and skill, a spring hitherto unknown; and that this promise was fulfilled. The discovery of springs, which often flow at a considerable depth below the surface of the earth, is of great importance to a country so poor in water as Arabia. Often a spot that is dry above has even subterraneous lakes, to reach which it is necessary to dig to some depth. We have a remarkable instance in a part of Africa which Shaw describes at the end of the eighth chapter of his geographical remarks on Algiers:-"The villages of Wadreag are supplied in a particular manner with water: they have, properly speaking, neither fountains nor rivulets; but by digging wells to the depth of a hundred, and sometimes two hundred fathoms, they never want a plentiful stream. In order, therefore, to obtain it, they dig through different layers of sand and grayel till they come to a flaky stone, like slate, which is known to lie immediately above the bahar tant el erd, or the sea below the ground, as they call the abyss. This is easily broken through, and the flux of water, which follows the stroke, rises generally so suddenly, and in such abundance, that the person let down for this purpose has sometimes, though raised up with the greatest dexterity, been overtaken and suffocated by it." In some parts of Arabia, as at Faranard in the valley of Dschirondel, water is found, according to Niebuhr, on digging only a foot and a half deep.-ROSENMULLER.

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 4. And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this lick company all that are up round about us, as the ox licketh the up grass of the field.

A native gentleman, who has many people depending upon him, says, "Yes, they are all grazing upon me.' "If I am not careful, they will soon graze up all I have." Of people who have got all they can out of one rich man, and who are seeking after another, "Yes, yes, they have done grazing there, and are now looking out for another place.' "These bulls are grazing in every direction."ROBERTS.

Ver. 6. Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.

The Orientals, in their wars, have always their magicians with them to curse their enemies, and to mutter incantations for their destruction. Sometimes they secretly convey a potent charm among the opposing troops, to cause their destruction. In our late war with the Burmese, the generals had several magicians, who were much engaged in cursing our troops; but, as they did not succeed, a number of witches were brought for the same purpose.ROBERTS.

Ver. 21. And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.

We learn from Niebuhr, that in Egypt the asses are very handsome, and are used for riding by the greater part of the Mohammedans, and by the most distinguished women of that country. The same variety serves for the saddle in Persia and Arabia; and must therefore have been common in Palestine. They are descended from tamed onagers, which are taken young, and sold for a high price to the nobles of Persia, and'the adjacent countries, for their studs. They cost seventy-five ducats; and Tavernier says, that fine ones are sold in Persia dearer than horses, even to a hundred crowns each. He distinguishes them properly from the baser race of ordinary asses, which are employed in carrying loads. These saddle asses, the issue of onagers, are highly commended by all travellers into the Levant. Like the wild ass, they are extremely swift and rapid in their course; of a slender form, and animated gait. They have vigorous faculties, and can discern obstacles readily; at the sight of danger they emit a kind

of cry; they are obstinate to excess, when beaten behind, or when they are put out of their way, or when attempts are made to control them against their will: they are also familiar and attached to their master. These particulars exactly correspond with several incidents in the history of Balaam's ass; from whence it may be inferred, that he rode one of the superior breed, and by consequence, was a person of considerable wealth and eminence in his own country. The high value which people of rank and fashion in the East set upon that noble race of asses, excludes them from the purchase of the commonalty, and restricts the possession of them to the great, or the affluent. This fact is confirmed by the manner in which the sacred writers express themselves on this subject.-PAXTON.

CHAPTER XXIII.

Ver. 21. The LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.

When people pass along the road, if they hear a great noise of joy or triumph, they say, "This is like the shout of a king." "What a noise there was in your village last evening! why, it was like the shout of a king."-ROBERTS. CHAPTER XXIV.

Ver. 6. As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side; as the trees of lign-aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar-trees beside the waters.

