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 N, (Shaër) 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 Goël 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 office 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 Labat'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 filed: 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 punishment 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 Numbers: 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 statute, Deut. xix. 6, he manifests great anxiety lest the Goël 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 magistrate 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 mnrderer 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 Moses 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 Goel'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 perpetrated from that national idea of honour; and but one single instance 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 murderer: 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 Goël.

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 reconducts 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 tribe, 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. It was 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 daughter 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 within 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 both an idolatrous, and a very wicked race, from continuing to dwell in Palestine, and by intermarriages with Israelites, at last becoming one people with them: for hẹ superstitions. Should I here be asked, "Wherein then did dreaded lest they should infect them with their vices and 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 permitted.-MICHAELIS.

CHAPTER I. Ver. 19. And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us; and we came to Kadesh-barnea. The divine blessing has not bestowed the same degree of fruitfulness on every part of Canaan. This fertile country is surrounded by deserts of immense extent, exhibiting a dreary waste of loose and barren sand, on which the skill and industry of man are able to make no impression. The only vegetable productions which occasionally meet the eye of the traveller in these frightful solitudes, are a coarse sickly grass, thinly sprinkled on the sand; a plot of senna, or other saline or bitter herb, or an acacia bush; even these but rarely present themselves to his notice, and afford him little satisfaction when they do, because they warn him that he is yet far distant from a place of abundance and repose. Moses, who knew these deserts well, calls them " great and terrible," "a desert land," "the waste howling wilderness." But the completest picture of the sandy desert is drawn by the pencil of Jeremiah, in which, with surprising force and brevity, he has exhibited every circumstance of terror, which the modern traveller details with so much pathos and minuteness; "Neither say they, Where is the Lord that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt ?"-PAXTON.

Ver. 44. And the Amorites, which dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even unto Hormah.

It is said of numerous armies, that they are like bees; and of a multitude, who go to chastise a few, "Yes, they came upon us as bees." To a person who has proved a man of numerous connexions, "Yes, you will have them as bees upon you." Of any thing which has come suddenly, and in great numbers, "Alas, these things come as bees upon us."-ROBERTS.

The bee is represented by the ancients, as a vexatious, and even a formidable adversary; and the experience of every person who turns his attention to the temper and habits of that valuable insect, attests the truth of their assertion. They were so troublesome in some districts of Crete, that, if we may believe Pliny, the inhabitants were actually compelled to forsake their habitations. And, according to Ælian, some places in Scythia, beyond the Ister, were formerly inaccessible, on account of the numerous swarms of bees by which they were infested. The statements of these ancient writers is confirmed by Mr. Park, in the second volume of his Travels. Some of his associates imprudently attempted to rob a numerous hive, which they found in their way. The exasperated little animals rushed out to defend their property, and attacked the spoilers with so much fury, that they quickly compelled the whole company, men, horses, and asses, to scamper off in all directions. The horses were never recovered, and a number of the asses were so severely stung that they died next day: and so great was the loss our intrepid traveller sustained in the engagement, that he despondingly concluded his journey was at an end. The allusion of Moses, therefore, to their fierce hostility, in the beginning of his last words to Israel, is both just and beautiful: "And the Amorites which dwelt in that mountain came out against you, and chased you as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even

unto Hormah." The Amorites, it appears, were the most bitter adversaries to Israel, of all the nations of Canaan; like bees that are easily irritated, that attack with great fury, and increasing numbers, the person that dares to molest their hive, and persecute him in his flight, to a considerable distance the incensed Amorites had collected their hostile bands, and chased, with considerable slaughter, the chosen tribes from their territory. The Psalmist also complains, that his enemies compassed him about like bees; fiercely attacking him on every side. The bee, when called to defend her hive, assails with fearless intrepidity the largest and the most ferocious animal; and the Psalmist found from experience, that neither the purity of his character, the splendour of his rank, nor the greatness of his power, were sufficient to shield him from the covered machinations, or open assaults, of his cruel and numerous enemies.-PAXTON.

