trict, Jebal Hesma; but Robinson says that though there is a sandy tract, el-Hismah, with mountains around it, on the east of Akabah, it does not constitute a separate division.

The whole of this region is at present occupied by various tribes of Bedouin Arabs. The chief tribe in the Jebal is the Hejaya, with a branch of the Kaabineh, while in esh-Sherah they are all of the numerous and powerful tribe of the Haweitat, with a few independent allies. The Bedouins in Idumæa have of late years been partially subject to the Pacha of Egypt, paying an annual tribute, which, in the case of the Beni Sukhr, is one camel for two tents. The fellahin, or peasants, are half Bedouin, inhabiting the few villages, but dwelling also in tents; they too pay tribute to the Egyptian government, and furnish supplies of grain.

Among the localities connected with Edom which are mentioned in Scripture may be noticed Dinhabah, Bozrah, Theman, Maon (now Maan), Kadesh-barnea (which Robinson identifies with el-Weibeh in the Wady el-Jeib), Zephath (which he supposes to be the pass of Es-Sufah), Elath, and Ezion-geber, &c.; but the most celebrated place in all the region was the chief city, Selah or Petra, for a description of which the reader is referred to the latter head [PETRA].

Could the scene of the book of Job he with

certainty fixed in Idumæa, we should then pos

sess much curious and valuable information re

specting both the country and people soon after it had been colonized by the descendants of Esau (See Mason Good, Wemyss, and others upon Job). But all that we learn directly of the ancient Edomites from the historical books of Scripture represents them as not, indeed, neglect ing agriculture or trade (Num. xx. 17), yet, on the whole, as a warlike and predatory race, who, according to the prediction of their progenitor Isaac,lived by their sword.' The situation of the country afforded peculiar facilities for commerce, which seems to have been prosecuted from a very early period. 'Bordering,' says Volney, upon Arabia on the east and south, and Egypt on the south-west, and forming, from north to south, the most commodious channel of commu

nication between Jerusalem and her dependencies on the Red Sea, through the continuous valleys of El-Ghor and El-Araba, Idumæa may be said to have long formed the emporium of the commerce of the East. The era of its greatest prosperity was after the Nabathaans had become masters of the country and founded the kingdom of Arabia Petræa, of which the renowned metropolis was Petra. The religion of the early Edomites was, perhaps, comparatively pure; but in process of time they embraced idolatry: in 2 Chron. xxv. 20, we read of the gods of Edom,' one of whom, according to Josephus (Antiq. xv. 7. 9), was called Kotzé. With respect to the striking fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations upon Edom, we need only refer the reader to the well-known work of Keith, who frequently errs, however, in straining the sense of prophecy be yond its legitimate import, as well as in seeking out too literally minute an accomplishment. On Idumæa generally, see C. B. Michaelis, Diss. de Antiquiss. Idumæor. Hist. in Pott and Ruperti's Sylloge Comment. Theologic. Part VI. p. 121; J. D. Michaelis, Comment. de Troglodytis Sei

ritis, in the Syntagma Commentt., Part I. p. 194; but especially, Sketches of Idumea and its present Inhabitants, by Dr. E. Robinson, in the Amer Bib. Repository for April, 1833, p. 247; and the Bib. Researches of the same writer, vol. ik p. 551.-N. M.

ILLYRICUM ('Iλλupikóv), a country lying to the north-west of Macedonia, and answering nearly to that which is at present called Dalmatia; by which name indeed the southern part of Illyricum itself was known, and whither St. Paul informs Timothy that Titus had gone (2 Tim. iv. 10). Paul himself preached the Gospel in Illyricum, which was at that time a province of the Roman Empire (Rom. xv. 19).

·

IMMANUEL ; Sept. 'Eμanový) or EMMANUEL. This word, meaning God with us,' occurs in the celebrated verse of Isaiah (vii. 14), Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL.' In forty-three MSS. and thirty-nine printed editions, the word is given in the separate form uny; but, as Dr. Henderson remarks, in the orthography of all compound names, the MSS. and editions widely differ.' In the name itself there is no difficulty; but the verse, as a whole, has been the word God, and even Jehovah, is used in the variously interpreted. From the manner in which composition of Hebrew names, there is no such peculiarity in that of Immanuel as in itself requires

us to understand that he who bore it must be in

fact God. Indeed, it is used as a proper name among the Jews at this day. This high sense has, the application of the whole verse, by the Evanhowever, been assigned to it in consequence of Even if this reference did not exist, the history gelist Matthew (i. 23), to our Divine Saviour. of the Nativity would irresistibly lead us to the conclusion that the verse-whatever may have been its intermediate signification-had an ulti

mate reference to Christ.