Gabriel Sionita, a learned Syrian Maronite, thus describes the cedars of Mount Lebanon, which he had examined on the spot. "The cedar-tree grows on the most elevated part of the mountain; is taller than the pine, and so thick, that fiye men together could scarce fathom one. It shoots out its branches at ten or twelve feet from the ground; they are large, and distant from each other, and are perpetually green. The cedar distils a kind of gum, to which different effects are attributed. The wood of it is of a brown colour, very solid, and incorruptible if preserved from wet; it bears a small apple, like that of the pine. De la Roque relates some curious particulars concerning this tree, which he learned from the Maronites of Mount Libanus: "The branches grow in parallel rows round the tree, but lessen gradually from the bottom to the top, shooting out parallel to the horizon, so that the tree is, in appearance, similar to a cone. As the snows, which fall in vast quantities on this mountain, must necessarily, by their weight on such a vast surface, break down these branches, nature, or rather the God of nature, has so ordered it, that at the approach of winter, and during the snowy season, the branches erect themselves, and cling close to the body of the tree, and thus prevent any body of snow from lodging on them." Maundrell, who visited Mount Libanus in 1697, gives the following description of the cedars still growing there: "These noble trees grow among the snow, near the highest part of Lebanon, and are remarkable, as well for their own age and largeness, as for those frequent allusions to them in the word of God. Some of them are very old, and of a prodigious bulk; others younger, and of a smaller size. Of the former I could reckon only sixteen, but the latter are very numerous. I measured one of the largest, and found it twelve yards and six inches in girth, and yet sound; and thirty-seven yards in the spread of its branches. At about five or six yards from the ground it was divided into five limbs, each of which was equal to a great tree."

The aloe-tree here meant is the aloe which grows in the East Indies, to the height of eight or ten feet, and (not to be confounded with the aloe-plant originally from America) its stem is the thickness of a thigh. At the top grows a tuft of jagged and thick leaves, which is broad at the bottom, but becomes gradually narrower towards the point, and is about four feet long; the blossom is red, intermingled with yellow, and double like cloves. From this blossom comes a red and white fruit, of the size of a pea. This tree has a very beautiful appearance, and the wood has so fine a smell, that it is used for perfume. The Indians consider this tree as sacred, and are used to fell it with various religious ceremonies. The Orientals consider this aloe as a tree of Paradise, on which account the Dutch call it the tree of Paradise. Therefore, Rabbi Solomon Jarchi

explains the Hebrew word as 'myrrh and sanderswood, which God planted in the garden of Eden."-ROSENMULLER.

CHAPTER XXXI.

Ver. 50. We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, ear-rings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

There is not a man in a thousand who does not wear an ear-ring or a finger-ring, for without such an ornament a person would be classed among the most unfortunate of his race. Some time ago a large sacrifice was made for the purpose of removing the cholera morbus, when vast numbers came together with their oblations. The people seemed to take the greatest pleasure in presenting their carrings, finger-rings, bracelets, and other ornaments, because they were dearer to them than money, and consequently were believed to be more efficacious in appeasing the gods. When people are sick, they vow to give a valuable jewel to their god on being restored.-ROBERTS.

People in the East, in consequence of their light clothing, of the exposed state of their feet, and the narrowness of the paths, have a great dread of thorns. Those who carry the palankeen, or who travel in groups, often cry aloud, Mullu, mullu! A thorn, a thorn! The sufferer soon throws himself on the earth, and some one, famous for his skill, extracts the thorn. Does a person see something of a distressing nature, he says, "That was a thorn in my eyes." A father says of his bad son," He is to me as a thorn." "His vile expressions were like thorns in my body." A person going to live in an unhealthy place, or where there are quarrelsome people, is said to be going "to the thorny desert."-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER XXXV.

Ver. 19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him he shall slay him.

