PARTS SACRIFICED TO GOD.

Among those parts of sheep, which, being covered with fat, were to burned on the altar, the tail is enumerated. As this is contrary to the character of the tail of our English sheep, it is proper to remark, that, in the East, there are breeds of sheep whose tails are large, very broad, and are made up of fat: they weigh sometimes 15, 20, even to 40 or 50 lbs. This great weight obliges the shepherds to put under them small supports, from whence these sheep are ludicrously said to carry their tails in gocarts. These fat tails are esteemed great delicacies. It is remarkable, that the tails of animals are called in Hebrew sanab; whereas the tail of the sheep is called by a particular name, aliah; which the Arabs seem to have retained. The LXX, in this place and Leviticus,

speaking of these fat tails, do not use the common words, nɛpnos, spa, but another, oruv; and for the sake of correctness, such distinctions should be observed in all translations.

I shall only add the following testimony of Dr. Russell, omitting a numerous body of witnesses. "This broad flattish tail is mostly covered with long wool; and becoming very small at the extremity, it turns up. It is entirely composed of a substance between marrow and fat, serving very often in the kitchen instead of butter: and, cut into small pieces, makes an ingredient in various dishes. When the animal is young, it is little inferior to the best marrow. Leo Africanus asserts, that he saw in Egypt a sheep's tail weighing 80 pounds, Afr. Descript. p. 298. Symon Simion, in his Itinerary, p. 39. talks of sheep's tails in Egypt weighing 70 pounds. But these enormous tails were produced by pampering the animal with bran and barley; the tails. of others, fed in the usual way, were from ten to twenty pounds weight."

CHAPTER XXX. VERSES 23, 24, 25,

THE ANOINTING OIL.

This was composed of several ingredients. 1. Myrrh. I apprehend there is no reason for doubting whether this word be correctly rendered, as the general opinion rests in its propriety. This drug is well known to be a vegetable juice, drawn from the tree by incision. The tree is a native of Abyssinia.

2. Cinnamon. Whether this was this prime cinnamon now brought from the island of Ceylon, is somewhat uncertain; though I see no decisive arguments to the contrary; but it might be another sort. It has been thought by the best naturalists, including our own Ray, Hist. Plant. that our canella is the same as the cinnamon and cassia of the ancients; or, at least, the difference is but small.

3. Sweet scented cane, Calamus Aromaticus : This was well known to the ancients, though it is not much used among ourselves. Dioscorides, lib. i. cap. 17. and Pliny, lib. xii. cap. 22. mention it. Pliny gives directions for choosing it, and says it grows in Arabia and Syria, but the best is supposed to come from India. It grows in marshes which are dry in summer. The best calamus diffuses its agreeable fragrance to a very considerable distance around it.

4. Cassia, Hebrew kiddah. This is taken by some for another kind of cinnamon; it probably is the cassia lignea of the shops, which is an aromatic bark, not unlike cinnamon.

The proportions of these ingredients deserve our notice. Observe, the word shekel is not expressed in the original; so that some have supposed the gerah was the weight intended; but the shekel seems to be supplied by verse 24. "According to the shekel of the sanctuary :" these words, however, probably denote only a correct weight.

The difficulty is, that so great a quantity of drugs, put into so small a quantity of oil, would render the mixture much too thick, and nearly immoveable. To answer this difficulty, some have supposed the drugs were previously steeped, and their oil drawn from them, which oil was mixed with the pure oil of olive; others think, recourse was had to pressure, to force out an oil strongly impregnated; others think the mass was distilled; some think that the value of the ingredients is intended; but all agree that 62 lbs. of aromatics to 12 lbs. of oil is not according to modern art; and seems contradictory to the exercise of art in any state of practice. The adoption of gerahs instead of shekels would give a proportion of 35 oz. of drugs to 123 oz. of oil, or 3 to 1. In common, 1 oz. of drugs to 8 of oil is esteemed a fair proportion.

VERSES 34, 35.

THE SACRED PERFUME.

This appears to be composed of four ingredients; stacte, onycha, galbanum, and incense.

