it was, that the father commonly provided for the children by these concubines in his own lifetime, by giving them a portion of his cattle and goods, which the Scripture calls gifts. Thus Sarah was Abraham's primary wife, by whom he had Isaac, who was the heir of his wealth. But besides her, he had two concubines, Hagar and Keturah; by these he had other children whom he distinguished from Isaac, for it is said, He gave them gifts, and sent them away while he yet lived. (Gen. xxv. 5, 6.) In Mesopotamia, as appears from Gen. xxix. 26., the younger daughter could not be given in marriage "before the first-born" or elder, and the same practice continues to this day among the Armenians, and also among the Hindoos, with whom it is considered criminal to give the younger daughter in marriage before the elder, or for a younger son to marry while his elder brother remains unmarried.3

III. No formalities appear to have been used by the Jews-at least none were enjoined to them by Moses-in joining man and wife together. Mutual consent, followed by consummation, was deemed sufficient. The manner in which a daughter was demanded in marriage is described in the case of Shechem, who asked Dinah the daughter of Jacob in marriage (Gen. xxxiv. 6—12.); and the nature of the contract, together with the mode of solemnizing the marriage, is described in Gen. xxiv. 50, 51. 57. 67. There was, indeed, a previous espousal or betrothing, which was a solemn promise of marriage, made by the man and woman each to the other, at such a distance of time as they agreed upon. This was sometimes done by writing, sometimes by the delivery of a piece of silver to the bride in presence of witnesses, as a pledge of their mutual engagements. We are informed by the Jewish writers that kisses were given in token of the espousals (to which custom there appears to be an allusion in Canticles i. 2.), after which the parties were reckoned as man and wife. After such espousals were made (which

Home's History of the Jews, vol. ii. p. 352. Paxton's Illustrations of Scripture, vol. iii. p. 129. 2d edit. Hartley's Researches in Greece and the Levant, pp. 229, 230.

"Before the giving of the law (saith Maimonides), if the man and woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house and privately married her. But, after the giving of the law, the Israelites were commanded, that if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her, first before witnesses, and henceforth let her be to him to affirmative precepts of the law, and is called 'espousing." Lightfoot's wife, as it is written, 'If any one take a wife.' This taking is one of the Hora Hebr. on Matt. i. 18. (Works, vol. xi. p. 18. 8vo. edit. 1823.)

Dr. Gill's Comment. on Sol. Song i. 2. The same ceremony was practised among the primitive Christians. (Bingham's Antiquities, book xxii. c. 3. sect. 6.) By the civil law, indeed, the kiss is made a ceremony, in Justin. lib. v. tit. 3. de Donation. ante Nuptias, leg. 16.) Fry's Translation some respects, of importance to the validity of the nuptial contract. (Cod. of the Canticles, p. 33.

marriage; and the door was shut,' and all admittance was refused to the imprudent virgins. The solemnities here described are still practised by the Jews in Podolia,3 and also by the Christians iu Syria, and in Egypt. These companions of the bridegroom and bride are mentioned in Psal. xlv. 9. 14., and Cant. v. 1. 8. John the Baptist calls them the friends of the bridegroom. (John iii. 29.)

From the parable," in which a great king is represented as making a most magnificent entertainment at the marriage of his son, we learn that all the guests, who were honoured with an invitation, were expected to be dressed in a manner suitable to the splendour of such an occasion, and as a token of just respect to the new-married couple and that after the procession in the evening from the bride's house was concluded, the guests, before they were admitted into the hall where the entertainment was served up, were taken into an apartment and viewed, that it might be known if any stranger had intruded, or if any of the company were apparelled in raiments unsuitable to the genial solemnity they were going to celebrate; and such, if found, were expelled the house with every mark of ignominy and disgrace. From the knowledge of this custom the following passage receives great light and lustre. When the king came in to see the guests, he discovered among them a person who had not on a weddinggarment. He called him and said, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding-garment? and he was speechless he had no apology to offer for this disrespectful neglect. The king then called to his servants, and bade them bind him hand and foot-to drag him out of the room-and thrust him out into midnight darkness." (Matt. xxii. 12.)6

