a bridegroom; and each household observed it as a season of sacred rest and of joy.

True, Rabbinism made all this a matter of mere externalism, converting it into an

unbearable burden, by endless injunctions of what constituted work and of that which

was supposed to produce joy, thereby utterly changing its sacred character. Still, the

fundamental idea remained, like a broken pillar that shows where the palace had stood,

and what had been its noble proportions. As the head of the house returned on the

Sabbath-eve from the synagogue to his home, he fo und it festively adorned, the

Sabbath lamp brightly burning, and the table spread with the richest each household

could afford. But first he blessed each child with the blessing of Israel. And next

evening, when the Sabbath light faded out, he made solemn "separation" between the

hallowed day and the working week, and so commenced his labour once more in the

name of the Lord. Nor were the stranger, the poor, the widow, or the fatherless

forgotten. How fully they were provided for, how each shared in what wa s to be

considered not a burden but a privilege, and with what delicacy relief was

administered--for all Israel were brethren, and fellow-citizens of their Jerusalem--those

know best who have closely studied Jewish life, its ordinances and practices.

But this also is rather a sketch of religious than of family life. At the outset, we should

here say, that even the Hebrew name for "woman," given her at her creation (Gen 2:23),

marked a wife as the companion of her husband, and his equal ("Ishah," a woman, from

"Ish," a man). But it is when we consider the relations between man and wife, children

and parents, the young and the aged, that the vast difference between Judaism and

heathenism so strikingly appears. Even the relationship in which God presented Himself

to His people, as their Father, would give peculiar strength and sacredness to the bond

which connected earthly parents with their offspring. Here it should be borne in mind

that, so to speak, the whole purpose of Israel as a nation, with a view to the appearance

of the Messiah from among them, made it to each household a matter of deepest interest

that no light in Israel should be extinguished through want of succession. Hence, such

an expression as (Jer 22:10), "Weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no

more," was applied to those who died childless (Moed K. 27). Similarly, it was said that

he who had no child was like one dead. Proverbial expressions in regard to the "parental

relation" occur in Rabbinical writings, which in their higher application remind us that

the New Testament writers were Jews. If, in the impassioned strain of happy assurance

concerning our Christian safety, we are told (Rom 8:33), "Who shall lay anything to the

charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth," we may believe that St. Paul was familiar

with a saying like this: "Shall a father bear witness against his son?" (Abod S. 3). The

somewhat similar question, "Is there a father who hateth his own son?" may recall to our

minds the comfort which the Epistle to the Hebrews ministers to those who are in

suffering (Heb 12:7), "If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for

what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?"

Speaking of the relation between parents and children, it may be safely asserted, that no

crime was more severely reprobated than any breach of the fifth commandment. The

Talmud, with its usual punctiliousness, enters into details, when it lays down as a rule

that "a son is bound to feed his father, to give him drink, to clothe him, to protect him, to

lead him in, and to conduct him out, and to wash his face, his hands, and his feet"; to

which the Jerusalem Gemara adds, that a son is even bound to beg for his father--

although here also Rabbinism would give preference to a spiritual before a natural

parent, or rather to one who teaches the law before a father! The general state of Jewish

society shows us parents as fondly watching over their children, and children as

requiting their care by bearing with the foibles, and even the trials, arising from the

caprices of old age and infirmity. Such things as undutifulness, or want of loving

consideration for parents, would have wakened a thrill of horror in Jewish society. As

for crimes against parents, which the law of God visited with the utmost penalty, they

seem happily to have been almost unknown. The Rabbinical ordinances, however, also

specified the obligation of parents, and limited their power. Thus a son was considered

independent whenever he could gain his own living; and, although a daughter remained

in the power of her father till marriage, she could not, after she was of age, be given