lawfully eat of its flesh, although he was not permitted to offer it in sacrifice. This creature belonged to the class of clean beasts, which the people of Israel, as well during their wanderings in the desert, as after their settlement in the land of promise, were permitted to kill wherever they could find them, and use for the subsistence of their fa milies, although, at the time, they might be ceremonially unclean. But the ox, the sheep, and the goat, which some writers distinguish by the name of clean cattle, might both be lawfully eaten and offered in sacrifice; yet while the chosen people sojourned in the wilderness, they were forbid, den to kill any of these animals, although intended merely for private use, except at the door of the tabernacle; and if ceremonially unclean, even to eat of their flesh. This regulation occasioned little inconvenience to the tribes in the desert, where they lived in one vast encampment, in the midst of which the sacred tent was pitched; but after their settlement in Canaan, their circumstances required either an alteration in the law, or that the greater part of the nation should abstain altogether from the use of flesh. The permission was accordingly enlarged; while they were still restricted to shed the blood of cattle intended for sacrifice, only before the national altar, they were permitted, when too far from the tabernacle, to kill those which they designed merely for common food, in any of their cities, or in their own houses; even the ceremonial regulation was abolished, and in private clean and unclean fared alike. This permission, which is couched in very express terms, is repeated in the course of a few verses, lest the suspicious mind of an Israelite might suppose that Jehovah envied his people the enjoyment of what he had given them; and "in both instances it is illustrated by an example which must, from the use of it,

have been familiar to the Israelites :" " The unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the (antelope), and as of the hart." C

The Unicorn.

The name of this animal in the Hebrew text is (7) rim, or (8) reem; and is derived from a verb, which signifies to be exalted or lifted up. This term, which in Hebrew signifies only height, is rendered by the Greek interpreters μovoxagos, and by the Latins unicornis; both which answer to our English word unicorn. Jerome and others, doubtful to what animal it belongs, render it sometimes rhinoceros, and sometimes unicorn. It is evident from the sacred Scriptures, that the reem is an animal of considerable height, and of great strength. Thus Balaam reluctantly declared concerning Israel: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of (a reem) an unicorn."e So great in the estimation of that reluctant seer, was the strength of the reem, that he repeats the eulogium in the very same words in the next chapter. From the grateful ascriptions of David, we learn that it is a horned animal: "But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn."s And Moses, in his benediction of Joseph, states a most important fact, that it has two horns; the words are: His horns are like the horns of (a reem, in the singular number,) an unicorn. Some interpreters, determined to support the claims of the unicorn to the honour of a place in the sacred volume, contend, that in this insance, the singular, by an enallage or change of number, is put for the plural. But

Deut. xii, 13-16, and 20-23.

d Bochart. Hieroz. lib. iii, cap. 26, p. 930.

e

* Num. xxiii, 22.

f Verse 8.

8 Ps. xcii, 10.

this is a gratuitous assertion; and besides, if admitted, would greatly diminish the force and propriety of the comparison. The two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, had been adopted into the family of Jacob, and appointed the founders of two distinct tribes, whose descendants in the times of Moses were become numerous and respectable in the congregation. These were the two horns with which Joseph was to attack and subdue his enemies; and by consequence, propriety required an allusion to a creature, not with one, but with two horns.

In the book of Job, the reem is represented as a very fierce and intractable animal, which, although possessed of sufficient strength to labour, sternly and pertinaciously refuses to bend his neck to the yoke: "Will the unicorn (in Hebrew the reem) be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the reem with his band in the furrow, or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him because his strength is great? Or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn ?" So far from being disposed to submit to the dominion of man, he is extremely hostile and dangerous. Little inferior to the lion himself in strength and fury, he is sometimes associated in Scripture with that destroyer. "Save me," cried our Lord to his Father, "save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of (a) the unicorns." In the prophecies of Isaiah, it is united with other powerful animals, to symbolize the great leaders and princes of the hostile nations, that laid waste his native land: "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls:

h Psa. xxii, 21.

and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Such are the general characters of the reem, as delineated in the sacred volume: but besides these, several hints are given, which seem to point out, with no little certainty, the genus under which the reem ought to be classed. In that sublime composition, where the psalmist assigns the reasons why God is to be honoured, he joins the calf with the young reem, and ascribes to them the same kind of movement: "He maketh them also to skip like a calf; young (reem, or) unicorn." passage already quoted, classes him with the bullocks and the bulls; and Moses assigns him the same station, furnishes him with horns, and makes him push like a bullock.* If these circumstances are duly considered, no doubt will remain that he is nearly allied to the creatures with which he is associated.

Lebanon and Sirion like a

The prophet Isaiah, in a

These observations will enable us to examine with more success, the various interpretations of the original name, proposed by different expositors. Our translators, following the Greek fathers, consider the reem as a creature with one horn; and, agreeably to this idea, render it unicorn. But, this interpretation is encumbered with insuperable difficulties. The unicorn is a creature totally unknown in those countries where the Scriptures were written, and the patriarchs sojourned. But, is it probable, that God himself, in his expostulation with Job, would take an illustration of considerable length, from a creature with which the afflicted man was altogether unacquainted; and mention this unknown animal in the midst of those with which he was quite familiar? Nor is it to be supposed,

i Isa. xxxiv, 7.

VOL. II.

j Psa. xxxix, 6.

* Deut. xxxiii, 17.

that Moses, David, and the prophets, would so frequently speak of an animal unknown in Egypt and Palestine, and the surrounding countries; least of all, that they would borrow their comparisons from it, familiarly mention its great strength, and describe its habits and dispositions. Aware of this objection, and at a loss how to elude its force, some writers, on the authority of Pliny, remove the native land of the unicorn to India. But this will be found of no advantage to their cause; for still the objection returns with nearly undiminished force; how could the sacred writers borrow their illustrations from a creature with which, even on this supposition, they were so little acquainted? They make no mention of the elephant, a crea ture not less powerful and fierce than the unicorn, renowned for its docility, and the various important services which it renders to man; and numerous in Africa, and many countries of Asia. Of this noble animal, the people of Israel seemed to have had no knowledge at all, except what they derived from the trade in ivory, which they carried on during the reign of Solomon to some extent. But, if the elephant, which abounded in countries much nearer the Holy Land than India, whose teeth formed an article of commerce among the ancient Israelites, was so little known to them; it cannot be supposed that they had any knowledge of an animal which was proper to India.

But, we have in reality no proof that such an animal ever existed in any part of the world. It must be admitted, that both Pliny and Ælian have described the unicorn in their writings; but these eminent authors borrowed their statements from Ctesias, a writer of little respectability. Had the unicorn existed in any part of the east, it must 1 1 Nat. Hist. lib. viii, cap. 31. Ælian de Nat. Animal. lib. xvi, cap. 20.