shall not make good that which | die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

was torn.

15 But if the owner thereof be

the appeal was made, not only as to a Witness of truth, but as to an Avenger of falsehood and wrong. Even in the case of one who had so far broken through the bonds of moral restraint, as to offer injury to his neighbor, it might still be presumed that there was so much regard to conscience as to pre

Law respecting Things borrowed.

14 ¶ And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or The rule in the preceding verse has respect to articles of money, plate, or | furniture; but in the present to live stock intrusted to the care of another 'to keep; i. e. not gratuitously, as in the case above, v. 7, but for hire or upon certain considerations, as Jacob had Laban's flock to keep, Gen. 30. 31-36. That this is the true sense may be in-vent him from profaning 'an oath of the ferred from the nature of the case. The Lord,' and calling the God of truth to keeping of money, jewels, &c. required be a witness to a lie. no care or labor, but simply a safe place of deposit, and therefore might be gratuitous; but not so with cattle or sheep, which must of course be fed and pastured, and would thus incur expense. If the deposit consisted of any of the animals here mentioned, and it met with any injury, or was driven away from the pasture, the depositary, if no man had seen it, was obliged to swear he had not retained it, nor applied it to his own use; and his oath to this effect the owner was bound to accept instead of payment. But if, on the other hand, it had been stolen out of the house of the depositary, he was obliged to pay for it; inasmuch as a theft in such circumstances would imply the most criminal remissness in him in whose house it had occurred, and it was just that he should suffer the loss of it. If, again, the beast was torn to pieces, the depositary was only bound to bring proof of the fact, and doing so he was under no obligation to make it good. What proof was requisite Moses does not say. The

most natural proof would of course be the testimony of an eye-witness, or a remnant of the bloody skin, or carcase; Jerus. Targ. Let him bring of the members of it for a witness that it is killed.' But on this point nothing is specified in the text. An oath of the Lord. So called because to Him

14, 15. If a man borrow aught of his neighbor, &c. In the case of a borrowed beast of burden, as an ox, an ass, or a horse, receiving any hurt, or coming by his death, the borrower was to make it good, provided the owner were not present; for it might be fairly presumed that he had injured or destroyed it by excessive labor or other cruelty. But if the owner himself were present, he would of course be presumed to have done his best to preserve it, and would at any rate be a witness to the fact, and to its not being owing to the negligence or any other fault of the borrower; consequently as the latter was not required in equity to make it good, so neither in law. As to the final clause, 'If it be an hired thing, it came for his hire,' it seems to indicate a distinction between things lent for hire, and those lent gratis for good will, the preceding rule applying only to the latter; whereas in the former, whether the owner were present or not, the borrower was not required to make restitution, unless indeed the owner could prove that the loss was occasioned by his culpable maltreatment or neglect. When this was not the case, but the thing were borrowed on the condition of the borrower's paying so much for the use of

with it, he shall not make it good: if it be a hired thing, it came for his hire.

16¶ And m if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

m Deut. 22. 28, 29.

n

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the a dowry of virgins. 18 witch to live.

Thou shalt not suffer a

■ Gen. 34. 12. Deut. 22. 29. 1 Sam. 18. 25. o Lev. 19. 26, 31. & 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10, 11. 1 Sam. 28. 3, 9.

maid in humble circumstances could not reasonably look for so ample a dowry as one of a wealthy or distin

it, then the loss was not to be made good; it came for his hire;' i. e. the loss was to be considered as balanced by the profit of the hire. The compen-guished family. It has indeed been sation agreed upon was to be regarded as an offset to the hazard run by the owner in letting out his property; and with such a risk in view he would naturally fix his price accordingly. The more these statutes are examined, the more clearly does their reasonable, equitable, mild, and humane spirit appear.

Law respecting Seduction.

16. If a man entice a maid, &c. Heb. yephatteh, enticingly persuade. It is assumed that no force was used, but merely persuasions and blandishments; and that the young woman was not betrothed to another. This differences the present from the case supposed Deut. 22. 28, where it is to be understood, both that the maid was betrothed, and that some degree of violence was used. See Note in loc. The penalty prescribed for the seducer in the present case, was that he should

supposed that this was a stated mulct of fifty shekels, but the passage from which this conclusion is drawn (Deut. 22. 28, 29.) refers to a rape, and not to simple seduction. It might appear perhaps at first view that the law by merely appointing to the seducer marriage with the partner of his crime, and exempting her from punishment altogether, was too mild and lenient for such an offence. But it is to be considered that the woman suffered the corporeal and visible consequences, and the public disgrace of illicit intercourse; and as to the man, although he did indeed satisfy the civil law by marrying and endowing the victim of his lust, yet in the sight of God he was not cleared from the guilt of his sin by this mode of making amends, but needed the cleansing of deep repentance before he could obtain absolution from his Judge.