thus neatly summed up by Dr. Henderson, in his The state of opinion on this point has been note on the text :- This verse has long been a subject of dispute between Jews and professedly While the former reject its application to the Christian writers, and among the latter mutually. Messiah altogether, the earlier rabbins explaining it of the queen of Ahaz and the birth of his Abarbanel, of the prophet's own wife,-the great son Hezekiah; and the later, as Kimchi and body of Christian interpreters have held it to be directly and exclusively in prophecy of our Saviour, and have considered themselves fully gelist Matthew. Others, however, have departed borne out by the inspired testimony of the Evanfrom this construction of the passage, and have invented or adopted various hypotheses in support of such dissent. Grotius, Faber, Isenbiehl, Hezel, Bolten, Fritsche, Pluschke, Gesenius, and Hitzig, suppose either the then present or a future wife of Isaiah to be the y almah [rendered "virgin"], referred to. Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler, and Ammon, are of opinion that the prophet had nothing more in view than an ideal virgin, and that both she and her son are merely imaginary personages, introduced for the purpose of prophetic illustration. Bauer, Cube, Steudel, and some

athers, think that the prophet pointed to a young woman in the presence of the king and his courtiers. A fourth class, among whom are Richard Simon, Lowth, Koppe, Dathe, Williams, Von Meyer, Olshausen, and Dr. J. Pye Smith, admit the hypothesis of a double sense: one, in which the words apply primarily to some female living in the time of the prophet, and her giving birth to a son according to the ordinary laws of nature; or, as Dathe holds, to some virgin, who at that time should miraculously conceive; and the other, in which they received a secondary and plenary fulfilment in the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus Christ.'

INCENSE, a perfume which gives forth its fragrance by burning, and, in particular, that perfume which was burnt upon the altar of incense [ALTAR; CENSER]. Indeed, the burning of incense seems to have been considered among the Hebrews so much of an act of worship or sacred offering, that we read not of any other use of incense than this among them. Nor among the Egyptians do we discover any trace of burnt perfume but in sacerdotal use; but in the Persian sculptures we see incense burnt before the king. The prohibition of the Hebrews to make any perfume for private use- to smell to-like that prepared for the altar, merely implies, we apprehend, that the sacred incense had a peculiarly rich fragrance before being burnt, which was forbidden to be imitated in common perfumes.

The incense is denoted by the words miktar (Exod. xxx. 1); p kitter (Jer. xliv. 21); and p kituroth (Exod. xxx. 1; xxxi. 11; Ezek. xvi. 18); all of which are equally from the root p, which, in Pihel, signifies gene rally to raise an odour by burning; and in the verbal form it is applied not only to the offering of incense but also of sacrifices, the smoke or effluvium of which is regarded as an acceptable or sweet odour to God. Indeed, the word which denotes an incense of spices in Exod. xxx. I describes an incense of fat in Ps. lxvi, 15.

The ingredients of the sacred incense are enumerated with great precision in Exod. xxx. 34, 35: 'Take unto thee sweet spices, stacte (netaph), and onycha ( shecheleph), and galbanum (chelbenah); these sweet spices with pure frankincense ( lebonah): of each shall there be a like weight. And thou shalt make of it a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, tempered together, pure and holy.' For an explanation of these various ingredients we must refer to their several Hebrew names in the present work. The further directions are, that this precious compound should be made or broken up into minute particles, and that it should be deposited, as a very holy thing, in the tabernacle before the testimony' (or ark). As the ingredients are so minutely specified, there was nothing to prevent wealthy persons from having a similar perfume for private use: this, therefore, was forbidden under pain of excommunication: Ye shall not make to yourselves according to the composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the Lord. Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people' (ver. 37, 38).