"The Scripture, moreover, informs us that the marriagefestivals of the Jews lasted a whole week;" as they do to this day among the Christian inhabitants of Palestine. "Laban said, It must not be so done in our country to give the younger before the first-born. Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also. (Gen. xxix. 26, 27.) And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you if you can certainly declare it me within the SEVEN DAYS of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets, and thirty change of garments. (Judg. xiv. 12.) This week was spent in feasting, and was devoted to universal joy. To the festivity of this occasion our Lord refers:-Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." (Mark ii. 19, 20.)8

The eastern people were very reserved, not permitting the young women at marriages to be in the same apartments with the men; and, therefore, as the men and women could not 1 Mr. Ward has given the following description of a Hindoo wedding, which furnishes a striking parallel to the parable of the wedding-feast in the Gospel. "At a marriage, the precession of which I saw some years ago, the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived at Serampore, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After waiting two or three hours, at length, near midnight, it was announced, as if in the very words of Scripture, Behold, the bridegroom cometh! Go ye out to meet him.' All the persons employed now lighted their lamps, and ran with them in their hands to fill up their stations in the procession; some of them had lost their lights, and were unprepared, but it was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to the house of the bride, at which place the company entered a large and splendidly illuminated area, before the house, covered with an awning, where a great multitude of friends, dressed in their best apparel, were seated upon mats. The bride groom was carried in the arms of a friend, and placed on a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a short time, and then went into the house, the door of which was immediately shut, and guarded by Sepoys. I and others expostulated with the door-keepers, but in vain. Never was I so struck with our Lord's beautiful parable, as at this moment:And the door was shut!" (Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. iii. pp. 171, 172.)

95. Gilpin on the New Test. vol. i. p. 100.

Alber, Hermeneut. Vet. Test. pp. 200, 201. Bruning, Antiq. Græc. p. At Kamenetz Podolskoi, Dr. Henderson relates, "we were stunned by the noise of a procession, led on by a band of musicians playing on tambourines and cymbals, which passed our windows. On inquiry, we learned that it consisted of a Jewish bridegroom, accompanied by his young friends, proceeding to the house of the bride's father, in order to convey her home to her future residence. In a short time they returned with such a profusion of lights, as quite illuminated the street. The bride, deeply veiled, was led along in triumph, accompanied by her virgins, each with a candle in her hand, who, with the young men, sang and danced before her and the bridegroom. The scene presented us with an ocular illustration of the important parable recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; and we were particularly reminded of the appropriate nature of the injunction which our Saviour gives us to watch and be ready; for the re-procession must have commenced immediately on the arrival of the bridegroom." Biblical Researches, p. 217.

See Mr. Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria, pp. 87, 88. See Mr. Rae Wilson's Travels in the Holy Land, Egypt, &c. vol. i. p. 335, third edition.

Harwood's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 122.

Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria and Palestine, p. 95. Harwood's Introd. vol. ii. p. 123. Brunings states that the Jews distinguish between a bride who is a virgin and one who is a widow; and that the nuptial feast of the former lasted a whole week, but for the latter it was limited to three days. Antiq. Hebr. p. 71.

amuse themselves with one another's conversation, the men did not spend their time merely in eating and drinking; for their custom was to propose questions and hard problems, by resolving which they exercised the wit and sagacity of the company. This was done at Samson's marriage, where he proposed a riddle to divert his company. (Judg. xiv. 12.) At nuptial and other feasts it was usual to appoint a person to superintend the preparations, to pass around among the guests to see that they were in want of nothing, and to give the necessary orders to the servants. Ordinarily, he was not one of the guests, and did not recline with them; or, at least, he did not take his place among them until he had performed all that was required of him. (Ecclus. xxxii. 1.) This officer is by St. John (ii. 8, 9.) termed 'Aprivos, and 'Hycueros by the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus: as the latter lived about the year 190 B. C., and while the Jews had intercourse with the Greeks, especially in Egypt, it is most probable that the custom of choosing a governor of the feast passed from the Greeks to the Jews. Theophylact's remark on John ii. 8. satisfactorily explains what was the business of the appixxives :—“That no one might suspect that their taste was so vitiated by excess as to imagine water to be wine, our Saviour directs it to be tasted by the governor of the feast, who certainly was sober; for those, who on such occasions are intrusted with this office, observe the strictest sobriety, that every thing may, by their orders, be conducted with regularity and decency."