1. Stacte. This drug is understood to be the prime kind of myrrh; but the original word for myrrh is not used here, but another, a nataph, which properly signifies a drop. Mr. Parkhurst thinks it is myrrh distilling, dropping, from the tree, of its own accord, without incision. The LXX read Σtantvn ; Vulgate, Stacten; but Scheuzer thinks it was balm, or balsam, which is properly a drop.

2. Onycha; so read most interpreters; LXX, Ovu; Jerom, onyx. This is understood to be a shell, of an excellent fragrance. The Arabic writers often speak of this shell. Dioscorides says, it is found in the Indies, in those marshes where the nard grows, which imparts its scent to the shell. It has a good odour when burnt. Rumphius, in his Rarities of Amboyna, lib. ii. cap. 17. describes the odoriferous nail or onyx, to which he gives the name of nn, the Hebrew word employed in this passage. He informs us that this shell is a covercle of the purpura, and of the whole class of the murex; adding, that in the Indies

CHAPTER XI. VERSE 2.

ANIMALS CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.

this onyx serves as the basis of all perfumes. This writer describes ten kinds of these shells, and gives as synonymes to his No. 10, Unguis odoratus, onyx marina, Blatta Byzantina, Arab. Adfar-altibi. Under the former of these names it is known in Europe, and, I think, is known also among our apothe caries in England.

3. Galbanum. Galbanum, says Dioscorides, is the juice of a plant named ferulu, or metopium; it grows in Syria. The most excellent resembles incense, is cartilaginous, pure, fat without being woody; of a strong smell. Hermannus says, it is gummy, resinous, fat and pliable like wax; a good deal like gum-ammoniac; its odour aromatic,but strong.

4. Incense, or frankincense, of which Pliny speaks, lib. xii. cap. 14. and Virgil, Ecl. viii.

Verbenasque adole pingues, et mascula Thura.

"Burn vervain, and MALE incense." Dioscorides, lib. i. cap. 28. says, "Male incense is named stagonias; its grains are naturally round, and do not split; when broken, they are white within, and fat; and catch instantly, on being thrown into a fire." There are several kinds of incense; that which is brought over in masses is Indian, Indicum; that which is in tears is mammosum, female; and that which is in grains is masculum, male.

It appears, that the chief of these drugs are vegetables; and that there is no oil, nor animal fat, used with them; they appear to be of a dry kind.

We ought not to quit this subject, without observing that there is an allusion to the ingredients of this sacred perfume in Ecclus. xxiv. 14. "I yielded a pleasant odour like the best myrrh, as galbanum, and onyx, and sweet storax, and as the fume of frankincense in the tabernacle." We have, therefore, the testimony of this writer for the correctness of several drugs proposed above; but how is it that a perfume, forbidden to private persons, should be so nearly imitated? Had it lost its sanctity, or did the admission of another ingredient take away its peculiar sacredness ?

THE Custom of considering certain animals as proper for human food, and rejecting others as improper, is of so great antiquity, and of so general, I might say universal, adoption, that it well deserves our attentive examination, both with regard to its principles, and to their application.

We read, Gen. vii. 2. of Noah's receiving into his ark a greater number of clean beasts than of unclean; and we know, that the Puranas of India express the same distinction, in their history of the general deluge. Add to this, that the Bramins, from the deepest antiquity, have been prohibited from certain kinds of food, and that the Egyptians adopted the same restrictions; and we shall perceive that this observance

ance must have originated in a strong sense of propriety, if not rather of absolute necessity.

Vegetables, no doubt, were the primitive food of mankind; but all vegetables were not equally fit for food; even in Paradise, there was, at least, one of malignant properties; and in other parts of the earth there were, as there now are, many whose noxious qualities render them utterly unfit for reception into the stomach; as indeed they are incapable of affording nutriment to the body.

In like manner, among animals, the flesh of some when eaten furnishes a wholesome nourishment, while the flesh of others is poison. Nature itself has prohibited these last from our tables; since no man would risk his life, or his health, in the use of them, even were their appearance or their relish ever so attractive. What benefit could possibly be derived from attempting to use the gecho as food? vide on Deut.

xxx. 32.