·

The word which describes the various ingredients as being 'tempered together' literally means salted' ( memullach). The Chaldee and Greek versions, however, have set the example of rendering it by 'mized' or 'tempered,' as if their idea was that the different ingredients were to be mixed together, just as salt is mixed with any substance over which it is sprinkled. Ainsworth contends for the literal meaning, inasmuch as the law (Lev. ii. 13) expressly says, ' With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. In support of this he cites Maimonides, who affirms that there was not any thing offered on the altar without salt, except the wine of the drink offering, and the blood, and the wood; and of the incense he says, still more expressly, that they added to it a cab of salt.' In accordance with this, it is supposed, our Saviour says, Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt' (Mark ix. 49). Ainsworth further remarks: If our speech is to be always with grace, seasoned with salt, as the apostle teaches (Col. iv. 6), how much more should our incense, our prayers unto God, be therewith seasoned? It is, however, difficult to see how so anomalous a substance as salt could well be combined in the preparation; and if it was used, as we incline to think that it was, it was probably added in the act of offering.

་

The above reference to Maimonides reminds us of the reason which he assigns, in the More Nevochim, for the use of incense in the Jewish ritual service: To prevent the stench which would otherwise have been occasioned by the number of beasts every day slaughtered in the sanctuary, God ordained that incense should be burned in it every morning and evening, and thereby rendered the odour of the sanctuary and of the vestments of those that ministered exceedingly grateful; which has occasioned the saying of our rabbins, That the odour of the incense extended to Jericho. This, therefore, is another of the precepts conducing to the reverence and veneration which ought to be entertained for the sanctuary: for if the perfume thereof had not been pleasant, but the contrary, it would have produced contempt instead of veneration, since a grateful odour pleases and attracts, while an unpleasant one disgusts and repels.'

This is very well; and no doubt the use of incense, which we always find in religions where worship is rendered by sacrifice, had its origin in some such considerations. But we are not to lose sight of the symbolical meaning of this grateful offered at the time when the people were in the offering. It was a symbol of prayer. It was posture and act of prayer; and their orisons were supposed to be presented to God by the priest, and to ascend to Him in the smoke and odour of that

fragrant offering. This beautiful idea of the incxli. 2; Mal. i. 11; Zech. xiv. 16; Acts x. 4; cense frequently occurs in Scripture (comp. Ps.

Rev. v. 8: viii. 4).

ochus and gave to Eumenes (1 Macc. viii. 8). It is also with some reason conceived that in Acts ii. 9, we should read 'Ivolay, India, and not 'Iovdaíav, Judæa. If this could be admitted, an interesting subject of inquiry would arise; for these dwellers in India-that is, Jews of India-are described as being present in Jerusalem at the Passover. There is much to say in favour of this reading, but more in favour of Idumæa; for the name of that country, 'Idovuaíav, might, much more easily than that of India, 'Ivdíav, have been accidentally, or rather carelessly, corrupted into 'lovdaíav: and, at the same time, the name of Idumæa would come better into the list than that of India, seeing that the enumeration is manifestly taken from east to west; which allows Idumaa with great propriety to follow Mesopotamia, but forbids India to do so. Whichever may be right, Judæa cannot but be wrong; and, indeed, on the face of the list, we cannot but see the superfluousness of the information, that the people of Judæa were present in their own city at the Passover.

It is evident on the face of the above intimations, and indeed from all ancient history, that the country known as India in ancient times extended more to the west, and did not reach so far to the east-that is, was not known so far to the eastas the India of the moderns. When we read of ancient India, we must clearly not understand the whole of Hindostan, but chiefly the northern parts of it, or the countries between the Indus and the Ganges; although it is not necessary to assert that the rest of that peninsula, particularly its western coast, was then altogether unknown. It was from this quarter that the Persians and Greeks (to whom we are indebted for the earliest accounts of India) invaded the country; and this was consequently the region which first became generally known. The countries bordering on the Ganges continued to be involved in obscurity, the great Kingdom of the Prasians excepted, which, situated nearly above the modern Bengal, was dimly discernible. The nearer we approach the Indus, the more clear becomes our knowledge of the ancient geography of the country; and it follows that the districts of which at the present day we know the least, were anciently best known. Besides, the western and northern boundaries were not the same as at present. To the west, India was not then bounded by the river Indus, but by a chain of mountains which, under the name of Koh (whence the Grecian appellation of the Indian Caucasus), extended from Bactria to Makran, or Gedrosia, enclosing the kingdoms of Candahar and Cabul, the modern kingdom of Eastern Persia, or Afghanistan. These districts anciently formed part of India, as well as, further to the south, the less perfectly known countries of the Arabi and Haurs (the Arabitæ and Oritæ of Arrian, vi. 21), bordering on Gedrosia. This western boundary continued at all times the same, and was removed to the Indus only in consequence of the victories of Nadir Shah.