The interest of the common safety has for ages established a law among the Arabians, which decrees that the blood of every man who is slain must be avenged by that of his murderer. This vengeance is called tar, or retaliation, and the right of exacting it devolves on the nearest a-kin to the deceased. So nice are the Arabs on this point of honour, that if one neglects to seek his retaliation, he is disgraced for ever. He therefore watches every opportu nity of revenge; if his enemy perish from any other cause, still he is not satisfied, and his vengeance is directed against the nearest relation. These animosities are transmitted as an inheritance from father to children, and never cease but by the extinction of one of the families: unless they agree to sacrifice the criminal, or purchase the blood for a stated price in money or in flocks. Without this satisfaction, there is neither peace, nor truce, nor alliance between them, nor sometimes even between whole tribes. There is blood between us, say they, on every occasion; and this xpression is an insurmountable barrier.-VOLNEY.

tr Among the Bedouin Arabs," says D'Arvieux, "the revenge of blood is implacable. If one man has killed another, the friendship between the two families and their descendants is dissolved. If an opportunity should occur, to join in some common interest, or if one family propose a marriage to the other, they answer quite coolly, 'You know that there is blood between us, we cannot accept your proposal, and must consider our honour.' They do not forgive each other till they have had their revenge, with which, however, they are not in haste, but wait for time and opportunity." This is confirmed by Niebuhr, Description of Arabia. "The Arabs seldom wish to see the mur

derer put to death by the magistrates, or take his life themselves, because they would deliver his family from a bad member, and, consequently, from a great burden. The family of the person murdered generally reserve to themselves the right to declare war, as it were, against the murderer and his relations. But an honourable Arab must observe some equality of strength; it would be considered disgraceful if a strong person should attack one old or sick, or many, a single individual. They are, however, permitted to kill even the most distinguished, and, as it were, the support of the family: for they require that he in particular, who is considered as the chief, and who acknowledges himself as such, should have a watchful eye on the conduct of all the members. The murderer is, however, arrested by the magistrates, and released again, after paying a certain sum, for instance, two hundred dol lars. This is, probably, the reason why the law is not abolished. After this, every member of both families must live in constant fear of any where meeting his enemy, till at length one of the family of the murderer is killed. There have been instances that similar family feuds have lasted fifty years, or more, because they do not challenge each other to single combat, but fight only when opportu nity offers. A man of consequence at Loheia, who used to visit us frequently, besides the usual Arabian weapon, that is, a broad and sharp-pointed knife, always carried a small lance, which he hardly ever put out of his hands, even in the company of his friends. As we were not accustomed to see such a weapon in the hands of the other Arabs, and inquired about it, he complained that some years before he had had the misfortune to have one of his family killed. The injured family had then reserved to revenge themselves in single combat, of the murderer or his relations. One of his enemies, and the very one whom he principally feared, was also in this town. He once met him in our house also, armed with a lance. They might have terminated their quarrel immediately, but they did not speak one word to each other, and much less did any combat ensue. Our friend assured us, that if he should meet his enemy in the open country, he must necessarily fight him; but he owned at the same time, that he strove to avoid this opportunity, and that he could not sleep in peace for fear of being surprised." After the bombardment of Mocha by the French, and when peace was already concluded, the captain of a French ship was stabbed before his own door, where he sat asleep, by an Arab soldier, one of whose relations had been killed by a bomb.-ROSEN

MULLER.

I must now speak of a person quite unknown in our law, but very conspicuous in the Hebrew law, and in regard to whom Moses has left us, I might almost say, an inimitable, but, at any rate, an unexampled proof of legislative wisdom. In German, we may call him by the name which Luther so happily employs, in his version of the Bible, Der Blutracher, the blood-avenger; and by this name we must here understand "the nearest relation of a person murdered, whose right and duty it was to seek after and kill the murderer with his own hand; so much so, indeed, that the neglect thereof drew after it the greatest possible infamy, and subjected the man who avenged not the death of his relation, to unceasing reproaches of cowardice or avarice." If, instead of this description, the reader prefers a short definition, it may be to this effect; "the nearest relation of a person murdered, whose right and duty it was to avenge the kinsman's death with his own hand." Among the Hebrews, this person was called, Goël, according, at least, to the pronunciation adopted from the pointed Bibles. The etymology of this word, like most forensic terms, is as yet unknown. Yet we cannot but be curious to find out whence the Hebrews had derived the name, which they applied to a person so peculiar to their own law, and so totally unknown to ours. Unquestionably the verb, Gaal, means to buy off, ransom, redeem; but this signification it has derived from the noun; for originally it meant to pollute, or stain. If I might here mention a conjecture of my own, Goël of blood, (for that is the term at full length,) implies blood-stained; and the nearest kins man of a murdered person was considered as stained with his blood, until he had, as it were, washed away the stais. and revenged the death of his relation. The name, ther fore, indicated a person who continued it; a state of di honour, until he again rendered himself honourable, by

