the celebration of a nuptial banquet, as being a festivity of the first consequence, were of peculiar splendour and magnificence. Chaplets of flowers only constituted the nuptial crowns of the Romans. Some writers have supposed that the nuptial crowns and other ornaments of a bride, are alluded to in Ezek. xvi. 8—12.

After the connubial union was solemnly ratified and attested, and the religious part of it concluded, it was customary for the bridegroom, as among the Greeks and Romans, in the evening to conduct his spouse from her friends to his own home with all the pomp, brilliancy, and joy that could be crowded into the procession. It was usual for the bridegroom to invite his young female friends and relations to grace this procession, and to add numbers and lustre to his retinue: these, adorned in robes suitable to the occasion, took lamps, and waited in a company near the house, till the bride and bridegroom with their friends issued forth, whom they welcomed with the customary congratulations-then joined in the train, and with songs and acclamations, and every demonstration of joy, advanced to the bridegroom's house, where an entertainment was provided, according to the circumstances of the united pair. This nuptial feast was adorned and celebrated only by a select company of the bride and bridegroom's friends-no strangers were admitted-by these the evening was spent in all the convivial enjoyment, which social happiness, their approbation of the late union, and the splendour of such a festivity could inspire. These several ceremonies and circumstances here recorded, concerning the manner in which the Jews solemnised their nuptials, are alluded to in that beautiful parable (Matt. xxv.), in which our Saviour represents ten virgins taking their lamps and going in a company to meet the bridegroom. Five of these were endued with prudence and discretion: the other five were thoughtless and inconsiderate. The thoughtless took indeed their lamps, but had not the precaution to replenish them with oil. But the prudent, mindful of futurity, carried oil with them in vessels. Having waited a long time for the bridegroom, and he not appearing, they all fatigued with tedious expectation, sunk in profound repose. But lo! at midnight they were suddenly alarmed with a cry-the bridegroom, the bridegroom is coming! Hasten to meet and congratulate him. Roused with this unexpected proclamation they all arose up and trimmed their lamps. The thoughtless then began to solicit the others to impart to them some of their oil-telling them that their lamps were entirely extinguished. To these entreaties the prudent answered-that they had only provided a sufficient quantity for their own use, and therefore advised them to go and purchase oil of those who sold it. They departed accordingly-but during their absence the bridegroom came, and the prudent virgins, being prepared for his reception, went along with him to the nuptial entertainment.-The doors were then immediately shut. After some time the others came to the door, and supplicated earnestly for

VOL. III.

53

admission. But the bridegroom repulsed them-telling them, he did not know them, and would not admit any strangers.1

From another parable, in which a great king is represented as making a most magnificent entertainment at the marriage of his son, we learn that all the guests, who were honoured with an invitation, were expected to be dressed in a manner suitable to the splendour of such an occasion, and as a token of just respect to the newmarried couple-and that after the procession in the evening from the bride's house was concluded, the guests, before they were admitted into the hall where the entertainment was served up, were taken into an apartment and viewed, that it might be known if any stranger had intruded, or if any of the company were apparelled in raiments unsuitable to the genial solemnity they were going to celebrate; and such, if found, were expelled the house with every mark of ignominy and disgrace. From the knowledge of this custom the following passage receives great light and lustre. When the king came in to see the guests, he discovered among them a person who had not on a wedding garment. He called him and said: Friend, how came you to intrude into my palace in a dress so unsuitable to this occasion? The man was struck dumb-he had no apology to offer for this disrespectful neglect. The king then called to his servants, and bade them bind him hand and foot-to drag him out of the room-and thrust him out into midnight darkness. (Matt. xxii. 2.)2

The Scripture, moreover, informs us that the marriage festivals of the Jews lasted a whole week. And Laban said; It must not be so done in our country to give the younger before the first born. Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also. (Gen. xxix. 26, 27.) And Sampson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you :

