Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to the sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. (1 Sam. xviii. 4.) The highest honour, which a king of Persia can bestow upon a subject, is to cause himself to be disapparelled, and to give his robe to the favoured individual.1 In Numb. xviii. 19. mention is made of a covenant of salt. The expression appears to be borrowed from the practice of ratifying their federal engagements by salt; which, as it not only imparted a relish to different kinds of viands, but also preserved them from putrefaction and decay, became the emblem of incorruptibility and permanence. It is well known, from the concurrent testimony of voyagers and travellers, that the Asiatics deem the eating together as a bond of perpetual friendship: and as salt is now (as it anciently was) a common article in all their repasts, it may be in reference to this circumstance that a perpetual covenant is termed a covenant of salt; because the contracting parties ate together of the sacrifice offered on the occasion, and the whole transaction was considered as a league of endless friendship. In order to assure those persons to whom the divine promises were made, of their certainty and stability, the Almighty not only willed that they should have the force of a covenant; but also vouchsafed to accommodate Himself (if we may be permitted to use such an expression) to the received customs. Thus, he constituted the rainbow a sign of his covenant with mankind that the earth should be no more destroyed by a deluge (Gen. ix. 12-17.); and in a vision appeared to Abraham to pass between the divided pieces of the sacrifice, which the patriarch had offered. (Gen. xv, 12-17.) Jehovah further instituted the rite of circumcision, as a token of the covenant between himself and Abraham (Gen. xvii. 9-14.); and sometimes sware by Himself (Gen. xxii. 16.; Luke i. 73.), that is, pledged his eternal power and godhead for the fulfilment of his promise, there being no one superior to Himself to whom he could make appeal, or by whom he could be bound. Saint Paul beautifully illustrates this transaction in his Epistle to the Hebrews. (vi. 13-18.) Lastly, the whole of the Mosaic constitution was a mutual covenant between Jehovah and the Israelites; the tables of which being preserved in an ark, the latter was thence termed the ark of the covenant, and as (we have just seen) the blood of the victims slain in ratification of that covenant was termed the blood of the covenant. (Exod. xxiv. 8.; Zech. ix. 11.) Referring to this, our Saviour, when instituting the Lord's supper, after giving the cup, said, This is (signifies or represents) my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. (Matt. xxvi. 28.) By this very remarkable expression, Jesus Christ teaches us, that as his body was to be broken or crucified vπeρ nμwv, in our stead, so his blood was to be poured out (šxxvvóμevov, a sacrificial term) to make an atonement, as the words remission of sins evidently imply; for without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. ix.

'Harmer's Observations, vol. ii. p. 94. Burder's Or. Cust. vol. i. p. 206.

2 Some pleasing facts from modern history, illustrative of the covenant of salt, are collected by the editor of Calmet, Fragments, No 130.

22.), nor any remission by shedding of blood but in a sacrificial way. Compare Heb. ix. 20. and xiii. 12.

III. What treaties or covenants were between the high contracting powers who were authorised to conclude them, that contracts of bargain and sale are between private individuals.

Among the Hebrews, and long before them among the Canaanites, the purchase of any thing of consequence was concluded and the price paid, at the gate of the city, as the seat of judgment, before all who went out and came in. (Gen. xxiii. 16-20.; Ruth iv. 1, 2.) As persons of leisure, and those who wanted amusement, were wont to sit in the gates, purchases there made could always be testified by numerous witnesses. From Ruth iv. 7-11. we learn another singular usage on occasion of purchase, cession, and exchange, viz. that in earlier times, the transfer of alienable property was confirmed by the proprietor plucking off his shoe at the city gate, in the presence of the elders and other witnesses, and handing it over to the new owner. The origin of this custom it is impossible to trace: but it had evidently become antiquated in the time of David, as the author of the book of Ruth introduces it as an unknown custom of former ages.

In process of time the joining or striking of hands, already mentioned with reference to public treaties, was introduced as a ratification of a bargain and sale. This usage was not unknown in the days of Job (xvii. 3.), and Solomon often alludes to it. (See Prov. vi. 1., xi. 15., xvii. 18., xx. 16., xxii. 26., xxvii. 13.) The earliest vestige. of written instruments, sealed and delivered for ratifying the disposal and transfer of property, occurs in Jer. xxxii. 10-12., which the prophet commanded Baruch to bury in an earthen vessel in order to be preserved for production at a future period, as evidence of the purchase. (14. 15.) No mention is expressly made of the manner in which deeds were anciently cancelled. Some expositors have imagined that in Col. ii. 14. Saint Paul refers to the cancelling of them by blotting or drawing a line across them, or by striking them through with a nail: but we have no information whatever from antiquity, to authorise such a conclusion.1