18.

Law respecting Witchcraft.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. That is, a reputed or professed witch; a woman who practised such magical arts, incantations, and sorceries, as gave her the reputation of being a witch. The use of the term, how.

endow her to be his wife,' i. e. marry her and provide for her suitably according to his station. If, however, the father did not choose to let him have her, still the seducer was obliged to pay a certain sum of money as a compensation for the injury. The amount pre-ever, determines nothing as to the realscribed is no more definitely fixed than ity of the preternatural power to which by the terms, 'he shall pay money ac- such persons laid claim. The Scripcording to the dowry of virgins.' That tures are wont, in multitudes of inis, according to their rank and condition stances, to speak of things not accordin life; having respect to their parent-ing to their absolute verity, but accordage, connexions, and prospects; as a ing to general impression and belief.

This is sufficient to justify the law as here and elsewhere enounced, under the circumstances in which it was given, but as the subject is somewhat curious and interesting, we shall devote a little more time to the consideration of the import of the term here and elsewhere employed to designate the class of persons against whom this law is so emphatically directed. From the annexed passage, occurring Deut. 18. 9—14, it is perhaps to be inferred that the practice thus severely denounced was not one which had hitherto been common among the chosen people, but was one which they were in danger of learning from the heathen inhabitants of Canaan; 'When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the

The remark of some commentators, that 'if there had been no witches such a law as this had never been made' 'that the existence of the law, given under the direction of the Spirit of God, proves the existence of the thing'-is founded upon a very inadequate view of the general structure of revelation. The sacred writers speak of false gods, for instance, as if they were real existences, but we see at once how gross would be the error of such an interpretation. So likewise in regard to witchcraft, and all those arts and incantations which are based upon a supposed commerce with evil spirits. We do not consider the assumption of the reality of such intercourse as at all necessary to the true explication of the passages in which it seems to be implied, nor to the enactment of such laws as that un-abominations of those nations. There der consideration. Pretended arts of this nature were common among all the idolatrous nations of antiquity, and from their intimate connexion with idolatrous rites and systems, were obviously fraught with the most pernicious effects when introduced among the chosen people, who were at best but too much addicted to superstitious practices. However false and futile in themselves, they did, in fact, involve a deep offence against the very first principles of the Mosaic dispensation, and this accounts for the severity with which they were treated by its laws. They were not only built upon systems of theology that were at war with the doctrines and worship of the Theocracy, but by imposing upon the credulity and exciting the terrors of the vulgar, they gave to individuals a very dangerous power, in a society so singularly constituted as that of the Hebrews. The practising of these arts was forbidden therefore under the severest penalties, as the mischief actually wrought was about equal, whether the supernatural power professed were a reality or a mere imposture.

shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord your God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God. For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.'

In the passage which we are now considering the original term is ba mekashshephah, the fem. of mekashsheph, usually rendered magician or sorcerer. As to the primitive and most elementary sense of the root kashaph, it is a point which philology has not yet clearly determined. Michaelis refers to what he considers the cognate Arabic root kasapha, signifying to cut, whence in the time of a solar or lunar eclipse they are wont to say, 'God

