and hatred so often expressed by the Jews in the evangelical histories against the collectors of the taxes or tribute.1

The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke xviii. 10— 13.) will derive considerable illustration from these circumstances. Our Saviour, in bringing these two characters together, appears to have chosen them as making the strongest contrast between what, in the public estimation, were the extremes of excellence and villany. The Pharisees, it is well known, were the most powerful sect among the Jews, and made great pretences to piety: and when the account of the Persian rahdars given in the preceding page is recollected, it will account for the Pharisee, in addressing God, having made extortioners and the unjust, almost synonymous terms with publicans; because, from his peculiar office, the rahdar is almost an extortioner by profession.2

1 Lardner's Credibility, part i. book i. c. 9. § 10 11.

2 Morier's Second Tour, p. 71.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE TREATIES, OR COVENANTS, AND CONTRACTS OF THE JEWS.

I. Whether the Jews were prohibited from concluding treaties with heathen nations.-II. Treaties, how made and ratified.—Covenant of Salt.-Allusions in the Scriptures to the making of Treaties or Covenants.-III. Contracts for the Sale and Cession of Alienable Property, how made.

1. A TREATY is a pact or covenant made with a view to the public welfare by the superior power. It is a common mistake that the Israelites were prohibited from forming alliances with Heathens: this would in effect have amounted to a general prohibition of alliance with any nation whatever, because, at that time all the world were Heathens. In the Mosaic law, not a single statute is enacted, that prohibits the conclusion of treaties with heathen nations in general; although for the reasons therein specified, Moses either commands them to carry on eternal war against the Canaanites, Amalekites, Moabites, and Ammonites, or else forbids all friendship with these particular nations. It is however clear, from Deut. xxiii. 4-9., that he did not entertain the same opinion with regard to all foreign nations for in that passage, though the Moabites are pronounced to be an abomination to the Israelites, no such declaration is made respecting the Edomites. Further, it is evident that they felt themselves bound religiously to observe treaties when actually concluded, though one of the contracting parties had been guilty of fraud in the transaction. David and Solomon lived in alliance with the king of Tyre; and the former with the king of Hamath ( 2 Sam. viii. 9, 10.); and the queen of Sheba cannot be regarded in any other light than as an ally of Solomon's. The only treaties condemned by the prophets are those with the Egyptians and Assyrians, which were extremely prejudicial to the nation, by involving it continually in quarrels with sovereigns more powerful than the Jewish monarchs.

II. Various solemnities were used in the conclusion of treaties; sometimes it was done by a simple junction of the hands. (Prov. xi. 21. Ezek. xvii. 18.) The Hindoos to this day ratify an engagement by one person laying his right hand on the hand of the other.1 Sometimes also the covenant was ratified by erecting a heap of stones, to which a suitable name was given, referring to the subjectmatter of the covenant (Gen. xxxi. 44-54.); that made between Abraham and the king of Gerar was ratified by the oath of both parties, by a present from Abraham to the latter of seven ewe lambs, and by giving a name to the well which had given occasion to the

1 Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 328.

transaction. (Gen. xxi. 22-32.) It was moreover customary to cut the victim (which was to be offered as a sacrifice upon the occasion) into two parts, and so by placing each half upon two different altars, to cause those who contracted the covenant to pass between both. (Gen. xv. 9, 10. 17. Jer. xxxiv. 18.) This rite was practised both by believers and heathens at their solemn leagues; at first doubtless with a view to the great sacrifice, who was to purge our sins in his own blood and the offering of these sacrifices, and passing between the parts of the divided victim, was symbolically staking their hopes of purification and salvation on their performance of the conditions on which it was offered.

This remarkable practice may be clearly traced in the Greek and Latin writers. Homer has the following expression:

Eustathius explains the passage by saying, they were oaths relating to important matters, and were made by the division of the victim. See also Virgil, Æn. viii. ver. 640.

The editor of the fragments supplementary to Calmet1 is of opinion that what is yet practised of this ceremony may elucidate that passage in Isa. xxviii. 15. We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves. As if it had been said: We have cut off a covenant sacrifice, a purification offering with death, and with the grave we have settled, so that the Scourge shall not injure us. May not such a custom have been the origin of the following superstition related by Pitts? "If they (the Algerine corsairs) at any time happen to be in a very great strait or distress, as being chased, or in a storm, they will gather money, light up candles in remembrance of some dead marrabot (saint) or other, calling upon him with heavy sighs and groans. If they find no succour from their before-mentioned rites and superstitions, but that the danger rather increases, then they go to sacrificing a sheep (or two or three upon occasion, as they think needful), which is done after this manner having cut off the head with a knife, they immediately take out the entrails, and throw them and the head overboard; and then, with all the speed they can (without skinning) they cut the body into two parts by the middle, and throw one part over the right side of the ship, and the other over the left, into the sea, as a kind of propitiation. Thus those blind infidels apply themselves to imaginary intercessors, instead of the living and the true God." In the case here referred to, the ship passes between the parts thus thrown on each side of it. This behaviour of the Algerines may be taken as a pretty accurate counterpart to that of making a covenant with death and with imminent danger of destruction, by appeasing the angry gods.

1 No. 129.

2 Travels, p. 18.

Festivities always accompanied the ceremonies attending oaths. Isaac and Abimelech feasted at making their covenant (Gen. xxvi. 30.), and he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. (Gen. xxxi. 54.) Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread. This practice was also usual amongst the heathen nations.1

Afterwards, when the Mosaic law was established, and the people were settled in the land of Canaan, the people feasted, in their peace offerings, on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their reconciliation with God (Deut. xii. 6, 7.): and thus, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we renew our covenant with God, and (in the beautiful language of the communion office of the Anglican church) "we offer and present ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice" unto Him, being at His table feasted with the bread and wine, the representation of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood; who by himself once offered upon the cross has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and atonement for the sin of the whole world.

Sometimes the parties to the covenant were sprinkled with the blood of the victim. Thus Moses, after sprinkling part of the blood on the altar, to show that Jehovah was a party to the covenant, sprinkled part of it on the Israelites, and said unto them, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. (Exod. xxiv. 6. 8.) To this transaction Saint Paul alludes in his Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 20.), and explains its evangelical meaning.

The Scythians are said to have first poured wine into an earthen vessel, and then the contracting parties, cutting their arms with a knife, let some of the blood run into the wine, with which they stained their armour. After which they themselves, together with the other persons present, drank of the mixture, uttering the direst maledictions on the party who should violate the treaty.2

Another mode of ratifying covenants was by the superior contracting party presenting to the other some articles of his own dress or arms. Thus Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon 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.3

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

1 Burder's Oriental Customs, vol. ii. p. 84.-Fifth edition. See examples of the antient mode of ratifying covenants, in Homer. Il. lib. iii. verses 103-107. 245. et seq. Virgil, Æn. lib. viii. 641. xii. 169. et seq. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, lib. v. c. 1. Hooke's Roman History, vol. i. p. 67.

2 Herodotus, lib. iv. c. 70. vol. i. p. 273. Oxon. 1809. Doughtæi Analecta, 1.

p. 69.

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

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 antiently 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, 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 veg nuwv in our stead, so his blood was to be poured out (sxxvvousvov, a sacrificial term) to make an atonement, as the words remission of sins evidently im ply; for without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. ix. 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

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