We must also consider the different natures and modes of life among animals; some are domestic, and feed on vegetables; others are savage, and feed on flesh. Those which feed on vegetables are capable of becoming the property of mankind, and of being domesticated; are always at hand, and ready for use; whereas, those which prey on others, are distant and injurious; and the opportunities of procuring them for service when wanted are altogether accidental and uncertain.

Of animals which are capable of domestication, some may be more proper for food than others; it may be more advantageous to employ some in labour, than to feed on them; and others may be, during their whole lives, engaged in procuring food for man, to greater advantage than if they themselves should be slain and eaten; which could furnish but an occasional supply.

It is every way probable, that after the qualities of creatures were understood, after the wild and savage were banished from around the habitations of man, while the tame and the gentle were taken under his protection and multiplied by his care, that the passions or the dispositions of the human mind were figuratively expressed by comparison to the characters of animals; and that distinctions, drawn from the fierceness of the lion, or the meekness of the lamb, were employed to convey instruction to the understanding, and to regulate the manners of life.

Having thus hinted at those causes which originally led to a difference in the use of creatures, so far as concerned the article of food, and the subsequent employment of their characters by way of morals, placing first that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual; we shall proceed to examine those distinctions which Moses recorded, and adopted for the people of Israel, under the influence of divine direction. It will be remembered, that we are discoursing

not as theologians, but as naturalists; and nothing beyond this character is to be expected from us.

Among quadrupeds, Whatever, 1st, parteth the hoof, 2dly, is cloven fooled, 3dly, cheweth the cud, that ye may eat.

We must consider this precept as addressed to the whole of the nation; and therefore its import, in order to ensure obedience, must be obvious and direct. Nothing is more conspicuous than a cloven hoof; and nothing better known than the creatures which have this conformation; but the action of chewing the cud, or rumination, is not so evident.

Quadrupeds may be divided into two classes: 1st, those which have hoofs; 2d, those which have claws. In the first class, the extremity of the foot is wholly covered with a hard horny substance; on which, when the animal stands up, he rests his weight, either in whole or in part. The second class, or those with claws, do not rest any part of their weight on their claws; neither is the whole extremity of their foot covered by their claws, but only certain portions of it.

Animals which have hoofs are again divided into those of one solid hoof only, and those with divided hoofs: the latter are the subjects of our present observations. The Hebrew text is, emphatically, “dividing the division of the hoofs ;" meaning, an entire and total separation of the hoof into two parts; and meaning also, neither more parts nor less than two. Hence the camel, whose hoof is partly divided, was unclean to the Jews, though eaten by the Arabs; and the arnebeth, hare, having more than two divisions, though described as ruminating, yet is forbidden.

Rumination is an action of the gullet, whereby certain quadrupeds bring again into their mouths that food which they had taken down into their stomachs : they repeat this slight kind of vomiting for the purpose of re-chewing their food, grinding it into more minute parts, and mixing it more intimately with those salival juices which are furnished by the mouth. This they repeat several times; till the vegetable substances on which they have fed, are become sufficiently prepared to be converted by digestion into flesh. It must ever be remembered, that there is, by much, a greater dissimilarity and distance between a vegetable designed to be used as aliment, for the purpose of conversion into flesh, than there is between kind of flesh which is meant to be converted, as aliment, by the process of digestion, into flesh of another kind; thereby forming part of another animal.

any

Ruminating animals have several stomachs, wherein the food is prepared in different degrees, before it passes away as being wholly digested. The first is called the paunch; this is the most copious: here the food is received, softened by being soaked in a proper liquid, and is ground, preparatory to being passed into the second bag or ventricle.

The second stomach is called the honeycomb, being composed of cells like that structure of the industrious bee, to which its name alludes: this discharges the food in some degree from its moisture, and dismisses it to the third stomach.

The third stomach is called the many-fold, and consists of many cellular membranes. In this receptacle a further progress is made in digestion.

The fourth stomach is called the honey-tripe: the juice furnished by this ventricle completes the preparation of the food, and dismisses it, as entirely fit for the purposes of nourishment.

VERSE 4.

THE CAMEL.

