in all of which it is rendered into English by swine,' except in Ps. lxxx. 13, where obviously the wild boar is intended. In this passage it makes part of a forcible, if not quite correct, allegory- Israel being compared to a vine brought out of Egypt:-'The boar out of the wood doth waste it.' It appears to be not unusual in the East for boars to rush into vineyards and other plantations, where, by eating, trampling, and particularly by turning up and tearing with their snouts and tusks, they commit very great devastation. On this account it was customary in Greece to sacrifice a hog to Ceres when harvest began, and another to Bacchus at the beginning of the vintage.

The swine was forbidden for food to the Hebrews-Though he divide the hoof and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth the cud: he is unclean to you' (Lev. xi. 7). The reason assigned by Michaelis for this prohibition is, that swine's flesh has a tendency to foster cutaneous diseases, to which the Israelites were specially liable; the leprosy being endemic in Palestine and the neighbouring countries, while it actually afflicted the children of Israel when they left Egypt. Hence we may see why the avoidance of swine's flesh prevailed with their neighbours, namely, the Phoenicians, the Arabs, and the Egyptians. Such avoidance was a practical regulation, designed for the preservation of the health, against a widely-spread liability to disease. The contempt in which swine were held in Egypt is illustrated by a monumental picture representing a wicked soul, after having been weighed in the balance of judgment and found wanting, as returning to the troubles and trials of earth, in the body and shape of a hog.

BOATS of different sorts were used on the river Nile. One kind was made of rushes, pitched on the inside and on the outside, as described in the article BULRUSH. Another description were boats of burden, built by what we should term ship-carpenters. They are said to have been built of a thorn wood, very similar to the lotus of Cyrene. Of this tree the builders cut planks, which were bound within by bands of papyrus, and without by a series of girths. A rudder was put through the keel; a mast of thorn-wood was set up, which had sails of the rind of the papyrus. These boats were carried up the stream either by a tow-line or by the wind. In descending the river, the course of the boat was directed and made steady by a hurdle floating at the head, and a stone dragging at the stern. Some of these boats were capable of carrying a very great amount of goods. Such, in substance, is the account given by the Greek historian, Herodotus (ii. 96), which may be considered as in the main correctly representing the large boats or lighters, which were employed in the transport of goods, and, with the needful modifi

cations, the pleasure boats, of the ancient Egyptians.

In the Old Testament there is but one mention of a boat, namely in 2 Sam. xix. 18, where it is said, 'There went over (Jordan) a ferry-boat to carry over the king's household: the meaning of the term is not unsuitably rendered by ferry-boat.' This boat was a sort of skiff. The term boat is also made use of in the New Testament, in relation to the means of passing over the Lake of Galilee (John vi. 22). Two kinds of vessels a smaller, boat, and a larger, ship - appear to have been in use on this lovely sheet of water. The ships, however, were only a larger kind of boats.

BOAZ (H. strength), a mighty man of wealth,' a Bethlehemite, of the tribe of Judah, son of Salmo and Rahab. He married Ruth, and so became a progenitor of David. He was also brother of Elimelech, whose son Mahlon was Ruth's first husband. Elimelech and Mahlon dying, left the family with a small property. This being insufficient, Ruth, claiming the right which Moses had benignantly reserved to the poor (Lev. xix. 9), went to glean in the field of her relative Boaz, by whom she was kindly treated. Encouraged by this, Naomi, her mother-in-law, requested Ruth to avail herself of that provision in the Mosaic law by which the brother (Gen. xxxviii. 8. Deut. xxv. 5), or, as interpreted in the book of Ruth (iii. 12), the nearest kiusman, of the deceased husband was to marry the widow, in case there was no offspring. Ruth accordingly made the claim, which Boaz was well disposed to

6

'slavery' are generally Englished by 'servant' and service,' which at the present day dis guise the proper import of the Scriptural history. Servant' is indeed derived from the Latin servus, which signifies a slave. But servant' has long been used to denote a free labourer. Service, however, among the Hebrews was in part bondage or slavery.