9910

At a marriage-feast to which Mr. Buckingham was invited, he relates that when the master of the feast came, he was "seated as the stranger guest immediately beside him and on the ejaculation of B' Ism Allah' being uttered, he dipped his fingers in the same dish, and had the choicest bits placed before him by his own hands, as a mark of his being considered a friend or favourite; for this is the highest honour that can be shown to any one at an eastern feast."

"Two interesting passages of Scripture derive illustration from this trait of eastern manners. The first is that, in which the Saviour says, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room [that is, place or station], lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place: and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.' (Luke xiv. 8-10.) In a country where the highest importance is attached to this distinction, the propriety of this advice is much more striking than if applied to the manners of our own; and the honour is still as much appreciated throughout Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, at the present day, as it was in those of the Messiah. The other passage is that, in which, at the celebration of the passover, Jesus says (Matt. Xxvi. 23.), He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.' As there are but very few, and these always the dearest friends, or most honoured guests, who are seated sufficiently near to the master of the feast to dip their hands in the same dish with him (probably not more than three or four out of the twelve disciples at the last supper enjoyed this privilege), the baseness of the treachery is much increased, when one of those few becomes a betrayer; and in this light the conduct of Judas was, no doubt, meant to be depicted by this pregnant expression."

V. Marriage was dissolved among the Jews by DIVORCE fered this because of the hardness of their heart, but from the as well as by death.12 Our Saviour tells us, that Moses sufbeginning it was not so (Matt. xix. 8.); meaning that they were accustomed to this abuse, and to prevent greater evils, such as murders, adulteries, &c. he permitted it: whence it should seem to have been in use before the law; and we see that Abraham dismissed Hagar, at the request of Sarah. It appears that Samson's father-in-law understood that his daughter had been divorced, since he gave her to another. (Judg. xv. 2.) The Levite's wife, who was dishonoured at Gibeah, had forsaken her husband, and never would have returned, if he had not gone in pursuit of her. (Judg. xix. 2, 3.) ⚫ Robinson's Greek Lexicon, voce 'Apx1pixivos. Alber, Interpretatio Sacræ Scripturæ, tom. ix. p. 83.

10 Theophylact as cited in Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, voce 'App

I. In the East (as indeed in Switzerland and some other parts of Europe, where the women are very robust), childbirth is to this day an event of but little difficulty; and mothers were originally the only assistants of their daughters, as any further aid was deemed unnecessary. This was the case of the Hebrew women in Egypt. (Exod. i. 19.) It is evident from Gen. xxxv. 17. and xxxviii. 28. that midwives were employed in cases of difficult parturition; and it also appears that in Egypt, from time immemorial, the care of delivering women was committed to female midwives. (Exod. i. 15. et seq.) From Ezek. xvi. 4. it seems to have been the custom to wash the child as soon as it was born, to rub it with salt, and to wrap it in swaddling-clothes (The Armenians, to this day, wash their new-born infants in salt and water, previously to dressing them.), The birthday of a son was celebrated as a festival, which was solemnized every succeeding year with renewed demonstrations of festivity and joy, especially those of sovereign princes. (Gen. xl. 20. Job í. 4. Matt. xiv. 6.) The birth of a son or of a daughter rendered the mother ceremonially unclean for certain period: at the expiration of which she went into the tabernacle or temple, and offered the accustomed sacrifice of purification, viz. a lamb of a year old, or, if her circumstances would not afford it, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. (Lev. xii. 1-8. Luke ii. 22.)

On the eighth day after its birth the son was circumcised, by which rite it was consecrated to the service of the true God (Gen. xvii. 10. compared with Rom. iv. 11.): on the nature of circumcision, see pp. 110, 111. supra. At the same time the male child received a name (as we have already remarked in p. 111.): in many instances he received a name from the circumstance of his birth, or from some peculiarities in the history of the family to which he belonged (Gen. xvi. 11. xxv. 25, 26. Exod. ii. 10. xviii. 3, 4.); and sometimes the name had a prophetic meaning. (Isa. vii. 14. viii. 3. Hos. i. 4. 6. 9. Matt. i. 21. Luke i. 13. 60. 63.)

