the large one remained abroad. They speak of a confusion of tongues, when new languages were formed; and that men once lived till their feet were worn out with walking and their throats with eating. At one of their feasts twelve beloved men are employed to construct a booth or tent of green branches, in which they perform certain religious rites, erect an altar of twelve stones, on which no tool is allowed to be used, and on it they offer twelve sacrifices. This feast much resembles the feast of tabernacles. Some of them have ten men and ten stones. At death, their beloved ones sleep and go to their fathers; they wash and anoint the bodies, and hire mourners to shed tears and lament over them. In affliction, they lay their hand on their mouths, and their mouths in the dust. They never eat unclean animals, and avoid with the greatest care everything that is considered as unclean. Time is reckoned by them in the manner of the ancient Hebrews, and their years begin at the same season. Their language contains an abundance of words similar to Hebrew, and it is generally constructed in the manner of that language. Their ancient works, erected at very remote periods, are of immense size and great extent, and afford convincing evidence that these people were by no means unacquainted with arts and sciences; they have a striking resemblance to the public works and vast structures of Egypt and of Palestine. The same hands might almost be supposed to have raised the pyramids of the Old and

those of the New World-the same superstition to have marked their places of sepulture-and the same creed to have been the rule of their lives, both as to time and to eternity.

It is not to be supposed that all these remarkable usages, customs, and thoughts are found alike in all the parts of the vast continent of America. Some of the fragments of an ancient system have been discovered in one place and some in another. But many of them, and especially those which most clearly show a striking resemblance between the customs and usages of the aborigines of America and those of the ancient Israelites, are found to prevail among many or all of the nations that have been best known.

ADOPTION.

MANY customs have now come into disrepute amongst us, which, in former ages, in other places, and amongst other people, were very prevalent, and exercised a powerful influence over the minds of multitudes. Amongst these, adoption may be particularly mentioned. Whilst this was a painful alternative to those who were obliged to resort to it, the contemplation of it is now fraught with no small interest to us.

Though we are unable to trace the precise period when this custom originated, it is certain that it dates from very ancient times. It is far less difficult, however, to ascertain the feeling which was the occasion of it at first, and also during its subsequent history. The desire for male issue has been generally very strong amongst almost all people. Every one is familiar with the fact that this was the case among the Hebrews; and there are few but know the cause of it. When this favour was denied them, it was regarded as amongst the heaviest of their calamities. Their feelings were the same, if their male offspring were cut off by death, without leaving any descendants to hand down their name to posterity. Thus, it was the desire for such offspring that gave rise to the ancient custom of adoption; and from this it is obvious that they were only sons who were adopted. In earlier times, men were under no legal restric

tions in their adoptions; but, as the custom came to be abused, such restrictions were introduced at a later period.

Amongst the Hebrews adoption was very early introduced. For a time, it should seem that Abraham had adopted Eliezer of Damascus, the steward of his house, as his heir. He does not appear to have ever dreamt of making his nephew, Lot, his heir; and in this he followed the common custom, for it was very rare so to constitute near relations. The case of Ishmael affords another example. When Sarah despaired of having any issue, she gave Hagar to Abraham. Hagar was regarded as the property of Sarah; and hence the child of Hagar would be regarded also as hers. Thus Ishmael became the adopted son of Abraham. In like manner, the offspring of the handmaidens of Rachel and Leah were the adopted children of Jacob.

The adoption of Moses by the daughter of Pharaoh cannot be said to have been in accordance with any settled and well-known custom, either amongst the Egyptians or the Hebrews. But another striking instance of adoption, as we regard it, occurs in the subsequent history of the Hebrews. (See 1 Chron. ii. 34.) Sheshan had a family of daughters, but no sons. He had an Egyptian servant or slave in his house, whose name was Jarha. He gave his eldest daughter and heir to this servant as wife. Jarha was thus adopted as his son, and his posterity were regarded as the offspring of Sheshan.

Among the Greeks the custom of adoption was

far from being uncommon. Throughout Greece, all those who had no issue of their own were allowed to adopt any other they pleased. This was the rule, but there were some exceptions. Those who were not their own masters, such as slaves, women, infants, madmen, and those under twenty years of age, were not allowed to adopt, because they were considered as incapable of making wills, or managing their own estates. In Athens, before a foreigner could be adopted as the heir of any honourable Athenian, it was necessary that he should receive the freedom of the city. To prevent rash and unadvisable adoptions, the Lacedemonians required the transaction to take place, or at least be confirmed, before the king. When preliminaries were fully arranged, there was a certain season of the year when the adopted had his name enrolled in the tribe and ward of his new father. The adopted son was invested with all the privileges, and had to discharge all the duties of legitimate children. He ceased at once from having any claim of inheritance or kindred on the family which he left. Before he could have any such claim, he required to disown his adoption; and, according to a law introduced by Solon, he was not allowed to do this until he had begotten children to bear the name of the adopter, and so to provide against the extinction of his family. If the adopted died without issue, the inheritance could not be retained by his friends, but returned at once to the relations of the adopter. In Athens, it appears probable that, after one ad