the exercise and accomplishment of revenge; and in this very light do the Arabs regard the kinsman of a person murdered. It was no doubt afterward used in a more extensive sense, to signify the nearest relation in general, and although there was no murder in the case; just as in all languages, words are gradually extended far beyond their etymological meaning. Etymology may show the circumstances from which they may have received their signification; but it is by no means a definition suited to all their derivative meanings, else would it be prophetic. In Arabic, this personage is called Tair, or according to another pronunciation, Thsair. Were this Arabic word to be written Hebraically, it would be Nw, (Shaer) that is, the survivor. It appears, therefore, according to its derivation, to be equivalent to the surviving relation, who was bound to avenge the death of a murdered person. The Latin word, Superstes, expresses this idea exactly. In Arabic writings, this word occurs ten times for once that we meet with Goel in Hebrew; for the Arabs, among whom the point of honour and heroic celebrity, consists entirely in the revenge of blood, have much more to say of their blood-avenger than the Hebrews; among whom, Moses, by the wisdom of his laws, brought this character in a great measure into oblivion. The Syrians have no proper name for the bloodavenger, and are of course obliged to make use of a circumlocution, when he is mentioned in the Bible. Hence they must either not have been acquainted with the office itself, or have lost their knowledge of it at an early period, during their long subjection to the Greeks, after the time of Alexander the Great.

If this character, with which the Hebrews and Arabs were so well acquainted, be unknown to us, this great dissimilarity is probably not to be ascribed to the effects of difference of climate, but rather to the great antiquity of these nations. Nations, how remote soever in their situation, yet resemble each other while in their infancy, much in the same way as children in every country have certain resemblances in figure and manners, proceeding from their age, by which we can distinguish them from adults and old people; and of this infancy of mankind, or, to speak more properly, of that state of nature, whence they soon pass into the state of civil society, the blood-avenger seems to me to be a relic. Let us figure to ourselves a people without magistrates, and where every father of a family is still his own master. In such a state, men's lives would of necessity be in the highest degree insecure, were there no such blood-avenger as we have above described. Magistrate, or public judicial tribunal, to punish murder, there is none; of course acts of murder might be daily perpetrated, were there no reason to dread punishment of another description. For their own security, the people would be forced to constitute the avengement of blood an indispensable duty, and not only to consider a murderer as an outlaw, but actually to endeavour to put him to death, and whithersoever he might flee, never to cease pursuing him, until he became the victim of vengeance. As, however, every one would not choose to undertake the dangerous of fice of thus avenging a murder, the nearest relations of the unfortunate sufferer would find it necessary to undertake it themselves. It would naturally be deemed a noble deed, and the neglect of it, of course, highly disgraceful, and justly productive of such infamy and reproach as blood alone could wash away. Nor would any one obstruct, but rather aid them, in the prosecution of their revenge, if he had a proper regard to his own security. Allowing, however, that the murderer's relations were to protect him against the blood-avenger, or to revenge his death by a fresh murder in their turn, this would still be a proof that they regarded such revenge as an honourable duty, and that they would have looked upon the family of the murdered person as despicable cowards, if they had left his death unrevenged. And this is in fact the language of nature among nations who have not even the most remote connexion with the Hebrews and Arabs. I remember to have read somewhere in Labal's Voyages, that the Caraibs practise the same sort of revenge, and that it gives rise to family contests of long duration, because the friends of the murderer take his part, and revenge his death on the relatives of the first victim. We can scarcely conceive the human race in a more perfect state of nature than immediately after the deluge, when only Noah and his three sons were on the face of the earth. Each of them was independent of the other; the