1 Josephus de Vita sua, c. 76. Home's History of the Jews, vol. i. p.

Harwood's Introd. vol. ii. p. 125. Calmet's Dissertation sur le Divorce, Dissert. tom. i. pp. 390, 391. The following are some of the principal causes for which the Jews were accustomed to put away their wives, at the period referred to:-1. "It is commanded to divorce a wife, that is not of good behaviour, and is not modest, as becomes a daughter of Israel." 2. If any man hate his wife, let him put her away."-3. "The school of Hillel saith, If the wife cook her husband's food illy, by over-salting it, or over-roasting it, she is to be put away."-4. Yea, "If, by any stroke from the hand of God, she become dumb or sottish," &c.-5. R. Akibah said, "If any man sees a woman handsomer than his own wife, he may put her away; because it is said, 'If she find not favour in his eyes.'" (Lightfoot's Hora Hebraica, on Matt. v. 31.-Works, vol. xi. p. 118. 8vo. edit.) This last was the cause assigned by Josephus for repudiating his wife in

the passage above cited.

This chapter is compiled from Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. pp.

427-430, 443-447. Lewis's Origines Hebrææ, vol. ii. pp. 240-310. Calmet's Dictionary, article Adoption. Bruning, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 1-11. Pareau, Antiquitas Hebraica, part iv. c. 6. de liberorum procreatione et educatione, pp. 412-446.

Harmer's Observations, vol. iv. p. 433. Morier's Second Journey,

p. 106.

II. "The FIRST-BORN, who was the object of special affection to his parents, was denominated, by way of eminence, the opening of the womb. In case a man married a widow who by a previous marriage had become the mother of children, the first-born as respected the second husband was the child that was eldest by the second marriage. Before the time of Moses, the father might, if he chose, transfer the right of primogeniture to a younger child, but the practice occasioned much contention (Gen. xxv. 31, 32.), and a law was enacted overruling it. (Deut. xxi. 15-17.) The firstborn inherited peculiar rights and privileges.-1. He received a double portion of the estate. Jacob in the case of Reuben, his first-born, bestowed his additional portion upon Joseph, by adopting his two sons. (Gen. xlviii. 5—8.) This was done as a reprimand, and a punishment of his incestuous conduct (Gen. xxxv. 22.); but Reuben, notwithstanding, was enrolled as the first-born in the genealogical registers. (1 Chron. v. 1.)—2. The first-born was the priest of the whole family. The honour of exercising the priesthood was transferred, by the command of God communicated through Moses, from the tribe of Reuben, to whom it belonged by right of primogeniture, to that of Levi, (Num. iii. 12-18. viii. 18.) In consequence of this fact, that God had taken the Levites from among the children of Israel, instead of all the first-born, to serve him as priest, the first-born of the other tribes were to be redeemed, at a valuation made by the priest not exceeding five shekels, from serving God in that capacity. (Num. xviii. 15, 16. compared with Luke ii. 22. et seq.)-3. The first-born enjoyed an authority over those who were younger, similar to that possessed by a father (Gen. xxv. 23. et seq. 2 Chron. xxi. 3. Gen. xxvii. 29.), which was transferred in the case of Reuben by Jacob their father to Judah. (Gen. xlix. 8—10.) The tribe of Judah, accordingly, even before it gave kings to the Hebrews, was every where distinguished from the other tribes, In consequence of the authority which was thus attached to the firstborn, he was also made the successor in the kingdom. There was an exception to this rule in the case of Solomon, who, though a younger brother, was made his successor by David at the special appointment of God. It is very easy to see in view of these facts, how the word first-born came to express sometimes a great, and sometimes the highest dignity."4 (Isa. xiv. 30, Psal. lxxxix. 27. Rom. viii. 29. Col. í. 15-18. Heb. xii. 23. Rev. i. 5. 11. Job xviii. 13.)

