Jer. vii. 34; xxx. 19; Amos, vi. 4-6. The ancient Asiatics, among whom we include the Hebrews, were delighted with singing, with dancing, and with instruments of music. PROMENADING, so fashionable and so agreeable in colder latitudes, was wearisome and unpleasant in the warm climates of the east; and this is probably one reason why the inhabitants of those climates preferred holding intercourse with each other, while sitting near the gate of the city, or beneath the shade of the fig-tree and the vine, 1 Sam. xxii. 6; Micah, iv. 4. We therefore frequently meet with passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, which speak of persons sitting down, see Psalms, i. 1; xxvi. 5; 1. 20; lxiv. 2; lxxxix. 7; cvii. 32; cxi. 1.

The BATH was always agreeable to the inhabitants of the east, on account of its cooling and refreshing qualities, and its tendency to promote cleanliness in a climate, where there is so much exposure to dust. Ruth, iii. 3; 2 Sam. xi. 2; 2 Kings, v. 10. The bath is frequently visited by eastern ladies, and may be reckoned among their principal recreations. The Egyptians, who lived at the earliest period of which we have any account, were in the habit of bathing in the waters of the Nile, Exod. ii. 5; vii. 13— 25; Herodot. ii. 37. It was one of the civil laws of the Hebrews, that the bath should be used. The object of the law was doubtless to secure a proper degree of cleanliness among them, Lev. xiv. 2; xv. 1-8; xvii. 15, 16; xxii. 6; Numb. xix. 7. We may, therefore, consider it as probable, that public baths, soon after the enactment of this law, were erected in Palestine, similar to those, which are so frequently seen at the present day in the east.

The orientals, when engaged in conversation, are mild, and do not contradict the person with whom they are conversing, although they may be conscious that he is telling them falsehoods. The ancient Hebrews, in particular, very rarely used any terms of reproach more severe than those of adversary or opposer,

PRACA, contemptible, and sometimes fool, an expression which means a wicked man or an atheist, Job, ii. 10; Psalms, xiv. 1; Isaiah, xxxii. 6; Matt. v. 22; xvi. 23. Tanchuma v. 2; xviii. 4. When any thing very unpleasant was said, the dissatisfied person replied, it is enough,, ixavóv èoti, Deut. iii. 26; Luke, xxii. 38.

The formula of assent or affirmation was as follows; σù eiñas,

72712, thou hast said, or thou hast rightly said. We are informed by the traveller Aryda, that this is the prevailing mode of a person's expressing his assent or affirmation to this day, in the vicinity of mount Lebanon; especially when he does not wish to assert any thing in express terms. This explains the answer of the Saviour to the high-priest Caiaphas in Matt. xxvi 64, when he was asked, whether he was the Christ the Son of God, and replied où elas, thou hast said.

To spit in company in a room which was covered with a carpet, was an indication of great vulgarity of manners; but in case there was no carpet, it was not deemed a fault to spit in the corner of the room. The expressions in Deuteronomy, xxv. 79; viz. 17, and she shall spit in his face, are to be understood literally; because in other places, where spitting, buffeting, etc. are mentioned, they occur under circumstances where there existed a great excitement of feeling, and because there are not wanting instances of even greater rudeness and violence, than that of spitting in one's face, Matt. xxvi. 67; Mark, xiv. 65; comp. 1 Kings, xxii. 24; Isaiah, lvii. 4; Ezek. ii. 6; xxv. 6; 2 Sam. xvi. 6, 7. The orientals, as is well known, are fond of taking their sleep at noon, to which they are strongly invited by the oppressive heat of their climate, 2 Sam. iv. 5; xi. 2; Matt. xiii. 25. The phrase, to cover one's feet, is used in certain instances to express the custom of retiring to rest, or sleeping, at this time, Judg. iii. 24; 1 Sam. xxiv. 3.

§. 181. TREATMENT OF THE JEWS TO STRANGERS.

Moses enforced the observance of kindness and humanity to strangers, and inculcated its practice by various examples of benevolent hospitality, mentioned in the book of Genesis. There were two classes of persons, who, in reference to this subject, were denominated strangers, . Those, who, whether Hebrews or foreigners, were destitute of a home, in Hebrew . The others were persons, who, though not natives, had a home in Palestine. The latter were, strangers or foreigners in a strict sense of the word. Both of these classes, according to the civil code of Moses, were to be treated with kindness, and were to enjoy the rights of citizens, Lev. xix. 33, 34; xxiv. 16, 22; Numb. ix. 14; xv. 14; Deut. x. 18; xxiii. 7,8; xxiv. 17; xxvii. 19.

In the earlier periods of the Hebrew state, persons who were natives of another country, but who had either from choice or necessity taken 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," etc. see 1 Chron. xxii. 2; 2 Chron. ii. 1, 17, 18. 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 tasks, however low and however laborious, which the conqueror might think 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 commanded by the law of Moses. They were in the habit of understanding by the word neighbour, their friends merely; and accordingly they restricted the exercise of their benevolence to those who came within the meaning of their selfish interpretation of that word, in direct opposition to the spirit of the passages above cited, Lev, xix. 18.

