Page images
PDF
EPUB

benefit of being purged from their uncleannesses by a beast of that colour which was most abominable and abhorred by their idolatrous neighbours.-As the Egyptians adored the Heifer with the most enthusiastical veneration, the Jews were to use it with the greatest contempt, as a polluted creature, not fit to appear in the presence of their God; to carry it without the camp, to the place where they put malefactors to death; and there to slay and burn it, the smoke and odour of it not being acceptable, but abominable to the Lord. This they were to do in the presence of God's priest, who was to see that all was performed agreeably to the rites and ceremonies observed in the worship of JEHOVAH, and not according to the superstitions of Egypt. And, to inspire them with a farther detestation,the Priest and all who were concerned in killing and burning, were to be unclean until the evening,' &c. (Numb. xix. 3:) and, in opposition to the Heathens' fanatical practice of scattering the ashes of the sacrifices of their red oxen contumeliously in the air, a man who was clean was to gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp, in a clean place.'"-Young, On Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion, vol. i, pp. 208-213. See also Spencer, De Leg. Heb. tom. i, lib. ii, c. xv. p. 338.

NOTE CXVII.-Page 304.

SEE Maimonides's Talmudical work, entitled YAD; and his Notes on the Mishna, in Surenhusii MISHNA.

NOTE CXVIII.-Page 305.

THAT Fat which was a part of the flesh might be eaten, (as appears from many places, particularly Deut. xxxii. 14,) but not that which only lay upon it, and might be separated from it; which was burnt upon the altar, when they sacrificed either bullock, sheep, or goat: and when they killed any of these, or other clean creatures, for their food at home, still they were to forbear to eat the Suet; particularly out of reverence to God, whose portion it was at the altar; and partly because it was heavy and too strong a food: and it seems to have been offered upon the altar, because it was

so unctuous, that it would easily burn, aud make the flesh also consume the sooner. But from its being God's part, it came thence to signify, the best and most excellent of any kind of thing. (Numb. xviii, 17; Psalm lxxxi, 16; Psalm xxii, 29.)-Bishop Patrick's Commentary on Levit. iii, 16.

NOTE CXIX.-Page 306.

SEE Dissertation V, p. 81.

NOTE CXX.-Page 306.

SEE Note 41, p. 365.

NOTE CXXI.-Page 309.

BISHOP PATRICK has explained, and defended the Vow of the NAZARITE against Dr. Spencer, with great learning and ability, in his Commentary on Levit. vi, from which the following is an extract :-" The directions which God here gives about it, (i. e. the hair,) are manifestly opposite to the way of the Gentiles. For the Nazarites are here directed to cut their Hair, (when the time of their separation was completed,) at the door of the Tabernacle; when it was also to be burnt; whereas, the Gentiles hung their hair, when they had cut it, upon trees, or consecrated to rivers, or laid it up in their temples, there to be preserved. The Hebrew Nazarites also are required to offer various sorts of sacrifices, when they cut their hair, of which we scarcely or rarely read any thing among the Gentiles; and all the time of their separation were to drink no wine, nor eat grapes, &c. which was not known among the Heathen. From whence it is, one may think, that they are so often put in mind of the Lord, in this Law of the Nazarites, to put them in mind, that, though they used this rite which was common to other nations, yet, it was in honour of the Lord only, whom they acknowledged to be the Author of health, and strength, and growth.

NOTE CXXII.-Page 310.

THE reader will find the subject of FRIENDSHIP excellently treated in the 8th and 9th Books of Aristotle's Ethics. In the

commencement of the 8th Book, he has a sentiment very similar to what is expressed by our author:-"Friendship is necessary in youth, as the preservative against irreparable errors; it is necessary in old age, as the consolation amidst unavoidable infirmities; it is necessary in the vigour of manhood, as the best auxiliary in the execution of illustrious enterprises."-Aristotle's Ethics and Politics, by Gillies, b. 8, p. 330, vol. i. London, 1797, 4to.

NOTE CXXIII.-Page 311.

THE words of Maimonides are, 66 Magnâ autem ex parte ob hanc quoque rationem Scorta publica sunt prohibita, ut hoc pacto libido et lascivia cohibeatur. Nam per varietatem prostibulorum illorum non parùm augetur libido hominis. Nunquam etenim tam vehementer accenditur homo erga corpus illud, cui est assuetus, sicut accenditur erga corpora nova, formis et proprietatibus discrepantia."