Towards the north, ancient India overpassed not less its present limit. It comprehended the whole of the mountainous region above Cashmir, Badakshan, Belur Land, the western boundary mountains of Little Bucharia, or Little Thibet, and even the desert of Cobi, so far as it was known. The discovery of a passage by sea to the coasts of India has contributed to withdraw

from these regions the attention of Europeans, and left them in an obscurity which hitherto has been little disturbed, although the current of events seems likely ere long to lead to our better knowledge.

From this it appears that the India of Scripture included no part of the present India, seeing that it was confined to the territories possessed by the Persians and the Syrian Greeks, that never extended beyond the Indus, which, since the time of Nadir Shah, has been regarded as the western boundary of India. Something of India beyond the Indus became known through the conquering march of Alexander, and still more through that of Selencus Nicator, who penetrated to the banks of the Ganges; but the notions thus obtained are not embraced in the Scriptural notices, which, both in the canonical and the Apocryphal text, are confined to Persian India. (See Heeren's Historical Researches, i. c. 1, § 3, on Persian India; and Rennel's Geog. of Herodotus).

INHERITANCE. The laws and observances which determine the acquisition and regulate the devolution of property, are among the influences which affect the vital interests of states; and it is therefore of high consequence to ascertain the nature and bearing of the laws and observances relating to this subject, which come to us with the sanction of the Bible. We may also premise that, in a condition of society such as that in which we now live, wherein the two diverging tendencies which favour immense accumulations on the one hand, and lead to poverty and pauperism on the other, are daily becoming more and more decided, disturbing, and baneful, there seems to be required on the part of those who take Scripture as their guide, a careful study of the foundations of human society, and of the laws of property, as they are developed in the divine records which contain the revealed will of God.

That will, in truth, as it is the source of all created things, and specially of the earth and its intelligent denizen, man, so is it the original foundation of property, and of the laws by which its inheritance should be regulated. God, as the Creator of the earth, gave it to man to be held, cultivated, and enjoyed (Gen. i. 28, sq.; Ps. cxv. 16; Eccles. v. 9). The primitive records are too brief and fragmentary to supply us with any details respecting the earliest distribution or transmission of landed property; but from the passages to which reference has been made, the important fact appears to be established beyond a question, that the origin of property is to be found, not in the achievements of violence, the success of the sword, or any imaginary implied contract, but in the will and the gift of the common Creator and bountiful Father of the human race. It is equally clear that the gift was made, not to any favoured portion of our race, but to the race itself to man as represented by our great primogenitor, to whom the use of the divine gift was first graciously vouchsafed. The individual appropriation of portions of the earth, and the transmission of the parts thus appropriated, in other words, the consuetudinary laws of property, would be determined in each instance by the peculiar circumstances in which an individual, a family, or a clan, might find itself placed in relation to the world and its other inhabitants;

nor is it now, in the absence of written evidence, possible to ascertain, and it is useless, if not worse, to attempt to conjecture, what these laws were. This, however, is certain, that if in any case they inflicted injury, if they aided the aggrandisement of the few, and tended to the depression of the many, they thereby became unjust, and not only lost their divine sanction, but, by opposing the very purposes for which the earth was given to man, and operating in contravention of the divine will, they were disowned and condemned of God, the tenure of the property was forfeited, and a recurrence to first principles and a re-distribution became due alike to the original donor, and to those whom He had intended impartially to be

Defit.

The enforcement of these principles has, in different periods of human history, been made by the seen hand of God, in those terrible providential visitations which upturn the very foundations of society and reconstruct the social frame. The Deluge was a kind of revocation of the divine gift; the Creator took back into his own hands the earth which men had filled with injustice and violence. The trust, however, was, after that terrible punishment, once more committed to man, to be held, not for himself, but for God, and to be so used and improved as to further the divine will by furthering human good. And, whatever conduct may have been pursued, at any period, at variance with the divine purpose, yet it is in trust, not in absolute possession, it is for God's purposes, not our own, that the earth at large, and every portion of the earth, has been and is still held. In truth, man is the tenant, nor the proprietor, of the earth. It is the temporary use, not the permanent possession of it that he enjoys. The lord of ten thousand broad acres, equally with the poor penniless squatter, is a sojourner and pilgrim in the land, as all his fathers were, and is bound, not less than the other, to remember, not only that property has its duties as well as its rights, but also that its best titles are held by a momentary tenure, revocable at the will of an omnipotent power, and subject to unerring scrutiny, in regard both to their origin and their use, in a court where the persons of men are not respected, where justice is laid to the line, and judgment to the plummet (Isa. xviii. 17).