Hebrew servants were bondmen and bond maids, generally of foreign extraction, who so far constituted a part of the family as to be subjected to the distinctive right of Israelites, namely, circumcision (Gen. xvii. 23, 27). They were obtained either by war, the prison ers whose lives were spared being reduced into slavery (Numb. xxxi. 26, seq.); by purchase, then termed bought with money' (Gen. xvii. 23); or they were children of slaves, born in his house' (Gen. xvii. 23). It was not permitted to take into bondage, nor to deliver up to their masters, slaves that had made their escape, and taken refuge with the Israelites (Deut. xxiii. 16, seq.). We find the legal value of a manservant or maid-servant set at thirty shekels of silver (Exod. xxi. 32), which was, in the case of the male, twenty shekels lower than the estimation of a freeman (Lev. xxvii. 3, seq.). A Hebrew might sell himself to a fellow Hebrew (Deut. xv. 12), not, however, as a bond, but as a hired servant (Lev. xxv. 39); and he, with his children, obtained his liberty unconditionally at the end of six years at the furthest, or at the jubilee next ensuing after his service began (Lev. xxv. 40. Deut. xxi. 2, seq.); and he might be redeemed at an early day, by either himself or a relative (Lev. xxv. 48, 49). Thieves, unable, when detected, to make compensation, were sold, but only to Israelites, and subject to the laws regarding emancipation. The permission given by the law, that an impoverished Israelite might sell himself, seems to have been abused by hard-hearted creditors, who thus reduced their debtors, and even their debtors' children, into bondage (2 Kings iv.1. Isa. 1. 1. Neh. v. 5. Matt. xviii. 25). The law allowed a father to sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, who did not quit her bondage at the jubilee year; but if she were not pleasing to her master, she might be redeemed; but, if betrothed to a son, was to be treated as a daughter. She could not be sold to a foreigner; and if her master took another wife, she was to retain her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, undiminished. Failure in these three things set her free without money (Exod. xxi. 7-11). The law endeavoured to establish fixed and benign relations between bond people and their masters; ensuring to the former many favours, and forbidding, in the case of Hebrews, perpetual slavery. Among the mitigations of their lot which Moses guaranteed to slaves, was-I. Entire rest from labour every seventh day (Exod. xx.10). II. Immunity from deadly

or cruel punishment (Exod. xxi. 20, 26): if a servant lost an eye or a tooth from a blow given by his master, he was at once set free. III. Slaves were to join the family in their rejoicings on religious festive occasions (Deut. xii. 12, 18; xvi. 11, 14). IV. Freedom at the year of jubilee, and the bondman was not to go away empty :-Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress;' the reason assigned is forcible: Thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee' (Deut. xv. 13, seq.: comp. Exod. xxi. 2—4 ). V. A servant might not wish to leave his master's house: having been treated well, he had become one of the family. If therefore he shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, my children, I will not go out free,then shall his master bring him unto the judges, and (on their ascertaining the alleged facts) shall bring him to the door-post, and bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever' (Exod. xxi. 5, 6). Perforated ears was a general token of slavery among ancient nations. VI. A Hebrew bondman was allowed to gain and hold property, with which he might purchase his freedom (Lev. xxv. 49): all which facts go to prove that the lot of Hebrew slaves was less intolerable than the lot of slaves has generally been. If a master had no sons, a Hebrew slave might aspire to the hand of his daughter (1 Chron. ii. 35). More common was it for masters or their sous to take their slaves for concubines, who therefore acquired higher domestic rights (Gen. xxx. 3. Exod. xxi. 9). It was not unusual, at least in patriarchal times, for a home-born slave to rise to the rank of master over the others, and to have, as Joseph had in Pharaoh's palace, great power, privileges, and influence, as in the present day, the prime minister at the Porte is only the chief slave (Gen. xv. 2; xxiv. 2). Slaves do not appear to have been equal to perform all the services required, as we find traces of hired and day-servants who were free (Lev. xix. 13. Deut. xxiv. 14). The services which slaves rendered were very various. They ploughed the field, fed the cattle, waited at table (Luke xvii. 7), worked in grinding at the mill, waited on their master with his sandals, stood as porters at the doors, or executed commissions abroad.Jews were sold into slavery by foreign conquerors: Josephus states that, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, not fewer than 97,000 Israelites fell into bondage. The Jewish community in Rome consisted for the most part of emancipated slaves.

This entire system of law and custom relating to slaves has passed for ever away, with the polity and the institutions of which it formed a part, and is to be regarded in no other light than as one of those preparatory arrangements which are permitted in the ear

lier stages of human education, in order to avoid worse evils, and aid forward the perfect day of Christian truth. Nor can any argument in favour of slavery be deduced from its being practised among the Hebrews, unless, at least, in connection with a state of society, and a system of civil and religious institutions, similar to theirs;-a supposed case which can now no longer be realised.

