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 ac cumulated and held as property. Violence in vaded the possession; opposing violence recovered the goods. War soon sprang out of the passions of the human heart. The necessity of civil go vernment was felt. Consuetudinary laws accord ingly developed themselves. The head of the family was supieme. His will was law. The phy sical superiority which he possessed gave him this dominion. The same influence would secure its transmission in the male rather than the female line. Hence too the rise of the rights of primo geniture. 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 pro bability, 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 con verted 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 brotheis—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 com mand, 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 suc ceeding 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. to). The few notices left us in Genesis of the transfer of property from hand to hand are interesting, and bear a remark able similarity to what takes place in Eastern coun tries even at this day (Gen. XXi. 22, sq . ; xxiii. 9, sq.) The purchase of the Cave of Machpelah as a family burying-place for Abraham, detailed in the last passage, serves to shew the safety of property at that early period, and the facility with which an inheritance was transmitted even to sons' 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. 35, 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, send ing them away from Isaac his son, while lie yet lived, eastward unto the east country.' Some times, however, so far were the children of un married 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 Bil hah, Rachel's maid, whom she gave to her hus band, failing, to bear childten 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 life time, 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. 1). While the rights of the first-born were generally established and recog nised, yet were they sometimes set aside in favour of a younger child. The blessing of the father or the granclsire 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 in stances 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 of Joseph (Gen. xlviii. 22). In a similar manner, bad conduct on the part of the eldest son (as well as of others) sub jected him, if not to the loss of his rights of pro perty, 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 mhabi tants 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. ro, 1r) to give a re newed 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 bundled 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. I. 25).
A promise thus given, thus repeated, and thus believed, easily, and indeed unavoidably, became the fundamental principle of that settlement of pro perty which Moses made when at length Ile 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 influ ence on the laws which the Jewish legislator ori ginated 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. 5o ; xxxiv. ; xxxv. 1). The inheritance thus ac quired was never to leave the tribe to which it be longed; every tribe was to keep strictly to its own inheritance. An heiress, in consequence, was not allowed to marry out of Fier 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. II, 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, Ile 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 bro thers ; if his father had no brothers, it came into possession of the nearest kinsman (Num. xxvii. S). The land was Jehovah's, and could not therefore be permanently alienated. Every fiftieth year, what ever 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 lie who sold the land, or a kins man, could redeem the land before the year of jubilee, it wa-s 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 vil lages 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 noteeturn to him who sold it even at the jubilee (Lev. xxv, 8, 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, how ever, were redeemable at any time, and must re turn at the jubilee to their original possessors (Lev. xxvii. 16).
The regulations which the laws of Moses esta blished rendered wills, er a testamentary disposi tion of (at least) landed property, almost, if not quite, unnecessary; we accordingly find no provi sion for anything of the kind. Some difficulty may have been now and then occasioned when near relations failed ; but this was met by the tradi tional law, Which furnished minute directions on the point (Misch. Baba Bathra, iv. 3, c. 8, 9). Personal property would naturally follow the land, or might be bequeathed by word of mouth. At a later period of the Jewish polity the mention of wills is found, but the idea seems to have been taken from foreign nations. In princely families they appear to have been used, as we learn from Josephus xiii. 16. ; xvii. 3. 2; De Bell. yurl. II. 2. j) ; but such a practice can 'hardly suffice to establish the general use of wills among the people. In the N. T., however, wills are expressly mentioned (Gal. iii. 15 ; Heb. ix. 17). Michaelis (Commentaries, i. 431) asserts that the phrase (2 Sam. xvii. 2.3 ; Kings xx. ; rny.
set thine house in order' has reference to a will or testament. But his grounds are by no means sufficient, the liteml rendering of the words being, give commands to thy house.' The ut most which such an expression could inferentially be held to comprise in reg,ard to property, is a dying and final distribution of personal property ; and we know that it was not unusual for fat'aers to make, while yet alive, a division of their goods among their children (Luke xv. 12; Roseniniiller, Iliorgenl. v. 197).—J. R. B.