IV. It was customary for those who appealed to the Deity in attestation of anything, to hold up their right hand towards heaven; by which action the party swearing, or making OATH, signified that he appealed to God to witness the truth of what he averred. Thus Abram said to the king of Sodom-I have LIFT UP MY HAND unto the LORD the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,. . . . that I will not take anything that is thine. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23.) Hence the expression, "to lift up the hand," is equivalent to making oath. In this form of scriptural antiquity, the angel in the Apocalypse is represented as taking a solemn oath. (Rev. x. 5.)2

1 Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, cap. 14. de Fœderibus et Contractibus, pp. 130–132. ; Pareau, Antiquitas Hebraica, part iii. § 2. cap. 3. de Foederibus et Contractibus, pp. 322 -325. Bruning, Antiquitates Hebrææ, cap. 26. pp. 242-245. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 310–313.

"This mode of swearing has descended even to our own times and nation, being still used in Scotland, and there allowed by act of Parliament to those dissenters who

1

Among the Jews, an oath of fidelity was taken by the servant's putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, as Eliezer did to Abraham (Gen. xxiv. 2.); and Jacob afterwards desired his son Joseph to do, when he sware or solemnly promised to carry up his father's remains into the land of Canaan (Gen. xlvii. 29-31.); whence, with no great deviation, is perhaps derived the form of doing homage at this day, by putting the hands between the knees and within the hands of the liege. Sometimes an oath was accompanied with an imprecation, as in 2 Sam. iii. 9. 35.; Ruth i. 17.; 1 Kings ii. 23.; 2 Kings vi. 31.: but sometimes the party swearing omitted the imprecation, as if he were afraid, and shuddered to utter it, although it was, from other sources, sufficiently well understood. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23.; Ezek. xvii. 18.) At other times he merely said, "Let God be a witness;" and sometimes affirmed, saying, "As surely as God liveth." (Jer. xlii. 5.; Ruth iii. 13.; 1 Sam. xiv. 45., xx. 3. 21.)

These remarks apply to the person who uttered the oath himself of his own accord. When an oath was exacted, whether by a judge or another, the person who exacted it put the oath in form; and the person to whom it was put, responded by saying, Amen, Amen, so let it be: or gave his response in other expressions of like import, such as ov elmas, Thou hast said it. (Numb. v. 19-22.; 1 Kings xxii. 16.; Deut. xxvii. 15-26.) Sometimes the exacter of the oath merely used the following adjuration, viz. I adjure you by the living God to answer, whether this thing be so or not. And the person sworn accordingly made answer to the point inquired of. (Numb. v. 22.; Matt xxvi. 64.) It should be remarked here, that although the formulary of assent on the part of the respondent to an oath was frequently AMEN, AMEN, yet this formulary did not always imply an oath, but, in some instances, was merely a protestation. As the oath was an appeal to God (Lev. xix. 12.; Deut. vi. 13.), the taking of a false oath was deemed a heinous crime; and perjury, accordingly, was forbidden in those words, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is, thou shalt not call God to witness in pretended confirmation of a falsehood. (Exod. xx. 6.)

It was also common to swear by those whose life and prosperity were dear to the party making oath. Thus, Joseph swore by the life of the king (Gen. xlii. 15.); and this practice prevailed subsequently among the Hebrews. (1 Sam. xxv. 26.; 2 Sam. xi. 11., xiv. 19: compare Psal. lxiii. 11.) A person sometimes swore by himself, and sometimes by the life of the person before whom he spoke, as in 1 Sam. i. 26.; 2 Kings ii. 2.; Judges vi. 13. 15.; 1 Kings iii. 17. 26.; a practice which obtains in Syria to this day. In some instances, persons adjured others by the beasts of the field (Sol. Song ii. 7.), a sort of adjuration which still makes its appearance in the writings of the Arabian poets.3

are styled Seceders. The Solemn League and Covenant, in the time of Charles L., was taken in this form." Dean Woodhouse, on Rev. x. 5.

'Paley's Mor. and Polit. Philosophy, book iii. ch. 16. § 1.

2 44

By your life," is still a common oath in Syria (Burckhardt's Travels in Syria, p. 40.), but the most common oath in that country is, "On my head." (Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria, pp. 269.)

Consult the Koran, Sura Ixxxv. 1—3., lxxxvi. 1. 11-13., lxxxix. 1—4., xci. 1—8. &c.