The Christian religion, with a becoming disregard of mere actual existences, and a sublime reliance on the intrinsic power of its own great truths, did not attempt to disturb or destroy the institutional usages of society, The relawhen it began its benign career. tions, therefore, of master and slave it left as it found them, so far as they consisted in mere external bonds. But it put forth, and carried into the heart of society, principles which gradually, but most effectually, undid every shackle; which are still at work, to emancipate the body as well as the soul of hu man beings all over the world, and which will, in their complete and final operation, destroy the two great classes into which mankind was anciently divided-bond and free' (Col. iii. 2), and make all 'one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. iii. 28). Happy period! - when all the antisocial, anti-human, anti-christian, and hateful distinctions that now prevail will have irreversibly come to an end.

BONNETS were a head-dress worn by the Hebrew priests. These are designated by two words:-I. Migbagoth (Exod. xxviii. 40), which is connected,in origin and signification, with our word gibbous. It denotes a curved elevation: hence a hill. This bonnet or tiara was then a raised ornamental cap. IJ. Pehr, which comes from a root denoting to shine, to be splendid: and hence denotes any thing beautiful: accordingly, in Isa. Ixi. 10, the noun is translated' ornaments.' It was a species of coronet; though it may only

The orientals have always been distinguished for the beauty, splendour, or grace of their head-dresses. But it is probably to Egypt that we must look for the superior character of those which were appointed to be worn by Aaron and his sons. In Egypt the headdress of the king, on state occasions, was the crown of the upper or of the lower country; or the Pshent, the union of the two. The monarch wore his crown during the heat of the battle. In religious ceremonies he put on a striped head-dress, probably of linen, which descended in front over the breast, and terminated behind, in a sort of queue, bound with riband. On some occa

1. An Egyptian close Cap.

1

BOOKS. The subject of books among the Hebrews cannot be satisfactorily treated, until we have spoken on that of writing; and, as the age when writing was known must materially influence the opinions we entertain respecting the age of the earliest Biblical compositions, we think it better to introduce the whole matter here, than either to postpone it to the article WRITING, or to speak of books before we have spoken of the art which led to their formation.

The origin of writing is to be looked for in Egypt; the early culture of which country, and its possession, in the papyrus, of suitable materials for writing, gave its inhabitants means and facilities for inventing the art; which the priestly caste needing for their own religious purposes, carried far onward to perfection. Writing was at first a series of pictures roughly drawn. He who wanted to speak of a man ploughing a piece of land with an ox, sketched the outline of a man holding a plough, drawn over the earth by an ox. This was a long and tedious process; yet does it appear, by the paintings that are still seen in the temples and tombs, in which there is depicted the whole routine of Egyptian life, to have long remained in use, and been much practised. What indeed at the present day is a picture -a landscape, for instance, or a sea-fightbut a species of picture-writing? Signs, in writing, were originally not arbitrary: they depended on resemblance. Soon, however, all the parts which were not essential were left out of the rough picture, for the sake of ease and rapidity. Abbreviation and curtailment, which have ever wrought power

fully in effecting changes in language, began their operation at the very first. But the question, what parts are essential and what are not, is one, the settlement of which depends no little on the imagination, and on the actual point of view. Hence it would be regarded differently by different individuals. In process of time, so many parts would be omitted, that the original resemblance was nearly or quite lost; and could with difficulty be seen, unless by those whose experience enabled their fancy to supply the missing elements. A house might thus be reduced to the merest skeleton. Two upriglit strokes, united by a horizontal line, H would come to represent a house. Here we have the origin of arbitrary characters. The resemblance has vanished in the course of a few generations, and left a sign whose import depends solely on conventional usage.

Before this change was completed, another influence was at work. In the picture of the sea-fight, of which we have spoken, emblems are employed. The British flag is seen at the stern of one ship, that of the French floats above another. The vessels themselves bear at their heads images which are emblematical of their names. How does a spectator know that the one is a British, the other a French, flag? By certain signs which have been worked into their texture. Here, then, we have another species of picture-writing. The likeness of a thing denotes an abstract idea: the British lion, painted on a piece of cloth, signifies the collected people of Britain. Hence symbolical writing, or writing by signs, recognised as the