πας Αιγυπτίοις και τοις λοιποις των ανθρωπων μαντικα, And Montfaucon, in his Hexapl. Orig., has published a fragment of Eusebius Emisenus, from a manuscript Catena in the library of the king of France, which may be thus translated: " God wills that they should eat some kinds of flesh, and that they should abstain from others, not that any of them in themselves were common or unclean, but this he did on two accounts; the one was, that he would have those animals to be eaten which were worshipped in Egypt, because eating them would render their pretensions most contemptible. And, pursuant to the same opinion, he forbids the eating of those kinds which the Egyptians used to eat very greedily and luxuriously, as the swine, &c. The other reason was, that their properties and natures seemed to lay a preju dice in the way of some of these, and to render them, as it were, a sort of profanation. Some were monstrously big, others very ugly, others fed upon dead bodies, and to others human nature had an inbred antipathy; so that, in the main, what the law forbid, was human nature's aversion before." Thus were the Jews taught to distinguish themselves from that people, not only in their religious worship, not being allowed" to sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians," Exod. vin. 26, but to deviate from them in the most common actions in life. By having a diet peculiar to themselves, by eating in one instance that to which the others attributed a certain sanctity, as the ox, the sheep, and the goat, and by holding in detestation those creatures which the others venerated as sacred, as the hawk, &c. they would be precluded from all intimacy or agreement; and of course from becoming corrupted by their idolatries or addicted to their superstitions. Not only were the Egyptians, but other heathen nations, and particularly the Canaanites, grossly corrupt in their manners, morals, and worship; and this restriction with respect to diet, was alike calculated to prevent intimacies with them; so that in no instance should "their table become a snare, or their entertainments a trap." Psal Ixix. 22. "This statute, above all others, established not only a political and sacred, but a physical separation of the Jews from all other people. It made it next to impossible for the one to mix with the other either in meals, in marriage, or in any familiar connexion. Their opposite customs in the article of diet, not only precluded a friendly and comfortable intimacy, but generated mutual contempt and abhorrence. The Jews religiously abhorred the society, manners, and institutions of the Gentiles, because they viewed their own abstinence from forbidden meats as a token of peculiar sanctity, and of course regarded other nations, who wanted this sanctity, as vile and detestable. They considered themselves as secluded by God himself from the profane world by a peculiar worship, government, law, dress, mode of living, and country. Though this separation from other people, on which the law respecting food was founded, created in the Jews a criminal pride and hatred of the Gentiles; yet it forcibly operated as a preservative from heathen idolatry, by precluding all familiarity with idolatrous nations." • So bigoted were the Jews in the observance of this law, that by ali napiA gen no reproaches, no threats, no sufferings, nay hardly by a new command from God himself, could they be brought to lay it aside. See 1 Maccab. i. 63; Ezek. iv. 14; Acts x. 14. Though some thousand years have passed since this discriminating ritual was given to the Jews, and though they have been scattered abroad among every nation upon earth; though their government and temple have been entirely destroyed, yet this prohibition of particular foods has been regarded, and has served, with other reasons, to keep them distinct and separate from every other people. We find Peter, after the vision recorded in the 10th chapter of the Acts, when he had entered the house of Cornelius, observed to the people who were present, "Ye know that it is not lawful for a man that is a Jew to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should call no man unclean. "Here," says Mr. JONES, in his Zoologia Ethica, "we have an apostolical comment ugon the sense of the vision. God had shewed him that henceforward he should call no living creatures unclean which were in any sense p proper for food; and by these brutes of all kinds he understands men of all nations. And, without question, he applied the vision to what the wisdom of God intended to express by it. The case was this: St. Peter, as a Jew, was bound to abstain from all those animals, the eating of which was prohibited by the law of Moses: but God showed him that he should no longer account these animals unclean. And what does he understand by it? That he should no longer account the heathen so. • God hath shewed me that I should call no man common or unclean; or, to speak in other words borrowed from the apostle, God hath shewed me that a Jew is now at liberty to keep company with or come unto one of another nation;' which, so long as the Mosaic distinction betwixt clean and unclean beasts was in force, it was not lawful for him to do." pp. xxv-xxviii. This view of the design of the law has been pursued with much learning by the Rev. Arthur Young, in his ingenious inquiry into the ancient idolatry, published about the middle of the last century. The other reasons adduced by Christian and Jewish rabbies, may be dispensed with. The latter contend, that the quality of the food as having a specific influence on the moral temperature, entered into the reason of the prohibition of certain animals; and Michaelis gravely combats the notion, as destitute of proof, that it is their eating camel's flesh so frequently, that makes the Arabs so prone to revenge. Yet, he inclines to suppose that dietetical considerations might, in the case of certain animals, influence the Jewish legislator. He does not, as Dr. Harris erroneously represents, assign it as the principal reason, but adds: Only we are not to seek for them in all the prohibitions relative to unclean beasts."