The foot of the camel is only partially divided; that is to say, the division is not entire throughout; he cannot therefore be said to have hoofs. This animal then, though ruminant, is unclean, because he does not "divide the division of the hoof," as was the characteristic mark required in a clean beast. The camel forms a part of the most sumptuous entertainments in the East; and is reckoned, especially the young ones, among the most savoury dishes.

VERSE 5.

THE CONEY, OR SHAPHAN.

Vide on Prov. xxx. 26. the Ashkoko of Mr. Bruce, and the plate. That traveller tells us, "he certainly chews the cud;" but he has toes, not hoofs.

VERSE 6.

THE HARE; ARNEBETH, HEBREW.

The difficulty on this animal is, that Moses says the arnebeth chews the cud, which our hares do not; and of which we have no ancient testimony in respect to the hare. Either then, this word means a creature of the hare kind, not known among us in Europe, or the hare of Asia does in some degree ruminate. Both these ideas may be correct; the arnebeth of Moses may be of this kind, yet a different creature from our hare; and it may ruminate. Nevertheless, we must remark that interpreters are agreed that the creature meant in this passage is the hare; and the Arabs at this day call the hare arneb,-erneb, eraneb, Mizinzk. Lex. 151,3144. The LXX however translate Aacuπys, Dasypous, which Aristotle, lib. i. cap. 1. and Pliny, lib. viii. cap. 55; lib. x. cap. 63. seem to describe differently from the hare. Bochart, and the lexicographers, however, think the hare is really designed by this word. [Are there any traces of our guinea pig here?]

Hares were, and still are, very common in Judea, and even in the deserts; they are indeed so plentiful, that Plaistead advises those who are about to cross the desert toward Bussorah to take onions with them,

in order to make a sauce for the hares they may meet with; from whence it appears, that this animal is partly depended on as a resource for food. He mentions knocking down 20 or 30 in a day. These hares, living in the desert, not in the verdant meadows of Europe, may they ruminate under these circumstances? or, are they of a kind not precisely the same as our own?

N.B. The hare was forbidden food among the Britons; no doubt directed in this instance by the Druids. From a hint, Prov. xii. 27. Mr. Harmer thinks the Israelites did not always refrain from the hare.

VERSE 7.

THE SWINE.

This is clearly the creature designed by the sacred writer. The well known aversion of the Jewish nation from it, and the abhorrence of other families of mankind, mark it decidedly as impure. This creature, in hot countries, is apt to be troubled with distempers, which render its flesh unwholesome; to which we may add, its perpetual wallowing in mire. We have no reason to doubt but its natural qualities were known before it became a symbol, or a proverb of impurity.

Tacitus tells us, that the Jews abstained from the flesh of swine, in consideration of a leprosy by which they had formerly suffered, and to which this animal has a disposition. Maimonides, More Nevochim, part iii. cap. 8. says, "The principal reason wherefore the law prohibited the swine, was because of their extreme filthiness, and because this creature eats so many impurities. For it is well known with what care and precision the law forbade all filthiness and dirt, even in the fields, and in the camp, not to mention the cities. Now had the swine been permitted, the public places and the houses would have been worse than dunghils, or even than privies."

Plutarch, de Iside, affirms, that those who drink of the milk of the sow become blotchy and leprous; and Elian, lib. x. cap. 16. quotes from Manetho, that whoever drinks sow's milk is quickly covered with scabs and leprous itches. How very applicable the moral of these accounts is, need not be insisted on.

VERSES 9, 10, 11, 12.

OF FISHES CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.

You may eat of whatsoever hath fins and scales. Fins are analogous to the feet of land animals; as therefore the sacred legislator had given directions for separating animals according to their hoofs and claws, so he directs that fishes, which had no clear and distinct members adapted to locomotion, should be unclean; but those which had fins should be clean, provided they also had scales: for as we saw before that two requisites, a cloven hoof, and a power

of rumination, were necessary to render a quadruped lawful, so two characters are necessary to answer the same purpose in fishes.

The manner in which this law is given, its application, and its extent, deserve notice. There are no particular kinds of fish specified as pure or impure; but a general rule is laid down, that only those answering to such a description, may lawfully be used. The reason, perhaps, is, that fishes were likely to form no considerable part of the food of the Israelites, who were to be agricultural people; but if any were purposely bred by them, they should be such as were free from hazard, as well in regard to health, as to the exertion necessary to procure them.

