it to a third of the real yearly produce or value of the land; and allows, that the 'people might live under it as well as a great part of this and other nations live now under rack-rent.' It must be considered, that the Israelites had, all of them, by their original constitution, their lands free inheritance: nor could their lands be so alienated, but that they were to return to them and to their families at the year of jubilee. By their original constitution they paid no other taxes but the tithes, and other dues, for maintaining the Levites, priests, and keeping up the public worship. They had no taxes, or tribute, imposed upon them, till they came under the government of their kings; which was a government of their own choosing. For their judges, though they had great power and authority to judge and govern them, yet did not put them to much expense by the splendour of courts, nor by keeping up standing forces. Whereas the people of England not only pay the annual rent to their landlords, but taxes to the state, of several kinds, besides the dues to the clergy; and among other dues, tithes; and yet they are far from being so miserably poor and indigent, or so mightily impoverished, as he would persuade us the Israelites were by their original constitution. But let us attend to our author's computations.

And first he makes the one tenth, that is, the tenth of corn, wine, oil, fruits, &c. to be equivalent to three tenths of the annual rent of the land; because it was neat and free from labour and expense in cultivation and tillage. And if it had not come neat and free from the expense of cultivation, it could not have been called a tenth at all, or have been of any great advantage to them. But he adds, that after this had been taken away, the priesthood had a tenth of all the beasts, clean and unclean, and the firstborn of all beasts, which he puts as a tenth more: though, he says, it might easily be proved, that it much exceeded a tenth. But he reckons both together as two tenths, or a fifth. And then he adds, that since the stock upon a landed estate must, upon an average, amount to, at least, two annual rents, a fifth of this will be two fifths, or four tenths, of the annual rent, which, with the other three, make seven tenths.' Here we may observe his great accuracy in his computations. First, he supposes, an estate in land to be entirely under tillage or vintage, so that the corn and fruits upon it make up the entire value or profit of the land, and one tenth of that is equivalent to three tenths of the annual rent; and then he supposes the same land to be stocked with cattle to the value of two annual rents, so that two tenths of the beasts upon it came to four tenths of the annual rent. So that the very same land, is the same year, both completely under tillage, and under pasturage; and this is the supposition he makes concerning the whole country; which, without pretending to any extraordinary skill in these matters, one may venture to pronounce to be a great absurdity. But the author is under a necessity, and he must suppose it, in order to make up his calculation. Another fault in his calculation is, that he affirms, that the Levites had a

EE

tenth of all the beasts, clean or unclean, which is not true; for no tithes were paid of unclean beasts at all, but only of the flock and herd, Lev. xxvii. 32. And of these, again, it was only a tithe of the increase that was paid annually. For the same cattle were not tithed again every year; so that it was really a tithe of the young ones, the calves and lambs, or kids, that were brought forth that year; and this is far from being equivalent to a tenth of the grown cattle every year, or of the whole stock upon the land. To which it may be added, that what fell short of the number ten, which might often happen to be the case among the poorer sort that followed agriculture, was not titheable; or if they had above ten, whatever was short of the number twenty, paid only one tithe : and all these things will very much reduce his calculation. And then, again, it is very wrong in him to make the first-born of the beasts to be equivalent to a tenth of all the beasts, or of the whole stock upon the land in value, or, as he states it, equivalent to two tenths of the whole annual rent. For it must be considered, first, that it was only the first-born males that were to be given to the priests, which is but one half of the first-born; and, in the second place, that the first-born, e. g. of sheep or kine, were only to be considered as young lambs or calves.* And, I suppose, he will hardly undertake to prove, that supposing the first-born male lambs or calves to be a tenth in number of all the lambs and calves, that they were a tenth in value of the whole stock of sheep and cattle upon the land. And yet he absurdly accounts them so; and pretends, it could easily be proved, that it much exceeded the tenth in value. As to the first-born of unclean beasts, they were allowed to redeem them, if they pleased, with a lamb, or otherwise to kill them, if they thought them not worth it; in which case the priests got nothing at all. So that the value of the first-born of any of those creatures that were not to be sacrificed, whether of an ass, which was the most common in these countries, and is therefore particularly mentioned in the law to this purpose, Exod. xiii. 13; Deut. xviii. 16, or of a horse or camel, or any other creature, that was not to be sacrificed, was never to be rated above that of a young lamb.