father was too old to be able to enforce obedience, had any of them been refractory; and besides, a father is not expected to inflict capital punishment on his sons or grandsons. Add to this, that Noah's sons and their families were not to continue all together, and to form one commonwealth, but to spread themselves in perfect independence over the whole earth. In order, therefore, to secure their lives, God himself gave this command, Gen. ix. 5, 6: "Man's blood shall not remain unrevenged; but whoever killeth a man, be it man or beast, shall in his turn be put to death by other men." If the reader wishes to know more of this passage, which has been generally misunderstood, and held out as containing a precept still obligatory on magistrates, let him consult my Commentationes ad leges divinas de pana Homicidii, in Part I. of my Syntagma Commentationum. Here, the only difference from the law now under consideration is, that God imposes this duty, not upon the nearest relation, but on mankind in general, as bound to provide for their common security, and that he gives every individual a right to put a murderer to death, although we have no connexion with the person murdered-a law which remained in force, until mankind introduced civil relations, made laws, nominated magistrates, and thus established a better security to the lives as well as the property of individuals.— MICHAELIS.

Ver. 25. And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the highpriest, which was anointed with the holy oil.

Moses found the Goël already instituted, and speaks of him in his laws as a character perfectly known, and therefore unnecessary to be described; at the same time that he expresses his fear of his frequently shedding innocent blood. But long before he has occasion to mention him as the avenger of murder, he introduces his name in his laws relating to land, as in Lev. xxv. 25, 26, where he gives him the right of redeeming a mortgaged field; and also in the law relative to the restoration of any thing iniquitously acquired, Num. v. 8. The only book that is possibly more ancient than the Mosaic law, namely, the book of Job, compares God, who will re-demand our ashes from the earth, with the Goël, chap. xix. 25. From this term, the verb, which otherwise signifies properly to pollute, had already acquired the signification of redeeming, setting free, vindicating, in which we find Moses often using it, before he ever speaks of the blood-avenger, as in Gen. xlviii. 15. Exod. vi. 6. Lev. xxv. 25, 30, 33. xxvii. 20, &c.; and even re-purchase itself is, in Lev. xxv. 31, 32, thence termed

geulla. Derivatives in any language follow their primitives but very slowly: and when verba denominativa descend from terms of law, the law itself must be ancient. In the first statute given by Moses concerning the purishment of murder, immediately after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, although he does not mention the Goël by name, he yet presupposes him as well known. For he says, God will, for the man who has unintentionally killed another, appoint a place to which he may flee, Exod. xxi. 12, 13. There must, of course, have been some one who pursued him, and who could only be stopped by the unhappy man reaching his asylum. At any rate, he needed not to flee from justice; and it was quite enough if the magistrate acquitted him, after finding him innocent. The first passage in which Moses expressly speaks of the Goël, as the avenger of blood, is in the xxxvth chapter of Nunbers: but even there he certainly does not institute his office, but only appoints (and that too merely by-the-by. while he is fixing the inheritances of the Levites) certain cities of refuge, to serve as asyla from the pursuit of the blood-avenger, (ver. 12,) for which there was no necessity, had there been no such person. In the second stature, Deut. xix. 6, he manifests great anxiety lest the Gol should pursue the innocent slayer in a rage, and overtake him, when the place of refuge happened to be too far distant. Now these are evidently the ordinances of a legislator not instituting an office before unknown, but merely guarding against the danger of the person who happened to hold it, being led by the violence of prejudice or passion, to

abuse its rights-that is, in the case in question, being hurried, by a false refinement of ideas on the score of honour, to shed the blood of an innocent man. I think I can discover one trace of the terrors which the Goël occasioned, as early as the history of the patriarchal families. When Rebecca learned that Esau was threatening to kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the country, saying, "Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?" Gen. xxvii. 45. She could not be afraid of the inagistrate punishing the murder; for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine; and Isaac was much too partial to Esau, for her to entertain any expectation, that he would condemn him to death for it. It would, therefore, appear, that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the blood-avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. Now to this Goël although Moses leaves his rights, of which indeed he would in vain have endeavoured to deprive him, considering that the desire of revenge forms a principal trait in the character of southern nations; he nevertheless avails himself of the aid of certain particulars of those rights, in order to bring the prevalent ideas of honour under the inspection of the magistrate, without hurting their energy, and to give an opportunity of investigating the circumstances of the crime meant to be avenged, before its punishment should be authorized.