cuts the sun or the moon; from a part contracted to witch. A witch, thereof the luminary's appearing to be cut fore, in its etymological import, is a off from the remainder. Accordingly knowing woman, as wizard (wise-ard) eclipses of the sun or moon are called is also a knowing, cunning, or wise man. in that language 'kusuph,' cutting; But the knowledge implied by the terms while our term eclipse comes from a is of a peculiar kind—a knowledge of Greek word signifying fainting or fail- occult and mysterious things-a skill ing. Taking this derivation as a basis, in disclosing or foretelling matters that Michaelis supposes that the word, in lie beyond the reach of ordinary human biblical usage, which had respect to the intelligence, and supposed to be ac absurd and superstitious notions of the quired by means of an express or imtimes, denotes a person who occasions plicit compact with some evil spirit. solar or lunar eclipses; that is, from Persons of this imputed character were his astronomical knowledge of their accordingly invested, by popular belief, approach; making all manner of grim- with the power of altering, in many inaces, singing songs, and so affecting to stances, the course of nature's immutaenchant the heavenly bodies. This, ble laws, of raising winds and storms, he says, corresponds with the ancient of riding through the air, of transformrabbinical notions of witchcraft, which ing themselves into various shapes, of was a kind of unhallowed perversion or afflicting and tormenting those who had falsification of the powers of nature, rendered themselves obnoxious to them, causing them to operate contrary to the with acute pains and lingering diseases; true meant designs of their author. This in short, to do whatever they pleased, etymology, like hundreds of others through the agency of the devil, who which depend upon the affinities of was supposed to be always obsequious Arabic and Hebrew, though possibly to their beck and bidding. The belief correct, cannot be verified, and we are in the reality of witchcraft, clothed in fact thrown back upon the biblical with this kind of supernatural attriuse of the Piel form of the verb, which butes, has been more or less prevalent is universally rendered to practise pres- in all ages and countries, and in periods tige, to use incantations, magic, sorc- of abounding ignorance and superstition, ery, in a word, to resort to the arts of the most cruel laws have been framed witchcraft. The Greek renders it by against its alleged professors, and mulpapuakovs, poisoners, probably because titudes of innocent persons, male and these sorcerers dealt much in drugs or female, many of them aged, poor, friendpharmaceutical potions, to which potent | less, decrepid, and sick, condemned and effects were ascribed, and which were burnt for powers they never possessed, often deleterious. But it does not ap- and for crimes they neither premedipear that this is a fair representation of tated nor committed. Happily for huthe force of the original term. As the manity, these sanguinary laws have female sex were supposed to be more been mostly abolished from the codes especially addicted to this kind of for- of enlightened modern nations, and the bidden craft, the word here occurs in prevention or cure of the evils of magthe feminine, and is rendered by a term ical imposture left to the progress of which perhaps conveys the most ade- general intelligence, of science, and inquate notion of the original. Our Eng-structed piety among all classes. The lish word witch is supposed to be de- faith in oracles and miracles, the lerived from the verb to wit (anciently to gends of superstition, and the creations weet, i. e. to know) through its adjec- of distempered fancy have died away tive form wittigh or wittich, afterwards in Christian countries before the ad

19¶pWhosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

P Lev. 18. 23. & 20. 15.

20 T He that sacrificeth unto

q Numb. 25. 2, 7, 8. Deut. 13. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15. & 17. 2, 3, 5.

off from among the living without mercy. From a comparison of this passage with Lev. ch. 18. 20, it appears that this was one of the prevalent abominations of the Canaanites, from which the Israelites were to shrink with a holy horror, and in order to deepen the impression of its ineffable turpitude and atrocity, the abused beast was to be involved in the doom of the more brutelike offender.

vancing light of revelation, and little children retire to bed without alarm, and people traverse unfrequented paths at all hours and seasons without the dread of witches or ghosts, of spells or incantations. For our highly favored exemption from these pernicious forms of superstitious belief, though they have indeed sadly darkened one period of the annals of our own country, we can never be sufficiently grateful.- -T Shalt not suffer to live. Heb. 3 lo tehayeh, lit. shalt not vivify. On the peculiar usage of this term we have elsewhere commented. See Note on Gen. 6. 19. Josh. 6. 25. It implies in some way a saving, preserving, continuing in life, after a virtual extinction; and the import may be, that inasmuch as a practiser of witchcraft is to be considered as ipso facto condemned to death by the law without any previous formality of trial or judicial sentence; the forbearing to execute such an offender was a kind of reanimation or resuscitation of him or her in direct contravention of the divine statute. This is, perhaps, the most plausible solution of a phraseology of which Michaelis inti-pal act of religious worship among the mates that it occasioned him no little difficulty, as the usual mode of expression in the Levitical penal statutes is moth yamuth, he or she dying shall die, shall die the death, instead of shall not be suffered to live. But his proposal to read shall not be, is supported by no authority whatever; and our interpretation renders it unnecessary.

Law respecting Beastiality.

19. Whosoever lieth, &c. This was a crime of such crying enormity that the earth itself was defiled by bearing such a monster of impurity as its perpetrator, and he was at once to be cut

Law respecting Idolatrous Sacrifices. 20. He that sacrificeth, &c. This is clearly the sin prohibited in the first commandment of the Decalogue, but it is enumerated also under the judicial laws, and marked with the punishment of death, not only because it was a high handed moral offence, but also a crime against the state. Under the theocracy, as we have before remarked, God was the national king of Israel, and idolatry being the virtual acknowledgment of another sovereign, was of course, to be accounted as nothing less than downright rebellion or treason against the supreme authority. Sacrificing, being the princi

heathen, is selected as the overt act of idolatry, which constituted the capital offence; although under this name are doubtless included the various idolatrous services specified in the parallel law, Deut. 17. 2-5.-¶ Shall be utterly destroyed. Heb. yohoram, anathematrzed, i. e. destroyed as execrable and accursed, put to death without mercy, as the original herem, a devoted thing, an anathema, implies. Gr. εoλolρεvOnoerai, shall be destroyed. Chal. 'Shall be killed.' Targ. Jon. 'Shall be killed with the sword and his goods consumed.' This law, however, is understood by the Hebrew canonists of a knowing and wilful idolater, such an one as is de