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 11. For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron: is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

This is a very curious account of a giant king: his bedstead was made of IRON, and we are able to ascertain its exact length, nine cubits, i. e. "after the cubit of a man." This alludes to the eastern mode of measuring from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, which will be found to be in general eighteen inches. Thus his bedstead was thirteen feet six inches in length, and six feet in breadth. The hawkers of cloth very seldom carry with them a yard wand; they simply measure from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, counting two lengths of that for a yard.ROBERTS.

Ver. 25. I pray thee, let me go over, and see the good land that is beyond Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon.

The beauties of Lebanon seem to have left a deeper impression in the mind of D'Arvieux. "After travelling six hours in pleasant valleys," says that writer, "and over mountains covered with different species of trees, we entered a small plain, on a fertile hill wholly covered with walnut-trees and olives, in the middle of which is the village of Eden.-In spite of my weariness, I could not but incessantly admire this beautiful country. It is truly an epitome of the terrestrial paradise, of which it bears the name. Eden is rather a hamlet than a village. The houses are scattered, and separated from each other by gardens, which are enclosed by walls made of stones piled up without mortar. We quitted Eden about eight o'clock in the morning, and advanced to mountains so extremely high, that we seemed to be travelling in the middle regions of the atmosphere. Here the sky was clear and serene above us, while we saw below us thick clouds dissolving in rain, and watering the plains. After three hours of laborious travelling, we arrived at the famous cedars about eleven o'clock. We counted twenty-three of them. The circumference of these trees is thirty-six feet. The bark of the cedar resembles that of the pine; the leaves and cone also bear considerable resemblance. The stem is upright, the wood is hard, and has the reputation of being incorruptible. The leaves are long, narrow, rough, very green, ranged in tufts along the branches; they shoot in spring, and fall in the beginning of winter. Its flowers and fruit resemble those of the pine. From the full grown

trees, a fluid trickles naturally, and without incision; this is clear, transparent, whitish, and after a time dries and hardens: it is supposed to possess great virtues.-The place where these great trees are stationed, is in a plain of nearly a league in circumference, on the summit of a mount which is environed on almost all sides by other mounts, so high that their summits are always covered with snow. This plain is level, the air is pure, the heavens always serene. On one side of this plain is a frightful precipice, from whence flows a copious stream, which, descending into the valley, forms a considerable part of the Holy River, or Nahar Kadisha. The view along this valley is interesting; and the crevices of the rocks are filled with earth of so excellent a quality, that trees grow in them; and being continually refreshed with the vapours rising from the streams below, attain to considerable dimensions. Nor is the sense of smelling less gratified than that of sight, by the fragrance diffused from the odoriferous plants around." He afterward says, "the banks of the river appeared enchanted. This stream is principally formed by the source which issues below the cedars, but is continually augmented by a prodigious number of rills and fountains, which fall from the mountain, gliding along the clefts of the rocks, and forming many charming natural cascades, which communicate cooling breez s, and banish the idea of being in a country subject to extreme heat. If to these enjoyments we add that of the nightingale's song, it must be granted that these places are infinitely agreeable." The cedars which he visited, encircle the region of perpetual snow. Lebanon is in this part free from rocks, and only rises and falls with small easy unevennesses, but is perfectly barren and desolate. The ground, where not concealed by the snow, for several hours' riding appeared to be covered with a sort of white slate, thin and smooth. Yet these dreary summits are not without their use; they serve as a conservatory for abundance of snow, which, thawing in the heat of summer, furnishes ample supplies of water to the rivers and fountains in the valleys below. In the snow, he saw the prints of the feet of several wild beasts, which are the sole proprietors of these upper parts of the mountain. Maundrell found only sixteen cedars of large growth, and a natural plantation of smaller ones, which were very numerous. One of the largest was twelve yards six inches in girth, and thirtyseven yards in the spread of its boughs. At six yards from the ground, it was divided into five limbs, each equal to a great tree. Dr. Richardson visited them in 1818, and found a small clump of large and tall and beautiful trees, which he pronounces the most picturesque productions of the vegetable world that he had ever seen. In this clump are two generations of trees; the oldest are large and massy, rearing their heads to an enormous height, and spreading their branches to a great extent. He measured one, not the largest in the clump, and found it thirty-two feet in circumference. Seven of these trees appeared to be very old, the rest younger, though, for want of space, their branches are not so spreading. This statement sheds a clear and steady light on those passages of scripture which refer to Lebanon; and enables us to reconcile with ease several apparent contradictions. So famous was this stupendous mountain in the days of Moses, that to be permitted to see it, was the object of his earnest desires and repeated prayers; and as the strongest expression of his admiration, he connects it in his addresses to the throne of his God, with Zion, the future seat of the divine glory. "I pray thee, let me go over and see the good land that is beyond Jordan; that goodly mountain and Lebanon."-PAXTON. CHAPTER IV.