We see that sacred places enjoyed the privileges of asyla: for Moses himself took it for granted, that the murderer would flee to the altar, and, therefore, he commanded that when the crime was deliberate and intentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death, Exod. xxi. 14. Among the Arabs we find that revenge likewise ceased in sacred places, as for instance (long before Mohammed's time) in the country round about Mecca, particularly during the holy month of concourse. In such places, therefore, honour did not bind the avenger to put a murderer to death.-Now Moses appointed, as places of refuge, six cities, to which ideas of sanctity were attached, because they were inhabited by the priests, Numb. xxxv. 9-35. Deut. xix. 1-10. To these every murderer might flee, and they were bound to protect him, until the circumstances of the case should be investigated; and, in order that the Goël might not lie in wait for him, or obstruct his flight, it was enjoined, that the roads to these six cities should be kept in such a state, that the unfortunate man might meet with no impediment in his way, Deut. xix. 3. I do not by this understand, such a state of improvement as is necessary in our highways on account of carriages, but, 1. That the roads were not to make such circuits, as that the Goël could overtake the fugitive on foot, or catch him by lying in wait, before he reached an asylum; for, in fact, the Hebrew word (») properly signifies to make straight; 2. That guide-posts were to be set up, to prevent him from mistaking the right way; and, 3. That the bridges were not to be defective;-in short, that nothing should retard his flight. If the Goël happened to find the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to death, in that case Moses yielded to the established prejudices respecting the point of honour. It was considered as done in the ardour of becoming zeal, and subjected him to no inquisition, Deut. xix. 6. If he reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an inquiry was then made, as to his right to protection and asylum; that is, whether he had caused his neighbour's death undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was judicially delivered to the Goël, who might put him to death in whatever way he chose, as we shall state at more length, under the head of capital punishments. Even although he had fled to the altar itself, which enjoyed the jus asyli in the highest degree, it could not save him, if he had committed real murder, Deut. xix. 14. If, however, the person was killed accidentally, and unintentionally, the author of his death continued in the place of refuge, and the fields belonging to it, which extended to the distance of 1,000 ells all around the walls of Levitical cities; and he was there secure, in consequence of the sanctity of the place, without any reflection upon the honour of the Goël, even in the opinion of the people. But further abroad he durst not venture; for if the Goel met with him without the limits of the asylum, Moses paid no respect to the popular point d'honneur; he might kill him without subjecting himself to any criminal accusation. The expression of Mo es is, It is no blood, or blood-guilt, Numb. xxxv. 26, 27.

This confinement to one place may, perhaps, be thought a hardship: but it was impossible in any other way to secure the safety of an innocent manslayer, without attacking the popular notions of honour; that is, without making a law which would have been as little kept as are our laws against duelling. But by this exile in a strange city, Moses had it besides in view, to punish that imprudence which had cost another man his life; and we shall, in the sequel, meet with more instances of the severity of his laws against such imprudences. Allowing that it was an accident purely blameless, still its disagreeable consequences could not fail to make people more on their guard against similar misfortunes; a matter to which, in many cases, our legislators, and our police-regulations, pay too little attention. For that very reason, Moses prohibited the fugitive from being permitted, by any payment of a fine, to return home to his own city before the appointed time, Numb. xxxv. 32. His exile in the city of refuge continued until the death of the high-priest. As soon as that event took place, the fugitive might leave his asylum, and return to his home in perfect security of his life, under the protection of the laws. It is probable that this regulation was founded on some ancient principle of honour attached to the office of the Goël; of which, however, I have not been able to find any trace remaining. It would seem as if the death of the priest, or principal person in the nation, had been made the period beyond which the avengement of blood was not to extend, in the view of thus preventing the perpetual endurance of family enmities and outrages. We shall perhaps hereafter find an opportunity of giving a more particular illustration of this point.