But let us follow our author: he observes, that besides this the tribe of Levi had a very considerable share of the cities, towns, villages, and lands themselves, which, by computing from the places given and allotted to them by law, would seem to amount to a seventh part, at least, of the whole country; but I shall put it only at a tenth; and this, with what has been computed before, will make eight tenths of annual rent.' They had indeed fortyeight cities allowed them, which fell to them by lot. And if we may judge by what was allowed them out of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, whose share came as it is reckoned, Josh.

On the eighth day they were appointed by law to give the first-born, though not before, Exod, xxii. 30, that is, when it was eight days old, they might give it, though they might keep it longer. And it was a general rule, with regard to all their sacrifices, whether of bullocks, or sheep, or goats, that they were accepted for sacrifice from eight days old. Lev. xxii. 27.

xv. xviii. xix., to 155 cities, out of which the Levites had thirteen allotted them, Josh. xxi. 4, which amounts to about a twelfth part, supposing all the cities belonging to those tribes to be expressly mentioned, which is uncertain; and if they had more cities than are there reckoned, the share of the Levites will be still less in proportion. It is true, that the share of the Levites in the other tribes, seems to be greater in proportion to the number of cities expressly assigned to these tribes. But it is manifest, and allowed by the more judicious commentators, that all the cities belonging to the several tribes are not distinctly mentioned, but only the principal. For there are some cities mentioned afterwards as belonging to those tribes, that yet are not reckoned at first in the number of the cities that are expressly named as allotted to those tribes.* So that we may justly suppose it was pretty much in the same proportion in all the tribes, especially considering the rule laid down by Moses, Numb. xxxv. 8, when he appointed that forty-eight cities should be allotted to the Levites, viz. that from them that had many cities they should give many; and from them that had few cities they should give few; and that every one should give of his cities unto the Levites, according to his inheritance which he inherited. And, therefore, we may judge that the cities were given to them out of all the tribes in pretty near to the same proportion, which may be reckoned to about a twelfth. But then it must be considered, that if they had a twelfth, or even a tenth, of the number of cities allotted them, they were very far from having a twelfth or even a fiftieth part of the whole land or country. For the Levites had only the bare cities given them, and no adjoining towns or villages; as it was in the lots of the other tribes, where it is still mentioned, that they had such and such cities given them, with the villages, or adjoining and dependent towns. And most of those cities at that time were very small. Nor were the cities of the Levites to be afterwards enlarged beyond those walls any farther than a thousand cubits, to which they were expressly confined for the suburbs, and two thousand cubits. for the fields; and this never to be exceeded,† see Numb. xxxv. 4, 5; Lev. xxv. 34. So that the whole of the land allowed them, reckoning from the walls of the city for the suburbs and fields, was but fifteen yards on every side, which is considerably less than a mile; and this they were not to enlarge or exceed. all, without those bounds, belonged to the tribe where their lot lay. So that if there were an accurate computation made, all the land allowed to the priests and Levites would amount to a very small part of the country.

For

He next mentions the stated legal fees, as he calls them, which he says were very extraordinary: as for a woman after her lying

* See Bishop Patrick on Joshua xviii. 28; xix. 7, 16, 23, 31, 39.

+ The Jews observe, that in the Levites' cities they might not make of a city the suburbs, nor of the suburbs a city, nor of the suburbs a field, nor of a field suburbs; but they were all to continue as they were, without being altered.' See Maimon. in Jobel, cap. 13, sect. 4, 5, as cited by Ainsworth in Lev. xxv. 34.

in, and when she came to be churched, for persons that had been cured of any foul disease, and many other instances too long to be enumerated here. And, in any such cases, if a lamb of a year old had been ordered, and the person could not give it, or was not worth it, they must give a couple of turtles, two young pigeons, a tenth-deal of flour, or what they could, if ever so little. So that if a man was poor, the priest would take all, and could have no more.' And he adds, that the occasional fines for legal accidental uncleannesses, which might be unavoidable, and almost innumerable, can be reduced to no certain calculation at all,' p. 138. I shall consider this matter distinctly, that it may appear how little there is in this writer's general clamours.