Ver. 20. But the Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, eren out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.

It has been observed by chymical writers, not only that iron melts slowly even in the most violent fire, but also that it ignites, or becomes red-hot, long before it fuses: and any one may observe the excessive brightness of iron when red, or rather white hot. Since, therefore, it requires the strongest fire of all metals to fuse it, there is a peculiar propriety in the expression, a furnace for iron, or an iron furnace, for violent and sharp afflictions.—BURDER.

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 14. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.

In order to render the situation of slaves more tolerable, Moses made the three following decrees for their benefit. 1. On the sabbath day they were to be exempted from all manner of work. Of course every week they enjoyed one day of that rest which is so suitable to the nature of the human frame, and so requisite to the preservation of health and strength, Exod. xx. 10. Deut. v. 14, 15. In the latter of these passages it is expressly mentioned, that one design of the sabbath was to give a day of rest to slaves, and the Israelites are reminded of their own servitude in Egypt, when they longed in vain for days of repose.

2. The fruits growing spontaneously during the sabtined by Moses for the slaves and the indigent. batical year, and declared the property of none, were des

3. The Israelites were wont, at their high festivals, to make feasts of their tithes, firstlings, and sacrifices; indeed almost all the great entertainments were offering-feasts. To these, by the statutes of Deut. xii. 17, 18 and xvi. 11, the slaves were to be invited. Such occasions were there

fore a sort of saturnalia to them: and we cannot but extol the clemency and humanity of that law, which procured them twice or thrice a-year a few days' enjoyment of those luxuries, which they would doubtless relish the more, the poorer their ordinary food might be.

mals, that they were to be allowed to share the enjoyment of It was a part of the good treatment due to domestic anithe sabbatical rest. On the people's own account this was no doubt necessary; because in general beasts can perform no work without man's assistance: but still Moses expressly declares that his commandment respecting the sabbath had a direct reference to the rest and refreshment of beasts as well as of man. His words are, "On the seventh day thou shalt rest from thy labour; that thine ox and thine ass may also rest, and thy servant and stranger may be refreshed,” Exod. xxiii. 12. xx. 10. Deut. v. 14. In fact, some such alternation of labour and rest seems necessary to the preservation of beasts: for those that perform the same kind of work day after day, without any interruption, soon become stupid and useless. At least, we see this the case with horses and the reader will not take it amiss, that a town-bred writer, having better access to observe the effects of labour on them, than on oxen, should prefer taking an example from the former. A horse that has to travel three German miles every day will not hold out long: but, with intervening days of rest, in the same time, he will be able to go over a much greater space without injury. He will, for example, in ten days travel thirty-five German miles, with three resting days, that is, at the rate of five miles each day of the other seven. This fact is so well known, that in riding schools, one or two days of rest, besides Sunday, are usually allowed to the horses, in order to preserve their spirit and activity; whereas the post-horses, which are constantly at work, soon become stiff and unserviceable. The case is probably the same with other beasts of burden, although they do not require so many intervals of rest as horses. And hence the good treatment of beasts enjoined in the Mosaic law, and the sabbatical rest ordained for their refreshment, was highly expedient, even in an economical point of view, and wisely suited to the circumstances of a people, whose cattle formed the principal part

of their subsistence.-MICHAELIS.

CHAPTER VI.

Ver. 7. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children.

If you inquire how a good schoolmaster teaches his pupils, the answer will be, very koormeyana, i. e. "sharply, makes sharp, they are full of points." A man of a keen