By these regulations, borrowed from those very notions of honour which influenced the Goël, Moses did not, it is true, effect the complete prevention of the shedding of innocent blood, (for so Moses terms it, in the case of the Goël's killing the innocent manslayer in his flight;) for civil laws cannot possibly prevent all moral evil; nor yet was he able to protect the man who had through mere inadvertence deprived another of his life, from all the vexatious consequences of such a misfortune: but thus much he certainly did effect, that the Goël could but very rarely kill an innocent man, and that a judicial inquiry always preceded the exercise of his revenge; and that inquiry, even when it terminated in condemnation, drew after it no fresh bloodshed on the part of the murderer's family, because every one knew that no injustice was done him. Of course, ten murders did not now proceed from one, as was the case when the Goël's procedure was altogether arbitrary, and subject to no restraint. It would appear that Moses had thus completely attained the object of his law. At least, in the history of the Israelitish nation, we find no examples of family enmities proceeding from the avengement of blood, or of murders either openly or treacherously perpetra ed from that national idea of honour; and but one single nstance of the abuse of Goëlism, or rather where it was used merely for a pretext, and the transaction carried on in complete opposition to the acknowledged principles of honour. This instance we find in the history of David, in which the three following particulars relative to this subject deserve notice.

1. David, in his elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan, seems, in one of his expressions, to allude to the avengement of blood. The Arabs, in their poems, very commonly observe, that no dew falls on the place where a murder has been committed, until the blood has been avenged; and David thus exclaims, Ye mountains of Gilboa, on you fall neither dew nor rain, 2. Sam. i. 21; which was as much as saying, the Philistines may look for my avengement of the death of Saul and Jonathan. This, however, is merely a poetical allusion; for the law of Goëlism did not extend to those slain in battle.

2. Joab assassinated Abner under the pretext of revenge for his having killed Asahel his brother in battle, 2 Sam. iii. 19-23. iii. 22-27. This, however, was a mere pretext; for Joab's only object was to get that man put out of the way, whom David had appointed to the chief command of the war. He afterward acted in the same manner to Amasa, who had killed no brother of his, but had been only guilty of the same crime of getting himself made generalissimo to Absalom, 2 Sam. xvii. 25. xx. 10. David, when he lay on his death-bed, made this remark on Joab's conduct in these two instances, that blood shed in war was not,

according to the Hebrew ideas of honour, to be avenged in peace; and that he therefore regarded Joab as a wilful murilerer: and he gave it in charge to Solomon his son to have him punished as such, 1 Kings ii. 5, 6

3. When we take a connected view of the whole story related in 2 Sam. xiii. 37 to xiv. 20, we should almost suppose that David had for a time pursued his son Absalom, on account of his murdering his elder brother, not so much in discharge of his duty as a king, as in the capacity of Goël, and that the idea of his honour, as such, had prevented him from forgiving him. Absalom stayed out of the country with the king of Geshur, and yet David withdrew for a time in quest of him, chap. xiii. 39. This is properly not the business of a magistrate, who is not required to punish a murderer who has fled from the country, but of a Goel.

Allowing, however, that I were here in a mistake, thus much still is certain from chap. xiv. 10, 11, that there was yet a Goel; that to mothers he was an object of terror; and that David, on some occasions, took upon him to prohibit him by an arbitrary decree from pursuing an actual murderer, when there were any particular circumstances in the case. So much concerning the rights of the Goël, as modified by the Mosaic statute. There is yet to be noticed one additional circumstance relative to it, entirely conformable to oriental ideas of honour, and of great importance to the security of lives. Moses (Numb. xxxv. 31) positively prohibits the receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation. By the ancient Arabian manners, too, we have seen that this was deemed disgraceful. Here, therefore, Moses acted quite differently from Mohammed, and, as will be universally acknowledged, much more judiciously.-MICHAELIS.