It deserves notice also, that there are no exceptions made, as in the case of animals; a strong line of distinction, of permissive distinction, is drawn; and this being attended to, there is no risk of failure in that compliance which the law demands. I remember Niebuhr asked a Jew, whether such or such fishes were lawful? who answered him, that the law allowed them so many that were beyond denial fit for their use, that he had never troubled himself to inquire the unlawfulness of any that were dubious or uncertain.

It is not in the Scripture only that this distinction among fishes is known. The Romans ate in their sacred festivals, which they called polluctum, only those kinds of fishes which had scales. Pliny, lib. xxxii. cap. 1. after Cassius Hemina, reports this as an express law of Numa. Porphyry, de Abstin. lib. Porphyry, de Abstin. lib. ii. cap. 37. says, that the Egyptian priests held fish in abhorrence: Herodotus says the same, lib. ii. cap. 37. This, however, may be doubted; as the priest who had the care of the temple of Isis at Herculaneum, when that temple was involved in ruin, by the ashes of Vesuvius, was found with the remains of fish on which he had been feeding, lying before him. It is admitted, that fishes were freely used by the Jewish commonalty; and we find they had been used as food by the Israelites in Egypt, since they regret the loss of them, Numb. xi. 5.

VERSE 13.

OF BIRDS.

There are no particular characters given for distinguishing birds by classes, as clean or unclean; but a list of exceptions is tendered, and these are forbidden, without enumerating those which are allowed.

It will be found however, on consideration, that those which live on grain are not prohibited; and, as these are the domesticated kinds, we might almost express it in other words; that birds of prey, generally, are rejected, i.e those with crooked beaks, and strong talons; whether they prey on lesser fowls or animals, or on fish; while those which eat vegeta

bles are admitted as lawful; so that the same principle is maintained to a certain degree among birds, as formerly among beasts.

THE EAGLE.

This bird is well known, as taking a kind of preeminence among birds of prey. There is no difficulty in determining the bird intended.

The ossifrage. Interpreters are not agreed on this bird: some read vulture, others the black eagle, others the falcon: the name peres, by which this bird is called in the Hebrew, denotes to crush, to break; and this name agrees with our version, which implies "the bone breaker," which name is given to a kind of eagle, from the circumstance of its habit of breaking the bones of its prey, after it has eaten the flesh; some say also, that it even swallows the bones thus broken.

Onkelos uses a word which signifies naked, and leads us to the vulture indeed, if we were to take the classes of birds in any thing like a natural order, in the passage before us, the vulture should follow the eagle as an unclean bird. The Septuagint interpreter also renders vulture; and so do Munster, Schindler, and the Zurick versions.

The ospray. The Hebrew name of this bird is derived from a root signifying force or impetuosity; it may therefore be the ospray: but there is much reason to doubt whether we are correct, in applying these different kinds of eagles, for such they are to which we have been now attending.

The probability is, that this is the halietus, or sea eagle or, perhaps, the black eagle; which, though among the smallest of eagles, is among the strongest. So Homer speaks, Il. xxi. verse 252. "Having the rapidity of a black eagle, usλavos, that bird of prey which is at the same time the strongest and the swiftest of birds." I do not know how far I am justified in referring to the black eagle of Bruce, vol. v. p. 159. which he names nisser tokoor; but if we had better acquaintance with that bird, perhaps it might prove to be the atzniah of this passage.

If the above hint is admissible, then the vulture, distinguished by its bald head and neck, is excluded, on one side; while the class of eagles which have a superfluity of feathers on the throat and head, are excluded on the other side. Of these Bruce offers two, the nisser werk, p. 155. which has a kind of beard of feathers under his chin; and the nisser tokoor, which has a long crest, or tuft, on the baek of his head.

The vulture. This word appears in this place written with 1, daah, 87, but in Deut. with,ne, raah: if the first of these be correct, it leads us, not to the vulture, but the hawk; as the import of it is the swift or rapid; and this is countenanced by the Samaritan version, which reads daithah. If this be admitted, it tends much to support the opinion, that