1 Mr. Ward has given the following description of a Hindoo wedding, which furnishes a striking parallel to the parable of the wedding feast in the Gospel. "At a marriage, the procession of which I saw some years ago, the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived at Serampore, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After waiting two or three hours, at length, near midnight, it was announced, as if in the very words of Scripture, behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him. All the persons employed, now lighted their lamps, and ran with them in their hands to fill up their stations in the procession; some of them had lost their lights, and were unprepared, but it was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to the house of the bride, at which place the company entered a large and splendidly illuminated area, before the house, covered with an awning, where a great multitude of friends, dressed in their best apparel, were seated upon mats. The bridegroom was carried in the arms of a friend, and placed on a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a short time, and then went into the house, the door of which was immediately shut, and guarded by Sepoys. I and others expostulated with the door-keepers, but in vain. Never was I so struck with our Lord's beautiful parable, as at this moment: -"And the door was shut!" Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. iii. pp. 171, 172.

2 Dr. Macknight has well illustrated this parable. It seems, says this learned and judicious commentator, that before the guests were admitted into the hall of entertainment, they were taken into some apartment of the palace, where the king viewed them to see that they were all dressed in a manner suitable to the occasion. Here he found one that had not on a wedding garment-and being provoked at the affront, he ordered him to be immediately thrust out of the palace. Macknight's Harmony of the Gospel, p. 481. second edition.

if you can certainly declare it me within the SEVEN DAYS of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets, and thirty change of garments. (Judges xiv. 12.) This week was spent in feasting, and was devoted to universal joy. To the festivity of this occasion our Lord refers. Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. (Mark ii. 19, 20.)

The eastern people were very reserved, not permitting the young women at marriages to be in the same apartments with the men; and, therefore, as the men and women could not amuse themselves with one another's conversation, the men did not spend their time merely in dull eating and drinking: for their custom was to propose questions and hard problems, by resolving of which they exercised the wit and sagacity of the company. This was done at Samson's marriage, where he proposed a riddle to divert his company. (Judg. xiv. 12.)

It was also usual, we find, to choose a master of the ceremonies to do the honours of the solemnity, and to superintend and conduct the festival with just propriety and decorum. Of this appointment we have express mention, in the account of the marriage at Cana in Galilee, which our Lord deigned to honour with his presence, and to dignify with a miracle. There were in the house six, water vessels of stone, placed according to the Jewish rite of purification, which contained each about two or three firkins. Jesus said to the servants-Fill these vessels with water.-They filled them up all to the brim. Jesus then said, draw out some of the liquor, and carry it to the governor of the feast. (John ii. 8.) When the master of the ceremonies tasted the water, now converted into excellent wine, he was astonished, he could not imagine how they obtained it. The servants only, who had brought him the liquor, knew this. He instantly calls the bridegroom to him, and says: It is always customary at an entertainment to bring out the best wine first, and when the taste of the company is blunted with drinking, it is usual to bring them wine of an inferior sort. You have, it seems, reversed this custom-for you have reserved your best wine to the last.

V. Marriage was dissolved among the Jews by divorce as well as by death. Our Saviour tells us, that Moses suffered this only because of the hardness of their heart, but from the beginning it was not so (Matt. xix. 8.); meaning that they were accustomed to this abuse; and to prevent greater evils, such as murders, adulteries, &c. he permitted it; whence it should seem to have been in use before the law; and we see that Abraham dismissed Hagar, at the

1 Among the Bedouin Arabs, a brother finds himself more dishonoured by the seduction of his sister than a man by the infidelity of his wife. This will account for the sanguinary revenge taken by Simeon and Levi upon the Shechemites for the defilement of their sister Dinah. (Gen. xxxiv, 25-31.) See D'Arvieux's Travels in Arabia the Desert, pp. 243, 244.