themselves, and, it should seem from various passages of III. In the earliest ages, mothers suckled their offspring Scripture, until they were nearly or quite three years old: on the day the child was weaned, it was usual to make a feast. (2 Macc. vii. 27. 1 Sam. i. 22-24. Gen. xxi. 8.) The same custom of feasting obtains in Persia to this day. In case the mother died before the child was old enough to be

Jahn's Archæologia Biblica, by Mr. Upham, § 165. ■ Morier's Second Journey, p. 107,

weaned, or was unable to rear it herself, nurses were employed; and also in later ages when matrons became too delicate or too infirm to perform the maternal duties. These nurses were reckoned among the principal members of the family; and, in consequence of the respectable station which they sustained, are frequently mentioned in sacred history. See Gen. xxxv. 8. 2 Kings xi. 2. 2 Chron. xxii. 11. "The daughters rarely departed from the apartments appropriated to the females, except when they went out with an urn to draw water, which was the practice with those who belonged to those humbler stations in life, where the ancient simplicity of manners had not lost its prevalence. (Exod. ii. 16. Gen. xxiv. 16. xxix. 10. 1 Sam. ix. 11, 12. John iv. 7.) They spent their time in learning those domestic and other arts, which are befitting a woman's situation and character, till they arrived at that period in life, when they were to be sold, or by a better fortune given away, in marriage. (Prov. xxxi. 13. 2 Sam. xiii. 7.) The daughters of those who by their wealth had been elevated to high stations in life, so far from going out to draw water in urns, might be said to spend the whole of their time within the walls of their palaces. In imitation of their mothers, they were occupied with dressing, with singing, and with dancing; and, if we may judge from the representations of modern travellers, their apartments were sometimes the scenes of vice. (Ezek. xxiii. 18.) They went abroad but very rarely, as already intimated, and the more rarely, the higher they were in point of rank, but they received with cordiality female visitants. The virtues of a good woman, of one that is determined, whatever her station, to discharge each incumbent duty, and to avoid the frivolities and vices at which we have briefly hinted, are mentioned in terms of approbation and praise in Prov. xxxi. 10—31.

"The sons remained till the fifth year in the care of the women; then they came into the father's care, and were taught not only the arts and duties of life, but were instructed in the Mosaic law, and in all parts of their country's religion. (Deut. vi. 20-25. xi. 19.) Those who wished to have them further instructed, provided they did not deem it preferable to employ private teachers, sent them away to some priest or Levite, who sometimes had a number of other children to instruct. It appears from 1 Sam. i. 24-28. that there was a school near the holy tabernacle, dedicated to the instruction of youth.

IV. "The authority to which a father was entitled extended not only to his wife, to his own children, and to his servants of both sexes, but to his children's children also. It was the custom anciently for sons newly married to remain at their father's house, unless it had been their fortune to marry a daughter, who, having no brothers, was heiress to an estate; or unless by some trade, or by commerce, they had acquired sufficient property to enable them to support their own family. It might of course be expected, while they lived in their father's house, and were in a manner the pensioners on his bounty, that he would exercise his authority over the children of his sons as well as over the sons themselves." In this case the power of the father "had no narrow limits, and, whenever he found it necessary to resort to measures of severity, he was at liberty to inflict the extremity of punishment. (Gen. xxi. 14. xxxviii. 24.) This power was so restricted by Moses, that the father, if he judged the son worthy of death, was bound to bring the cause before a judge. But he enacted, at the same time, that the judge should pronounce sentence of death upon the son, if on inquiry it could be proved, that he had beaten or cursed his father or mother, or that he was a spendthrift, or saucy, or contumacious, and could not be reformed. (Exod. xxi. 15. 17. Lev. xx. 9. Deut. xxi. 18-21.) The authority of the parents, and the service and love due to them, are recognised in the most prominent and fundamental of the moral laws of the Jewish polity, viz. the Ten Commandments. (Exod. xx. 12.)

"The son, who had acquired property, was commanded to exhibit his gratitude to his parents, not only by words and in feeling, but by gifts. (Matt. xv. 5, 6. Mark vii. 11-13.) The power of the father over his offspring in the ancient times was not only very great for the time being, and while he sojourned with them in the land of the living; but he was allowed also to cast his eye into the future, and his prophetic curse or blessing possessed no little efficacy." (Gen. xlix. 2-28.)