§. 182. THE POOR AND BEGGARS.

Moses, as may be learnt by consulting the references in the preceding section, made abundant provision for the poor; but it does not appear that he says any thing relative to beggars. We find the first express mention of mendicants in the Psalms, see Psalms, cix. 10. In the parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were written subsequently, they are frequently mentioned. In the time of Christ, mendicants were found sitting in the streets, at the doors of the rich, at the gates of the temple, and likewise, as we have reason to believe, at the entrance of synagogues, Mark, x. 46; Luke, xvi. 20; Acts, iii. 2. Sometimes food and sometimes money was presented to them, Matt. xxvi. 9; Luke,

xvi. 21. We have no reason to suppose, that there existed in the time of Christ that class of persons called vagrant beggars, who supplicate for alms from door to door, and who are found at the present day in the east, although less frequently than in the countries of Europe. That the custom of seeking alms by sounding a trumpet or horn, which prevails among a class of Mohammedan monastics, called KALENDER or KARENDAL, prevailed also in the time of Christ, may be inferred from Matt. vi. 2, where the verb can possesses the shade of signification, that would be attached to a corresponding word in the Hiphil form of the Hebrew, and is to be rendered transitively, as is the case with many other verbs in the New Testament, 1 Cor. i. 20; iii. 6; xv. 1; etc. There is one thing characteristic of those orientals, who are reduced to the disagreeable necessity of following the vocation of mendicants, which is worthy of being mentioned; they do not appeal to the pity or to the alms-giving spirit, but to the justice of their benefactors, Job, xxii. 7; xxxi. 16; Prov. iii. 27, 28; xxviii. 21; Eccles. iv. 1; Matt. vi. 1; Koran, xvii. 28; xxx. 37; lxx. 24. Buxtorf. Lexic. Chal. Talmud. Rabb. p. 1821.

§. 183. LEVETICAL DEFILEMENTS.

THE DEFILEMENTS, which not only prevented a person's attendance on sacred duties; but also rendered him unfit for intercourse with other persons, were recognised, and had an existence among the Hebrews before as well as after the time of Moses. They also existed at a very early period among many other nations. If a man were defiled or rendered unclean by disease, it originated in the belief that the disease was contagious. If he were defiled from any other cause, that cause, whatever it might be, was something which was associated with ideas of impurity, with dislike, or abhorrence, in the minds of the people. Moses defined more accurately than had previously been done, those things to which it was the custom to attach the opprobrium of communicating uncleanness; and in order to increase and perpetuate the separation which existed between the Hebrews and the Gentile nations; and to render the former less liable to become idolaters, he appointed and regulated the ceremonies, by which unclean persons might be purified and restored to the privileges of the tabernacle and to the intercourse of friends. If a person, who was defiled or unclean, touched another, he rendered

the other person as unclean as himself, and both were excluded from the tabernacle and temple, Lev. xiii. 3.

Those persons, who, according to the Levitical law, were un

clean were,

I. Persons who were afflicted with the leprosy. They were not permitted to dwell within the limits of either cities or villages. They were clad in a rent and miserable garment, and were compelled to cry out to every one whom they met, “Unclean, unclean!" Lev. xiii. 45; Numb. v. 2, et seq.

II. The GONORRHEA, or seed-flux, whether BENIGNA or VIRULENTA, was a source of uncleanness to any person who was the subject of it, Lev. xv. iii.

III. Whoever had an EMISSIO SEMINIS, even in legitimate intercourse, was to be unclean till the evening, Lev. xv. 16-22.

IV. Women after the birth of a son were unclean for seven, and after the birth of a daughter, for fourteen days. And in case the infant was a manchild, they were debarred during the thirtythree following days from the tabernacle and temple, and from the sacrifices; in case the child was a female, they were thus debarred during the sixty-six following days, Lev. xii. 1-6; xv. 16-28.

V. Women, during the period of the menses, and when labouring under the disease denominated an issue of blood, were unclean, Lev. xv. 19-21; Matt. ix. 20.

VI. He, who had touched the corpse of a man, or the carcase of an animal, a sepulchre, or the bones of a dead person; likewise he who had been in the tent, or in the room, or house of the dying or dead, were all of them unclean for seven days. Priests were rendered unclean by merely wearing the badges of mourning; and for that reason they never assumed them, except in case of the death of parents, children, brothers, or unmarried sisters residing in their father's house. For the same reason, viz. the circumstance of their communicating uncleanness, the habili ments of mourning were altogether interdicted to the high priest, Lev. v. 2; xi. 8-11, 24-31; xxi. 1-5, 10, 11; Numb. xix. 11-15.