As to what he talks about the churching of women, as he calls it, the richest were to bring no more than a lamb of the first year (by which we are to understand not a lamb of a year old, as this author represents it, as if it was necessarily to be a year old when it was offered; but the meaning is, that it was never to be above a year old, but it was fit to be offered from eight days old, as I have already observed) and a young pigeon. And the priest's fees in that case were but small. For, as to the lamb, it was expressly ordered to be consumed by fire; and of which the priest was not to eat any thing. And even of the young pigeon which fell to the priest's share, part was to be consumed on the altar for a sin-offering, Lev. xii. 6, 8. And this was all the priest had in this case, even from the rich. As to what he talks about persons that had been cured of any foul disease; men or women that had any disease of uncleanness by issues, were obliged to bring no more than two young pigeons or turtle-doves. And of these one was to be for a burnt-offering, and to be all consumed; of the other, which came to the priest's share, part was to be consumed on the altar, as in the former case; see Lev. xv. The case in which the costliest sacrifice was required from any person that was legally unclean, was that of a person that had the leprosy, which was the highest kind of uncleanness and in this case, the priest's share came to two lambs, which were to be offered as a sinoffering and a trespass-offering, some of which was consumed upon the altar, and the greater part came to the priest. But if the man was poor, there was only one he-lamb brought for a trespass-offering, and one young pigeon for a sin-offering. As to the three tenth-deals of flour, which were then to be offered for a meatoffering, amounting to about three pottles of flour, it was to be wholly consumed, and the priest got none of it.

These kinds of uncleannesses that have been now mentioned, were the only kinds for which sacrifices were offered, as is evident from the law itself, and the Jews universally acknowledge. And with regard to the leprosy, and a distemper by an unclean issue in man or woman, it is to be presumed that there were many of the Israelites that never had them at all. And, as to the other kind of legal uncleanness mentioned, viz. that of a woman in child-bed, it is to be supposed that it seldom came above once in a year, and

for the most part, not so often. In all other cases of legal impurity and uncleanness, which were many, and which the author pronounces to be almost innumerable,' e. g. the uncleanness of touching any unclean thing, the carcase of an unclean beast, or a human dead body, &c. they were purified merely by washing or sprinkling; which brought nothing to the priest: see Lev. xi. 24, 31. Numb. xix. 16, 17, 18, 19; and no sacrifices were to be offered on these accounts at all; except where persons inadvertently came in their uncleanness into the sanctuary, and did eat of the holy things, i. e. the peace-offerings, and afterwards came to know it. For of such persons and cases that passage is to be understood, Lev. v. 2, 3 by the consent of all the Jewish doctors ;* nor indeed can it well be otherwise understood, if we compare it with the places I have just referred to. In such cases the richest were to bring no more than a she-lamb or a she-goat for a trespass-offering; and, if they were very poor, no more was required of them than to bring the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, i. e. about a pottle, without oil or frankincense. See Lev. 6, 7, 11: so that this was made easy to the poor. And we may reasonably suppose that this was not a case that often happened: for it could only happen when they came into the sanctuary, which, with regard to the generality of the Israelites, was but at their great festivals, which were only celebrated three times a year; and they were then generally very scrupulously exact in shunning all ceremonial uncleanness. With regard to many of the other cases in which sacrifices were required to be offered, e. g. the trespass offerings, Lev. vi. 2-7, it is not to be doubted, that there were several persons in Israel that seldom or never committed the crimes for which those sacrifices were appointed. The peace-offerings were by far the most numerous of any other; which were free-will-offerings in acknowledgment of mercies received, or in accomplishment of some vow they had made; but, besides that, these were at the people's own election, they cannot be properly reckoned among the revenues due to the priests, who had but a small share of them: the far greater part of these offerings fell to the people themselves on whose account they were offered, who feasted upon them with their families. And as to the burnt-offerings, the priest got nothing but the skin. appears from this account of the Mosaical sacrifices, that they were far from bringing in such vast revenue to the priests, as this author represents it.

It

But he has another shift in order to make up his twenty shillings in the pound paid by the people to the priests; and that is, that there was a very great and enormous poll-tax laid upon the whole nation, and to be paid in money every male, from twenty to sixty, was to pay half a shekel three times a year, when they went up to the sanctuary. And here the poorest man was rated as high as the richest; and no abatement to be made on account of circumstances. At the same time no man was to appear before the Lord,

* Concerning which see Ainsworth in Lev. v. 2.