Ver. 31. Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.

Moses absolutely forbids the acceptance of any compensation for the life of a murderer. Through the influence of money it appears that punishment was often evaded in some countries, and probably till this time among the Jews. The Baron du Tott tells us, that in case of a duel, if one of the parties is killed, the other is tried for the offence, and if condemned, "the criminal is conducted to the place of punishment; he who performs the office of executioner takes on him likewise that of mediator, and negotiates till the last moment with the next of kin to the deceased, or his wife, who commonly follows, to be present at the execution. If the proposals are refused, the executioner performs the sentence; if they are accepted, he reconducis the criminal to the tribunal to receive his pardon."-BUR

DER.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Ver. 8. And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. The assertion that no Israelite durst marry out of his ribe, and which we find repeated in a hundred books, is a

silly fiction, directly confuted by the Mosaic writings. Even the high-priest himself was not obliged to confine himself to his own tribe; nothing more being enjoined him, than to look out for an Israelitish bride. Itwas only in the single case of a daughter being the heiress of her father's land, that she was prohibited from marrying out of her tribe, in order that the inheritance might not pass to another tribe, Num. xxxvi. From that law, it clearly follows, that any Israelitess that had brothers, and of course was not an heiress, might marry whomsoever she pleased, and. to me it is incomprehensible how this chapter should ever have been quoted as a proof of the assertion, that the Israelites durst not marry out of their tribes. A strange oversight has been committed, in support of this erroneous opinion, which was devised for the purpose of proving (what scarcely required a proof) that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah; for, say its advocates, "Had not Mary his true mother been of the tribe of Judah, Joseph, a descendant of David's, could not have married her." Here, by the way, they might improve the proof, and make it still more subservient to their purpose, by adding that Mary must have been an heiress, and consequently, for that reason, durst not marry out of her tribe. But how surprising is it, that such incongruous blunders could possibly have been committed? Luke expressly says, chap. i. 36, that Mary and Elizabeth were relations, and Elizabeth's husband was a priest. Hence her connexion with Mary is a most manifest proof, that Israelites of one tribe might marry into another, and that a priest, for instance, might marry a virgin of the house of Judah, or a descendant of Judah marry the daugh ter of a Levite.

It was even in the power of an Israelite to marry a woman born a heathen: although this also is denied by those who press upon Moses a law of their own. The statute in Deut. xxi. 10-14, already illustrated, puts this liberty beyond a doubt: and he who disputes it, confounds two terms of very different import and extent, heathen and Canaanite. An Israelite might certainly marry a heathen woman, provided she no longer continued an idolatress; which, however, she could not, as a captive and slave with in Palestine, have been even previously suffered to be; but all marriages with Canaanitish women was, by the statute Exod. xxxiv. 16, prohibited. In that statute, Moses had it particularly in view to prevent the Canaanites, who were ing to dwell in Palestine, and by intermarriages with Isboth an idolatrous, and a very wicked race, from continuraelites, at last becoming one people with them: for he

dreaded lest they should infect them with their vices and

superstitions. Should I here be asked, " Wherein then did Solomon sin, who, in 1 Kings, xi. 1, 2, is certainly censured for marrying heathens?" my answer would be, (1.) that among the wives and concubines whom he took, there were Sidonians, who belonged to the race of Canaanites, and these were expressly forbidden; (2.) that, contrary to the positive prohibition of Moses, he kept a great seraglio; (3.) that he permitted his wives to practise idolatry; and, (4.) that he was himself led into it also: as we have only to read down to verse 8, to be convinced. I have only further to observe, what I remarked before, that the people of Israel must, in consequence of the toleration of polygamy, have been in a state of continual decrease, had not marriages with foreigners, and particularly with the captive daughters of the neighbouring people, been per mitted.-MICHAELIS.