The impression which the original gift of the earth was calculated to make on men, the Great Donor was pleased, in the case of Palestine, to render, for his own wise purposes, more decided and emphatic by an express re-donation to the patriarch Abraham (Gen. xiii. 14, sq.). Many years, however, elapsed before the promise was fulfilled. Meanwhile the notices which we have regarding the state of property in the patriarchal ages, are few and not very definite. The products of the earth, however, were at an early period accumulated and held as property. Violence invaded the possession; opposing violence recovered the goods. War soon sprang out of the passions of the human heart. The necessity of civil government was felt. Consuetudinary laws accordingly developed themselves. The head of the family was supreme. His will was law. The physical superiority which he possessed gave him this dominion. The same influence would secure its transmission in the male rather than the fe

male line. Hence too the rise of the rights of primogeniture. In the early condition of society which is called patriarchal, landed property had its origin, indeed, but could not be held of first importance by those who led a wandering life, shifting continually, as convenience suggested, from one spot to another. Cattle were then the chief property (Gen. xxiv. 35). But land, if held, was held on a freehold tenure; nor could any other tenure have come into existence till more complex and artificial relations arose, resulting, in all probability, from the increase of population and the relative insufficiency of food. When Joseph went down into Egypt, he appears to have found the freehold tenure prevailing, which, however, he converted into a tenancy at will, or, at any rate, into a conditional tenancy. Other intimations are found in Genesis which confirm the general statements which have just been made. Daughters do not appear to have had any inheritance. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they only serve to prove it. Thus Job (the book so called is undoubtedly very old, so that there is no impropriety in citing it in this connection) is recorded (xlii. 15) to have given his daughters an inheritance conjointly with their brothers-a record which of itself proves the singularity of the proceeding, and establishes our position that inheritance generally followed the male line. How highly the privileges conferred by primogeniture were valued, may be learnt from the history of Jacob and Esau. In the patriarchal age doubtless these rights were very great. The eldest son, as being by nature the first fitted for command, assumed influence and control, under his father, over the family and its dependents; and when the father was removed by death, he readily, and as if by an act of Providence, took his father's place. Thus he succeeded to the property in succeeding to the headship of the family, the clan, or the tribe. At first the eldest son most probably took exclusive possession of his father's property and power; and when, subsequently, a division became customary, he would still retain the largest share-a double portion, if not more (Gen. xxvii. 25, 29, 40). That in the days of Abraham other sons partook with the eldest, and that too though they were sons of concubines, is clear from the story of Hagar's expulsion:'Cast out (said Sarah) this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac ' (Gen. xxi. 10). The few notices left us in Genesis of the transfer of property from hand to hand are interesting, and bear a remarkable similarity to what takes place in Eastern countries even at this day (Gen. xxi. 22, sq.; xxiii. 9, sq.). The purchase of the Cave of Machpelah as a family buryingplace for Abraham, detailed in the last passage, serves to show the safety of property at that early period, and the facility with which an inheritance was transmitted even to sous' sons (comp. Gen. xlix. 29). That it was customary, during the father's lifetime, to make a disposition of property, is evident from Gen. xxiv. 33, where it is said that Abraham had given all he had to Isaac. This statement is further confirmed by ch. xxv. 5, 6, where it is added that Abraham gave to the sons of his concubines 'gifts, sending them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the east country.' Sometimes, however, so far

were the children of unmarried females from being dismissed with a gift, that they shared, with what we should term the legitimate children, in the father's property and rights. Thus Dan and Naphtali were sons of Bilhah, Rachel's maid, whom she gave to her husband, failing to bear children herself. So Gad and Asher were, under similar circumstances, sons of Zilpah, Leah's maid (Gen. xxx. 2-14). In the event of the eldest son's dying in the father's lifetime, the next son took his place; and if the eldest son left a widow, the next son made her his wife (Gen. xxxviii. 7, sq.), the offspring of which union was reckoned to the first-born and deceased son. Should the second likewise die, the third son took his place (Gen. xxxviii. 11). While the rights of the first-born were generally established and recognised, yet were they sometimes set aside in favour of a younger child. The blessing of the father or the grandsire seems to have been an act essential in the devolution of power and property-in its effects not unlike wills and testaments with us; and instances are not wanting in which this (so to term it) testamentary bequest set aside consuetudinary laws, and gave precedence to a younger son (Gen. xlviii. 15, sq.). Special claims on the parental regards were acknowledged and rewarded by special gifts, as in the case of Jacob's donation to Joseph (Gen. xlviii. 22). In a similar manner, bad conduct on the part of the eldest son (as well as of others) subjected him, if not to the loss of his rights of property, yet to the evil influence of his father's dying malediction (Gen. xlix. 3); while the good and favoured, though younger, son was led by the paternal blessing to anticipate, and probably also to reap, the richest inheritance of individual and social happiness (Gen. xlix. 8-22).