NOTE CXXIV.-Page 311.

Ir is probable, that the prohibitions of harlotry, and the denunciations against public prostitutions, had reference also to those detestable rites of Paganism, practised by the worshippers of Baal-Peor, Ashteroth, and others of their deities. Similar impurities are still practised in India. Mr. Ward, in the Preface to the third vol. of his "View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos," pp. 37, 38, says, "The author has witnessed scenes of impurity in Hindoo worship, which he can never commit to writing.-The songs and dances witnessed in the Hindoo temples at the time of the Doorga festival, at midnight, would disgrace a house of ill-fame."

NOTE CXXV.-Page 312.

THE reader will find the subject of DIVORCES fully treated in Selden's "Uxor Hebraica," lib. iii, in which he has given the Form of a Jewish Bill of Divorcement, cap. xxiv, p. 369; and in cap. xxx, p. 34, a copy of a curious document by which John de Cameys divorced his wife, Margaret, in the reign of

E E

King Edward, and transferred her and her property to William Paynel. Copies of the Jewish Bill of Divorcement, are also given in Levi's "Ceremonies of the Jews," p. 146; Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on Deut. xxiv, 2; Buxtorf's Synagoga Judaica, p. 644, and other similar works.

NOTE CXXVI.-Page 313.

THE learned Wagenseil has compiled a ponderous quarto volume on the subject of the trial by the Waters of Jealousy, entitled, "SOTA," in which he affords every information to the inquirer. The reader may also consult Lewis's Antiquities of the Hebrew Republic, vol. iii, ch. xxxiv, in which he will find a compendious detail of this Jewish practice.

NOTE CXXVII.-Page 313.

"ACCORDING to the Targumist and to Deut. xii, 29, the dowry was fifty shekels of silver, which the seducer was to pay to her father, and he was obliged to take her to wife; nor had he authority, according to the Jewish canons, ever to put her away by a bill of divorce. This one consideration was a powerful curb on disorderly passions, and must tend greatly to render marriage respectable, and prevent all crimes of this nature."-Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on Exod. xxii, 16. See also Patrick in loc.

NOTE CXXVIII.-Page 313.

By the Gentoo code of Laws:-" If a man by force commits adultery with a woman of an equal or inferior caste, against her consent, the magistrate shall confiscate all his possessions, castrate him, and cause him to be led round the city, mounted on ass." See other similar laws, in Stuart's View of Society in Europe, b. i, sect. 3, note 13, p. 191; Edinburgh, 1792, 8vo.

NOTE CXXIX-Page 314.

THE term Levirate, is from the old Latin word Levir, signifying a husband's brother. "The Mongols, who inhabit quite a different region of Asia, and give themselves very little concern about their genealogies and descendants, have a law,

which, in like manner, enjoins the marriage of a brother's widow." Michaelis supposes the practice to have arisen at a period much more early than Moses, from the difficulty of obtaining wives, where polygamy was practised: the rich collecting great numbers of females, as concubines, and thereby rendering the remaining number of marriageable females extremely small. See Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. ii, article 98; and Lewis's Antiquities of the Hebrew Republic, vol. iii, ch. 29.

NOTE CXXX.- Page 315.

In the defamation of a wife by her husband, regard was had, on the one hand, to the gross reproach cast upon the woman herself, her parents, her brothers and sisters, and her whole family; and on the other, to the two following circumstances; first, that the woman, being defenceless, and in the power of her accuser, neither could nor would avenge herself, and of course required the more ample protection from the laws; and secondly, that a wife can never have the means of exculpating herself to the world, from the disgrace of such charges, unless a court of justice inquire into the case, and award her satisfaction, proportioned to the greatness of the injury she has sustained. Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv. art. 291, p. 295.

NOTE CXXXI.-Page 317.

"THE real reason," says Michaelis, "for which a people, that would avoid being overwhelmed with the greatest profligacy, must prohibit incestuous marriages, absolutely, and without the slightest prospect of dispensation is this; that, considering the free intercourse that such persons have one with another, some of whom, besides, live from their infancy in the same house, it would be impossible to prevent the prevalence of whoredom in families, or guard against the effects of very early corruption among young persons, if they could entertain the least hope of throwing a veil over past impurity, by subsequent marriage."-Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. ii, art. 108, p. 68. See also art. 102-111.:

« PreviousContinue »