* Smith's Michaelis, Vol. III. p. 230. But this way of accounting for the law is conjectural and uncertain the general moral purpose is obvious, nor is it necessary that we should be able to trace that purpose through every specific prohibition. Ainsworth's quaint notion, that the parting of the hoof signified the right discerning of the law and the gospel,' is worthy only of Origen, or of Dr. Hawker. The following metrical catalogue of the Birds forbidden, is given by Dr. Harris from the Bibliotheca Biblica, where it is printed in the black letter. "Of feathered Foules that fanne the bucksom aire, For, these thou shalt not eat doth God declare, That haunt the shores, the choicest preye to finde, Who spareth not the pale dede man to teare: The Hawke, aerial hunter, swifte and bolde, -JTI boot The Owle demure, who loveth not the lighte The glutton Cormorante, of sullen moode, 451 Regardyng no distinction in his foode.. "The Storke, which dwelleth on the fir-tree topp, The Ibis, whome in Egypte Israel found, ་ Last, the foul Batt, of byrd and beast first bredde, Flitting with littel leathern sails dispredde."'-p. xxxii. We cannot be supposed to have examined very critically every article in the alphabetic arrangement; but we have inspected the work sufficiently to pronounce a very favourable judgement on the learning and ability which this part of it displays. In some instances, the Author would have found the works of modern travellers a safer guide than Jerome or Bochart, Lightfoot or Knatchbull. Thus, for instance, when he remarks, that commentators have exhausted their learning and ingenuity to prove that St. John ate locusts, adding, that the word in the original signifies also buds or pods of trees;'-the fact is, that neither learning nor ingenuity is requisite to establish a fact which ignorance of the eastern customs first brought into question. The monks pretend that what they call St. John's bread or the locust tree (ceratonia siliqua), is meant; a conceit which Maundrell justly ridicules. Dr. Harris's argument, that cooking locusts does not seem an occupation worthy of the Baptist, is, we must say, puerile. There is no reason to believe, in the first place, that the Baptist was secluded altogether from human intercourse, that he lived as a hermit, and was compelled to provide entirely for his own support. And were we to entertain this supposition, we see little difference between the employment of gathering honey and fruit, and that of frying locusts in the sun. But we apprehend that too much stress has been laid on the literal import of the expression; and that the meaning of the passage referred to is, that John fared as a poor person, lived on the simplest fare, and practised the most rigid abstemiousness. Unless we suppose a miracle, we cannot imagine that he could long sustain life on merely the buds of trees and wild honey, or even locusts, though the latter are represented by Pliny to have made a considerable part of the food of some ancient tribes, and are still eaten by the Arabs. Under the word Dromedary, the Author adopts the prevailing notion, that that animal differs observably from the camel, in having but one protuberance. This is a mistake, the dromedary varying, not in species, but only in breed, and the distinction has no reference to the one or two humps.* Under the word * See Eclectic Rev. Vol. XVII. p. 156. Cypress, it is noticed, that Bishop Lowth supposed the pine to be intended, Isa. xliv. 14. Pococke, however, expressly mentions, that he observed the cypress growing on the summits of Lebanon. The same traveller has some remarks on the tulip, which he found growing wild in Palestine, which might have been consulted with advantage for the article lily. Dr. Harris would much have improved his work, had he, by connecting with his learned researches, an attentive perusal of the works of Burckhardt, and other modern travellers, illustrated the natural history of the Bible by descriptive references to the indigenous productions of Palestine still known to exist. Most of the original names will be found to have been preserved by the Arabs; and much of the uncertainty that attaches to the zoology and botany of the Hebrews, might, we have no doubt, be removed by a further acquaintance with the living language. Art. X. An Essay on the Beneficial Direction of Rural Expenditure. By Robert A. Slaney, Esq. 12mo. pp. 240. Price 6s. 6d. London, 1824. } WE regret that so exorbitant a price has been put upon this very sensible and useful little work. Being designed for the use of the wealthy, we suppose that the Author or his publishers have thought it fair to charge for it a gentleman's price. But we should hope that a cheaper edition will be provided for persons of smaller means, who, if their individual expenditure is not large, may form a class collectively important, and have it in their power greatly to influence the direction of both private and parochial expenditure. No one,' Mr. Slaney remarks, is so situated as not to be able to confer "some benefit, promote some improvement, or aid, directly or indirectly, in augmenting the welfare of the country.' Few at least are so situated that they may not contribute to the general circulation of useful knowledge and correct feeling... The volume abounds with both, and we should be glad to think that it would find its way to every land-owner in the kingdom. The nature of the work will be seen from the Con tents. །* ༄། Chap. I. On the Circumstances which regulate the increase of Wealth. II. On different Directions of Expenditure.-III. On unprofitable Expenditure.-IV. On the Changes which have taken place in the direction of Expenditure.-V. On the Progress of Luxury, and the Advantages thence arising.-VI. On fixing a Scale of Private Expenditure.-VII. On Agricultural Improvements.-VIII. and IX. On Planting and Pruning Forest Trees.-X. On improving Farm-buildings and Cottages.-XI. On the Improvement of Roads |