The original promise made to Abraham of the land of Palestine was solemnly repeated to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 3), the reason assigned being, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws; while it is expressly declared that the earlier inhabitants of the country were dispossessed and destined to extermination for the greatness of their iniquity. The possession of the promised land was embraced by Isaac in his dying benediction to Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 3, 4), to whom God vouchsafed (Gen. xxviii. 15; see also xxxv. 10, 11) to give a renewed assurance of the destined inheritance. That this donation, however, was held to be dependent for the time and manner of its fulfilment on the divine will, appears from Gen. xxxiii. 18, where Jacob, on coming into the land of Canaan, bought for an hundred pieces of money a parcel of a field, at the hand of the children of Hamor.' Delayed though the execution of the promise was, confidence never deserted the family of Abraham, so that Joseph, dying in the land of Egypt, assured his brothers that they would be visited of God and placed in possession of Canaan, enjoining on them, in this conviction, that, when conducted to their possession, they should carry his bones with them out of Egypt (Gen. 1. 25).

A promise thus given, thus repeated, and thus believed, easily, and indeed unavoidably, became the fundamental principle of that settlement of property which Moses made when at length he had effected the divine will in the redemption

of the children of Israel. The observances and practices, too, which we have noticed as prevailing among the patriarchs would, no doubt, have great influence on the laws which the Jewish legislator originated or sanctioned. The land of Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes descended through Isaac and Jacob from Abraham. The division was made by lot for an inheritance among the families of the sons of Israel, according to the tribes, and to the number and size of families in each tribe. The tribe of Levi, however, had no inheritance; but forty-eight cities with their suburbs were assigned to the Levites, each tribe giving according to the number of cities that fell to its share (Num. xxxiii. 50; xxxiv. 1; xxxv. 1). The inheritance thus acquired was never to leave the tribe to which it belonged; every tribe was to keep strictly to its own inheritance. An heiress, in consequence, was not allowed to marry out of her own tribe, lest property should pass by her marriage into another tribe (Num. xxxvi. 6-9). This restriction led to the marriage of heiresses with their near relations thus the daughters of Zelophehad 'were married unto their father's brother's sons,' and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father (ver. 11, 12; comp. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 7. 5). In general cases the inheritance went to sons, the first-born receiving a double portion, for he is the beginning of his father's strength. If a man had two wives, one beloved, the other hated, and if the first-born were the son of her who was hated, he nevertheless was to enjoy 'the right of the first-born' (Deut. xxi. 15). If a man left no sons, the inheritance passed to his daughters; if there was no daughter, it went to his brothers; in case there were no brothers, it was given to his father's brothers; if his father had no brothers, it came into possession of the nearest kinsman (Num. xxvii. 8). The land was Jehovah's, and could not therefore be permanently alienated. Every fiftieth year, whatever land had been sold returned to its former owner. The value and price of land naturally rose or fell in proportion to the number of years there were to elapse prior to the ensuing fiftieth or jubilee-year. If he who sold the land, or a kinsman, could redeem the land before the year of jubilee, it was to be restored to him on his paying to the purchaser the value of the produce of the years remaining till the jubilee. Houses in villages or unwalled towns might not be sold for ever; they were restored at the jubilee, and might at any time be redeemed. If a man sold a dwelling-house situated in a walled city, he had the option of redeeming it within the space of a full year after it had been sold; but if it remained unredeemed, it belonged to the purchaser, and did not return to him who sold it even at the jubilee (Lev. xxv. S. 23). The Levites were not allowed to sell the land in the suburbs of their cities, though they might dispose of the cities themselves, which, however, were redeemable at any time, and must return at the jubilee to their original possessors (Lev. xxvii. 16).

The regulations which the laws of Moses established rendered wills, or a testamentary disposition of (at least) landed property, almost, if no. quite, unnecessary; we accordingly find no provision for anything of the kind. Some difficulty may have been now and then occasioned when