request of Sarah. It appears that Samson's father-in-law understood that his daughter had been divorced, since he gave her to another. (Judg. xv. 2.) The Levite's wife, who was dishonoured at Gibeah, had forsaken her husband, and never would have returned, if he had not gone in pursuit of her. (Judg. xix. 2, 3.) Solomon speaks of a libertine woman, who had forsaken her husband, the director of her youth, and (by doing so contrary to her nuptial vows) had forgotten the covenant of her God. (Prov. ii. 17.) Ezra and Nehemiah obliged a great number of the Jews to dismiss the foreign women, whom they had married contrary to the law (Ezra x. 11, 12. 19.): but our Saviour has limitted the permission of divorce to the single case of adultery. (Matt. v. 31, 32.) Nor was this limitation unnecessary; for, at that time it was common for the Jews to dissolve this sacred union upon very slight and trivial pretences. The Pharisees, we read, came to our Lord, and said to him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause,―for any thing whatever that may be disagreeable in her? Upon our Lord's answer to this inquiry, that it was not lawful for a man to repudiate his wife, except for her violation of the conjugal honour, the disciples (who had been educated in Jewish prejudces and principles,) hearing this, said-If the case of the man be so with his wife, if he be not allowed to divorce her except only for adultery, it is not good to marry! (Matt. xix. 10.) This facility in procuring divorces, and this caprice and levity among the Jews, in dissolving the matrimonial connection, is confirmed by Josephus, and unhappily verified in his own example: for he tells us that he repudiated his wife, though she was the mother of three children, because he was not pleased with her manners.1

1 Josephus de Vita sua. Op. tom. ii. p. 39. ed. Havercamp.

CHAPTER IV.

BIRTH, EDUCATION, ETC. OF CHILDREN.

I. Child-birth.-Circumcision.-Naming of the Child.-II. Privileges of the First-born. III. Nurture of Children.-IV. Power of the Father over his Children.-Disposition of his Property.V. Adoption.

I. IN the East (as indeed in Switzerland and some other parts of Europe, where the women are very robust,) child-birth is to this day an event of but little difficulty; and mothers were originally the only assistants of their daughters, as any further aid was deemed unnecessary. This was the case of the Hebrew women in Egypt (Exod. i. 19.); midwives were employed only in cases of extraordinary difficulty. From Ezek. xvi. 4., it appears to have been the custom, to wash the child as soon as it was born, to rub it with salt, and to wrap it in swaddling clothes. The birth-day of a son was celebrated as a festival, which was solemnised every succeeding year with renewed demonstrations of festivity and joy, especially those of sovereign princes. (Gen. xl. 20. Job i. 4. Matt. xiv. 6.) The birth of a son or of a daughter rendered the mother ceremonially unclean for a certain period; at the expiration of which she went into the tabernacle or temple, and offered the accustomed sacrifice of purification, viz. a lamb of a year old, or, if her circumstances would not afford it, two turtle doves and two young pigeons. (Lev. xii. 1-8. Luke ii. 22.)

On the eighth day after its birth, the son was circumcised, by which rite it was consecrated to the service of the true God (Gen. xvii. 10. compared with Rom. iv. 11.): on the nature of circumcision, see pp. 257-259. supra. At the same time, the male child received a name (as we have already remarked in p..259.): in many instances he received a name from the circumstances of his birth, or from some peculiarities in the history of the family to which he belonged (Gen. xvi. 11. xxv. 25, 26. Exod. ii. 10. xviii. 3, 4.); and sometimes the name had a prophetic meaning. (Isa. vii. 14. viii. 3. Hos. i. 4. 6. 9. Matt. i. 21. Luke i. 13. 60. 63.)

II. The First-born, who was the object of special affection to his parents, was denominated by way of eminence, on the opening of the womb. In case a man married with a widow, who by a previous marriage had become the mother of children, the first-born as respected the second husband was the child that was eldest by the second marriage. Before the time of Moses, the father might, if he chose, transfer the right of primogeniture to a younger child, but the practice occasioned much contention (Gen. xxv. 31, 32.), and a law was enacted overruling it. (Deut. xxi. 15-17.)

The first-born inherited peculiar rights and privileges.-1. He received a double portion of the estate. Jacob in the case of Reuben, his first-born, bestowed his additional portion upon Joseph,