It appears from 1 Kings xx. 1. (marginal rendering) that, in the disposition of his effects, the father expressed his last

Jahn's Archeologia Biblica, by Mr. Upham, §§ 166, 167.

wishes or will in the presence of witnesses, and probably in the presence of the future heirs, as Jacob did, in Gen. xlviii.; and this, Michaelis is of opinion, seems to be what is called giving the inheritance to his sons, in Deut. xxi. 16. Testaments were not written until long after that period. The following regulations obtained in the disposition of property :

1. "As it respected sons:-The property or estate of the father, after his decease, fell into the possession of his sons, who divided it among themselves equally; with this exception, that the eldest son received two portions." It appears, however, from Luke xv. 12. that sons might demand and receive their portion of the inheritance during their father's lifetime; and that the parent, though aware of the dissipated inclinations of the child, could not legally refuse the application.

2. "As it respected the sons of concubines:-The portion, which was given to them, depended altogether upon the feelings of the father. Abraham gave presents, to what amount is not known, both to Ishmael and to the sons whom he had by Keturah, and sent them away before his death. It does not appear that they had any other portion in the estate; but Jacob made the sons, whom he had by his concubines, heirs as well as the others. (Gen. xxi. 8-21. xxv. 1-6. xlix. 1— 27.) Moses laid no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we should infer that the sons of concubines for the most part received an equal share with the other sons, from the fact, that Jephthah, the son of a concubine, complained, that he was excluded without any portion from his father's house. (Judg. xi. 1—7.)

3. "As it respected daughters:-The daughters not only had no portion in the estate, but, if they were unmarried, were considered as making a part of it, and were sold by their brothers into matrimony. In case there were no brothers, or they all had died, they took the estate (Num. xxvii. 1—8.) : if any one died intestate, and without any offspring, the property was disposed of according to the enactments in Num. xxvii. 8—11.

4. "As it respected servants :-The servants or the slaves in a family could not claim any share in the estate as a right, but the person who made a will might, if he chose, make them his heirs. (Comp. Gen. xv. 3.) Indeed, in some instances, those who had heirs, recognised as such by the law, did not deem it unbecoming to bestow the whole or a portion of their estates on faithful and deserving servants. (Prov. xvii. 2.) 5. "As it respected widows-The widow of the deceased, like his daughters, had no legal right to a share in the estate. The sons, however, or other relations, were bound to afford her an adequate maintenance, unless it had been otherwise arranged in the will. She sometimes returned back again to her father's house, particularly if the support, which the heirs gave her, was not such as had been promised, or was not suffi cient. (Gen. xxxviii. 11. compare also the story of Ruth.) The prophets very frequently, and undoubtedly not without cause, exclaim against the neglect and injustice shown to widows."2 (Isa. I. 17. x. 2. Jer. vii. 6. xxii. 3. Ezek. xxii. 7. comp. Exod. xxii. 22-24. Deut. x. 18. xxiv. 17.)

V. Where there were no sons to inherit property, it appears from various passages of the New Testament, that ADOPTION, or the taking of a stranger into a family, in order to make him a part of it, acknowledging him as a son and heir to the estate, was very generally practised in the East, in the time of our Saviour. Adoption, however, does not appear to have been used by the elder Hebrews: Moses is silent concerning it in his law; and Jacob's adoption of his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. xlviii. 1.), is rather a kind of substitution, by which he intended, that the two sons of Joseph should have each his lot in Israel, as if they had been his own sons. Thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine. But as he gave no inheritance to their father Joseph, the effect of this adoption extended only to their increase of fortune and inheritance; that is, instead of one part, giving them (or Joseph, by means of them) two parts. Two other kinds of adoption among the Israelites are mentioned in the Scriptures; viz. 1. The first consisted in the obligation of a surviving brother to marry the widow of his brother, who had died without children (Deut. xxv. 5. Ruth iv. 5. Matt. xxii. 24.); so that the children of this marriage were considered as belonging to the deceased brother, and went by his name; a practice more ancient than the law, as appears in the history of Tamar; but this manner of adopting was not practised among the

• Jahn's Archæologia Biblica, by Mr. Upham, § 168.