In the time of Christ, the Jews were in the habit of swearing by the altar, by Jerusalem, by heaven, by the earth, by themselves, by their heads, by the gold of the temple, by sacrifices, &c. Because the name of God was not mentioned in these oaths, they considered them as imposing but small, if any obligation'; and we, accordingly, find, that our Saviour takes occasion to inveigh, in decided terms, against such arts of deception. (Matt. v. 33-37., xxiii. 16-22.) It is against oaths of this kind, and these alone (not against an oath uttered in sincerity), that he expresses his displeasure, and prohibits them. This is clear, since he himself consented to take upon him the solemnity of an oath (Matt. xxvi. 64.); and since Paul himself, in more than one instance, utters an adjuration. Compare Rom. ix. 1.; 2 Cor. i. 23.

In the primitive periods of their history, the Hebrews religiously observed an oath (Josh. ix. 14, 15.), but we find, that, in later times, they were often accused by the prophets of perjury. After the captivity, the Jews became again celebrated for the scrupulous observance of what they had sworn to, but corruption soon increased among them: they revived the old forms, the words without the meaning; and acquired among all nations the reputation of perjurers.2

CHAP. VIII.

LAWS RESPECTING STRANGERS, AGED, DEAF, BLIND, AND POOR PERSONS.

ALL wise legislators have deemed it an important branch of political economy, to direct their attention towards aliens and to the poor: and the humanity and wisdom of the Mosaic regulations in this respect will be found not unworthy of a divinely inspired legislator.

I. STRANGERS are frequently mentioned in the laws of Moses, who specifies two different descriptions of them, viz. 1. Those who had no home, whether they were Israelites or foreigners; and, 2. Those who were strangers generally, and who possessed no landed property, though they might have purchased houses. Towards both of these classes the Hebrew legislator enforced the duties of kindness and humanity, by reminding the Israelites that they had once been strangers in Egypt. (Lev. xix. 33, 34.; Deut. x. 19., xxiii. 7., xxiv. 18.) Hence he ordained the same rights and privileges for the Israelites, as for strangers. (Lev. xxiv. 19-22.; Numb. ix. 14., xv. 5.) Strangers might be naturalised, or permitted to enter into the congregation of the Lord, by submitting to circumcision, and renouncing idolatry. (Deut. xxiii. 1-9.) The Edomites and Egyptians were capable of becoming citizens of Israel after the third generation. Doeg the Edomite (I Sam. xxi. 8.; Psal. lii.) must have been thus

'Martialis Epigrammat. XI. 95.

2 Alber, Hermeneut. Vet. Test. pp. 210, 211. Jahn's Archæologia Biblica, translated by Mr. Upham, pp. 494, 495.

naturalised; and, on the conquest of Idumæa by the Jews, about 129 years before the birth of Christ, the Jews and Idumæans became one people. It appears, also, that other nations were not entirely excluded from being incorporated with the people of Israel: for Uriah the Hittite, who was of Canaanitish descent, is represented as being a fully naturalised Israelite. But the " Ammonites and Moabites, in consequence of the hostile disposition which they had manifested to the Israelites in the wilderness, were absolutely excluded from the right of citizenship."1

"In the earlier periods of the Hebrew state, persons who were natives of another country, but who had come, either from choice or necessity, to take up their residence among the Hebrews, appear to have been placed in favourable circumstances. At a later period, viz. in the reigns of David and Solomon, they were compelled to labour on the religious edifices, which were erected by those princes; as we may learn from such passages as these:-And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred; and he set threescore and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens, and fourscore thousand to be hewers in the mountain. (2 Chron. ii. 1. 17, 18. compared with 1 Chron. xxii. 2.) The exaction of such laborious services from foreigners was probably limited to those who had been taken prisoners in war; and who, according to the rights of war as they were understood at that period, could be justly employed in any offices, however low and however laborious, which the conquerer thought proper to impose. In the time of Christ, the degenerate Jews did not find it convenient to render to the strangers from a foreign country those deeds of kindness and humanity, which were not only their due, but which were demanded in their behalf by the laws of Moses. They were in the habit of understanding by the word neighbour, their friends merely, and accordingly restricted the exercise of their benevolence by the same narrow limits that bounded in this case their interpretation; contrary as both were to the spirit of those passages, which have been adduced in the preceding paragraph."2

II. In a monarchy or aristocracy, birth and office alone gave rank, but in a democracy, where all are on an equal footing, the right discharge of official duties, or the arrival of OLD AGE, are the only sources of rank. Hence the Mosaic statute in Lev. xix. 32. (before the hoary head thou shalt stand up, and shalt reverence the aged,) will be found suited to the republican circumstances of the Israelites, as well as conformable to the nature and wishes of the human heart : for no man has any desire to sink in honour, or to be of less consequence than he was before; and to allow precedence to old age cannot be a matter that will ever affect a young man very sensibly. Nor does Moses confine his attention to the aged. He extends the pro

'Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. ii. pp. 233-239.
2 Jahn's Archæologia Biblica, by Upham, p. 197.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »