vicissim generare possit And as God was pleased for mans imitation to impress upon mute Animals visible characters of almost all virtues of justice clemency chastity fidelity friendship c. not of all in all but of each in particular species so hath He given for an example of filial love and piety to men the Storks which sustain and nourish their Parents when they are grown old and weak For this also is comprehended in the first word of this Precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Honour which in its chief sense signifies to nourish as appears from the 1 Timothy 5. 3. Honour Widows that are Widows indeed i. e. relieve their wants and contribute to their maintenance And so the Hebrews interpret that text in Numbers 22. 17. I will promote thee unto very great honour So Cicero Officior 1. treating of duties to Kindred and near relations saith Necessaria praesidia vitae debentur his maxime And Hierocles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. We shall highly honour Parents if we most readily serve them with the Ministry of our body and the help of mony Here I cannot but take notice of a strange distinction made betwixt Sons and Daughters by the Egyptians in their Law of nourishing Parents labouring of old age or poverty and recorded by Herodotus l. 2. 35. Nulla est necessitas filiis alendi parentes nolentibus sed filiabus summa etiamsi nolint Sons are under no necessity to feed and sustain their Parents against their own will but Daughters are most strictly bound to nourish them though against their will An odd Law this to impose the burden upon the weaker Sex and exempt the stronger and the more admirable to me because no reason is added to it by Herodotus nor can I fix my conjecture upon any that is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it may be well with thee This is here added out of Deuteronomy for explication sake or perhaps ascribed on the margin from that place in Epist. to the Ephesians 6. 1. 3. many such additional clauses being found in the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou mayst live long Here Abenesdras noteth that God is wont when He forbids any thing to annex the penalty where He commands the reward as in this place But St. Paul in the just now cited place to the Ephesians noteth this more that this is the first Commandment with promise The Law in direct words promiseth only temporal felicity as St. Ierom observes l. 2. Commentar in Epist. ad Galat. 1. Dialog contra Pelagium and St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 10. cap. 15. And of temporal felicity the principal part is long life Which is generally promis'd to those that keep the Law as in Levit. 18. 5. and 25. 18. and in Deuter. 6. 17. 18. and in Ezech. 20. 11. some expound the Hebrew words That they may prolong thy days namely thy Parents by their favour and prayers to God But I fear lest this interpretation be too Subtile and adhere rather to the Seventy and other Interpreters who take the Hebrew word though of an active form in a passive sense viz. That thy days may be prolonged To Absolom violating this precept his days were cut off or shortned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon the Earth or in the Land Life in exile is not life but a long death Therefore God promiseth to obsequious and dutiful Children a long life and that too at home in their own Country And Ezechiel enumerating the causes of deserved exile puts the contempt of Parents in the head of the Catologue chap. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The good Land This also hath been added from Deut. 8. 7. but deservedly For that Land was in those days truly good and singularly fertil abounding with Milk Honey and Corn and other Fruits and the only Land that produced Balsam which it continued to do in good plenty down to the days of Pliny who therefore praised it and doth even at this time though in less quantity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which the Lord thy God will give thee The present for the future as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who will come Matth. 3. 2. It must be something great and highly estimable that God confers as a donative upon the posterity of those whom he loved above all others and to whom he promised to give it But as God promises great blessings to those that observe this Precept so on the contrary He threatneth grievous punishment to those that contemn and revile their Parents namely death by decree of the Judge if the matter be by sufficient testimonies prov'd against them Exod. 21. 15. 17. and if the matter be not brought to publick notice divine wrath Deut. 27. 16. than which nothing is more dreadful and from which Good Lord deliver us CHAP. VII The Sixth Precept explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not commit Adultery IN the Hebrew this Precept is placed next after that against Murder and the Greek Copies also now keep the same order in the rehersal of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy But lest any should think this transposition of these two Precepts a thing recent I must observe that Philo in his time read them as we now do and that he gives this reason for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that among unjust facts Adultery is the greatest And again after he hath with admirable eloquence described the many evil consequents of this crime he saith Meritò Deo hominibus exosa res adulterium inter crimina ordinem ducit meaning the crimes that are injurious to men Nor did the ancient Christians read them otherwise following the Greek Codes as appears from Tertullian de pudicitia who saith Eo amplius praemittens Non maechaberis adjungit non occides Oneravit utique maechiam quam homicidio anteponit c. Wherefore whenever the Ancients bring in these Precepts in another order they bring them out of Deuteronomy not out of this place of Exodus Let us then since we may do so without injury to the diligence of the Masorets follow the Greek Edition which we have taken into our hands and which may be defended not only by its antiquity but also by this probable reason That many of the Hebrew Women preferr'd Chastity to life and that in the judgment of Aristotle the crimes that proceed from the desire of pleasure are more hainous than those that come from anger Abenesdras thinks that by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath committed Adultery all unlawful Venery and simple Fornication is signified but we find that among the Hebrews that word is every-where taken only in the sense of Adultery and so translated in this and other places by the Greek Latin and other Interpreters True it is indeed that in the Mosaic Law there is an interdict that there should be no Whores in the People of Israel and that Incests and Marriages with strange Women that worshipped false Gods
lawful to raise such Pillars Altars Monuments c. at his pleasure provided he did it not in Cultum Extraneum within the Promis'd Land lest from such example encouragement might be taken for Idolatry it was no more permitted to the Stranger than to an Israelite either to set up a Statue or plant a Grove or make Images or do any other thing of that kind no not meerly for ornament sake as Mr. Selden hath truly observ'd De Iure Naturali Gentium lib. 2. c. 6. The Rabbins hold a Humane Image protuberant to be unlawful but not that which is made in plano flat or in concavo in a hollow Of Caelestial bodies neither prominent nor plane made for ornament were lawful but made for teaching or learning as in Diagrams Astronomical and the like they were permitted Other figures as well an Israelite as a Noachid might form as they pleas'd Of the same respect is that interdict Deut. 7. 26. Non inferes quidpiam ex idolo in domum tuam Thou shalt not bring as our Translation renders it an abomination into thy house which the Iewish Masters thus interpret To have use and enjoy an image made only for ornament was Lawful the same being part of domestick furniture but one made by a Gentile for worship sake was not to be admitted into promiscuous use with other utensils nor was it permitted either to possess or to sell Victims Oblations Vessels instruments consecrated to idolatrous uses Nor was any thing whose use had been interdicted to be retain'd but either burned or broken in pieces and thrown into the Air River or Sea nay the very ashes or coals thereof were an abomination But an Idol it self if melted or broken in pieces and applied to common uses by a Gentile before it came into the possession of an Israelite might be kept and among other utensils commodious to life used because the liquation comminution and application thereof to common uses by the Gentile was a manifest Resecration or Solution of the Religion of it and the Idol being once resecrate all furniture and utensils belonging to it are so too But whatsoever has not been made by Man as a Mountain Fountain River four-footed Beast and other Terrestrial things the works of Nature tho' worship'd as an Idol the use and possession thereof was not prohibited A Grove or Tree planted by a Gentile for Worship or only to shadow or adorn an Idol was so abominable that to an Israelite it was unlawful either to shelter himself from heat cold rain or wind under the boughs of it or to pass through it if there were any other way or to eat the Eggs or Young of Birds building their nest in the branches of it to bring home the wood for building instruments of agriculture or fewel or to eat any bread or meat dress'd with fire made of the wood or to wear cloth woven with a shuttle of the wood or to make use of the ashes And yet the use of herbs growing there was not unlawful because the soil it self was unpoluted Now of all these things whatever was unlawful to an Israelite to do or possess the same was equally unlawful to a Proselyte of the House And this is a Summary of the most learned Rabbins exposition of this first Precept against Extraneous Worship or Idolatry CHAP. V. The second Precept Of Malediction of the Most Holy Name or Blasphemy SO agreeable is this Interdict to the Law of Nature or Light of Reason that even the old Egyptians themselves tho' overspread with the Leprosie of Polytheism acknowledged themselves under a most strict Obligation punctually to observe it as may be inferr'd from hence that Hermippus in the life of Pythagoras whose doctrines were all deriv'd from Egypt among many other Statutes of that Sect concerning the Soul's purification c. sets down this for one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abstain from all Blasphemy To the Israelites God expresly gives the same Lev. 22. 32. Keep my Commandments and do them I am the Lord ye shall not prophane my Holy Name that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel Now among the Hebrews a more diligent observation of the Law is call'd Sanctification of the Divine Name and on the contrary to perpetrate any thing against the Law is call'd Prophanation of it as Mr. Selden hath out of the Princes of their Rabbins judiciously remark'd de Iure Natur. Gent. lib. 2. cap. 10. The more notable Interdicts of Idolatry Homicide Unlawful Coition were not to be violated tho' to avoid the danger of imminent Death for of a less danger no account is made In time of publick persecution life was not to be redeem'd by violation of any Law At another time it was sufficient to violation of the Law to obey the person impellent by menaces of Death rather than to be kill'd at least if the act turn'd to the emolument of the impellent as where work was to be done for him upon the Sabbath or if ten or more Hebrews were not present To a sick man it was lawful to eat things prohibited to deliver himself from death Farther a sin against more establish'd customs or manners and humane society tho' not against the Law is a Prophanation of the Holy Name Nor is such Prophanation in any case observ'd to have been fully remitted to any man before the very moment of death according to that of Isai. cap. 22. ver 14. This iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pollution or Prophanation of the Divine Name seems to be call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Apostle Rom. 2. 24. but is not that which is interdicted to the Noachid here in this second Precept and Naaman the Syrian cleans'd from the Leprosie 2. of Kings c. 5. v. 18. is brought for an Example The difference is clearly shewn by Mr. Selden de Iur. Nat. Gent. lib. 2. cap. 11. whose words therefore I here faithfully translate The Blasphemy or Malediction by this Precept forbidden is that most Horrible Wickedness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Execration of the Divine Name when any reproach and audacious contumely is openly and maliciously thrown forth against God such as was cast forth by those most impious miscreants the son of Shelomith Levit. 24. and Rabshakeh's Kings 2. ch 18. v. 30. Also when the Divine Majesty is understood to be knowingly and proudly denied from the consequence of any Act or Profession as when any man not from Ignorance but out of Malapertness and Pride professeth and endeavors to perswade others that Idolatry is to be imbraced this man tho' he hath himself worship'd no Idol denies God by consequence and is to be held a Blasphemer And against this most execrable impiety is turned the edge of that Sacred Law Numb 15. 30. But the Soul that doth ought presumptuously or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an high hand whether he
be born in the Land or a Stranger ex Proselytis tam Domicilii quam Justiciae the same reproacheth the Lord and that Soul shall be cut off from among his People Upon which Law Maimonides commenting More Neboch pa. 3. c. 41. saith No man so sinneth but he into whose Soul another opinion that is repugnant to the Law hath crept The Scripture there speaks also de Cultu Extraneo because that is opposite to the very foundation of the Law So that a Balsphemer is equal to an Idolater both denying the fundamental Principle of all Religion Other sins committed from error or ignorance or force of concupiscence or pravity of manners were to be expiated by certain Sacrifices or corrected by other sorts of punishments Idolatry and Blasphemy always to be punished by Excision or cutting off to be inflicted by Divine Vengeance but Blasphemy also by stoning Levit. 24. 16. And these explications of the Hebrew Doctors seem to me sufficient to evince the equal Obligation of these two Precepts concerning Divine Worship and common to the Noachides with the Israelites I proceed therefore to the rest which concern the mutual offices of Men. CHAP. VI. The third Precept Of Spilling Blood or Homicide THat this Precept also was contain'd in the Moral Discipline of the Olâ— Egyptians is evident from the precedent Apology of the Overseer of the Obsequieâ— in Sacred use among them in which heâ— in the name of the defuntct makes thiâ— profession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of other men I have kill'd none And to 〈◊〉 Noachid belongs that of Gen. 9. 5. I wiâ—â— require your blood of your lives Which is to be understood of incruent or bloodless Homicide also of what kind soever Some interpret it of Suicide or Self-murder Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed not by judgment pronounced in Court but by Natural Right of Talion or like for like And this Interdict is renewed in the Decalogue Thou shalt do no Murder and elsewhere more than once in the Mosaic body of the Law Philo the Jew de Leg. special Praecept 6. 7. saith the Exposing of Infants is among many Nations by reason of their native inhumanity a vulgar impeity To the Hebrews it was expresly forbidden either to extingusih a Foetus in the Womb or to expose Children And Tacitus could say Hist. lib. 5. Augendae multitudini consulitur Nam necare quenquam ex gnatis nefas Egyptians also if we believe the Records of Diodorus the Sicilian the best of Antiquaries lib. 1. p. 51. were obliged to nourish all their Infants for increase of Mankind which highly conduceth to the Felicity of their Countrey Voluntary or wilful Murder was ex foâ—ensi sententiâ to be punish'd by the Sword but Philo Iudaeus de Leg. special p. 617. saith the Murderer was to be suspended or hanged upon a Gibbet He that killeth any Man saith Moses Levit. 24. 21. shall be put to Death Ye shall have one manner of Law as well for the Stranger or Proselyte of Iustice not of the House as for one born in your own Country For so the Masters understand this Text And as for the punishment of this sort of Homicide they have some differences betwixt the Gentiles living within the Territories of the Israelites and the Natives and Proselytes ritely circumcised Again Moses saith Numb 35. 21. the Revenger of blood shall slay the Murderer when he meeteth him without any place of Refuge Now the Right of the Revenger of blood in the Territories of the Israelites belonged no less to the Gentiles and Proselytes of the House than to the Hebrews themselves but whether it obtained among the Noachides before the Law or among the Egyptians is uncertain but that Name seems to derive it self not so much from the Mosaic Constitution as from a Custom more Ancient However most certain it is that the Revenger of Blood was the next Heir of the Slain Homicide by chance or error had right of Sanctuary Of which Right or Cities of Refuge the Sacred Law hath ordain'd many things Numb 35. and the Masters deliver many necessary to the Interpretation of the Law To a Gentile the Priviledge of Sanctuary did not appertain he was Obnoxious to the Revenger of blood nor to a Proselyte of the House in the casual slaughter of one Circumcised but he enjoy'd the Right of Asyle when he had by chance slain another of his own kind or quality as Mr Selden hath curiously collected de Iur. Nat. Gent. l. 4. â— 2. Who in the next Chapter proceeds to the Interpretation of divers other Niceties concerning this Precept from the Commentraries of the Iewish Masters of greatest estimation and authority Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy Neighbour saith Moses Levit. 19. 16. that is thou shalt not stand Idle when danger of Death is imminent over one of thy own Kind Stock or Nation but shalt help to deliver him The force of an Aggressor with purpose to kill also of a Buggerer of an Adulterer of an Intestuous Person was to be hinder'd tho' with loss of life that they might not commit sin And such Wicked Force was also â—o be punish'd by Private Force if it could â—e done by blows not Mortal or by â—utting off a Member if not rather than fail even by killing If an Israelite shall have delivered an Israelite or his goods into the Power of a Gentile whether by fraud or by force it was Lawful either to slay him or to give him up into the power of a Gentile that he might not betray or deliver up others in like manner To kill an Israelite a Prevaricator i. e. a Worshipper of Idols or a Sinner in Contempt of the Divine Majesty as also an Epicurean i. e. an Apostate denying the Holy Law and the Prophesies it was Lawful to any other Israelite to kill him either in Publick with the Sword or by Stratagem For by his Prevarication and Apostacy he is depriv'd of the Title and Priviledge of a Neighbour i. e. he hath ceased to be an Israelite By fraud to Circumvent a Gentile an Idolater to his destruction was not Lawful and yet notwithstanding the Law doth not command to deliver him from imminent death seeing he is not a Neighbour Other kinds of Homicide there were permitted to private men A Thief in the Night breaking into a House Inhabited might be impunely slain Which is also in the Platonick Laws and in those of the twelve Tables In Child-birth it was Lawful for the Mothers preservation to extinguish the Foetus in her Womb but not vice versâ For Worshipping the Calf three Thousand were slain not Twenty-three Thousand as the Vulgar From the notorious Example of Phinehas the Son of Eleazar Numb 25. 11. was deriv'd Ius Zelotarum the Right of Zelots by which it was lawful for private Men led by Pious Zeal whensoever an Israelite openly and before at least ten Israelites
be Apostolick the Head would Answer Thou shalt Shall I dye before I have sung Mass in Jerusalem No. But by this Answer the Pope as is well observ'd by Selden de Diis Syris l. 1. c. 2. was deceived as to the time of his Death for he understood it of the City Ierusalem but the Oracle meant a Church so called in Rome in which immediately after his Holiness had upon the Sunday call'd Statio ad Ierusalem celebrated Mass he ended his Life miserably That the like Head was made of Brass and to the same purpose too by our Country-man Roger Bacon of Oxford a Minorite a Man of greater Learning than the gloomy Age wherein he lived could well bear is confidently reported by the vulgar not without injury to his admirable skill in all parts of the Mathematicks which his Works now extant shew to have been profound and pure and of which the most Renowned University of Oxon hath in their late History and Antiquities given an honourable Testimony Nor have our Annals any the least Ground upon which this scandalous Fiction could be rais'd Of what matter the Image of the Great Diana of the Ephesians was made is left to conjecture no less uncertain than the Founder of her Magnificent Temple in that City but that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Silver Shrines made there by Demetrius a Silver Smith and other Crafts-men not for but of Diana and mentioned in Acts 19. 24. were little Chappels representing the Form of the Ephesian Temple with the Image of Diana Enshrin'd hath been affirm'd by the Great Erasmus and sufficiently proved by our most Learned Mr. Gregory in Posthum c. 11. And to this agree the Heathen Rites of those times For Ammianus Marcellinus in Iuliano l. 22. numb 12. relates that Asclepiades the Philosopher was wont to carry about with him whithersoever he went a little silver Image of the Coelestial Goddess or Vrania and Dion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 40. fol. 81. saith of the Roman Ensign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was a little Temple and in that the Figure of an Eagle set in Gold Now that which moved Demetrius and other Workmen of the like occupation to stir up the Beast of many Heads to raise a Tumult against St. Paul was not zeal for the honour of Diana as they cunningly pretended but fear lest their Trade should be ruin'd For at this time there was a solemn confluence of all the Lesser Asians to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Games celebrated at Ephesus to the honour of other Gods but of Diana in Chief And it must have cut off the stream of profit from the Craftsmen if the People had been convinced of the absurdity of their Devotion by St. Paul's Doctrine that these Enshrin'd Idolillos of Diana so much bought up by Bigots were no Gods because made with hands In the Prophesie of Amos 5. 27. is mention'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tabernacle of Moloch which probably was an Image of Saturn in a Shrine like these of Diana here describ'd For that Moloch was Saturn Selden hath render'd indubitable and that the Aegyptians Worshiped him under the name of Rephan is evident from the Coptick Table of the Planets explicated by Athan. Kircher in Prodrom Coptic c. 5. pag. 147. But of what Materials soever the Idols of the Ancient Gentils were made still the Worshipers of them seem to have been possessed with an Opinion That there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Numen or Divine Power latent in them And this Opinion had been so diffused through all the Oriental Nations before the Law that God thought it necessary to the peace and felicity of the Hebrew Commonwealth now to be established by this Precept to interdict all Graven Images of any Animal whatsoever such being thought by reason of their hollowness and secret recesses more capable of Demons than others For we are to understand that to the Hebrews as it was expresly forbidden to Worship any such Image so was the meer making of any not permitted lest from the shape or form of the Image the Israelites might perhaps take occasion to believe as the Heathens did That such Images were to use the Phrase of the false Trismegistus in Dialog cum Asclepio animatae sensu spiritu plenae or as Iamblicus calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divino Consortio simulacra plena Where that Consortium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of Angels or Daemons whom they Conjur'd into the Images by certain Magical Rites and Sacrifices Nay more God strictly commanded that all such Statues and Images should be destroy'd and utterly abolish'd Exod. 34. 13. Numb 33. 52. Deut. 7. 5. Hence it was That when Pilate had nayl'd up certain Shields or Bucklers in the Holy Temple the Iews were unquiet and mutinous until he had caus'd them to be taken away because there were in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Countenances or Faces of some of the Caesars emboss'd or prominent perhaps in messo relievo Hence also Herod having set up certain Trophies was in danger of being outraged by the fury of the Iews until by exposing them uncover'd he shew'd that no Images lay conceal'd under them In like manner the Golden Eagle set up by the same Herod over the Gate of the Temple was thrown down as repugnant to the Holy Law as Iosephus Antiq. l. 17. relates Nor was this Law unknown to Tacitus who speaking of the Iews saith Nulla simulacra urbibus nedum templis sunt And he was in the right for even Dion could tell his Readers That to have Graven Images or Statues not only in their Temple but in any other place whatsoever was to the Jews unlawful To endeavour to exempt himself from the obligation of this Law while the Sanctity of it continued was criminal to any Man from the Prince to the meanest of the Vulgar God reserving to himself alone the Power of exception as being the Law-maker He by his right commanded Cherubins winged Images with Human countenances to be set up in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple in that very place into which none but the High Priest nor he but once in the Year upon the day of Solemn and general Expiation was permitted to enter as well knowing that there was nothing of Divine in them and designing that by them should be signified either as Philo thinks that the actions of God in rewarding Good Men and in Punishing the Disobedient are winged and swift or as Maimonides and others conjecture that God uses the most ready and expedite Ministry of Angels to execute all His Commands Of this His Prerogative Royal He again made use when He gave order That the Brazen Serpent should be Erected in the Wilderness for the healing of the People bitten by Fiery Serpents and therefore Tertullian de Idololatria saith Extraordinario praecepto Serpentis similitudinem induxit That the Fiery Serpents by which the mutinous Israelites
own Nation is Assaulted and his Life in danger but help to deliver him from the Aggressor And to this Neighbour is opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Enemy But in the Gospel Neighbour is every Man of whatsoever Nation or Country as in St. Luke 10. 33. Where the good Samaritan is by Christ Himself declared to be Neighbour to the Iew that was wounded by Robbers and before the Law of Moses all men were Neighbours as is hinted in Genes 11. 3. And they said one to another i. e. in the Hebrew A Man said to his Neighbour The Hebrew word here Englished speak properly signifies to give answer to an Interrogation and in that sense we take it for Witnesses were wont to be solemnly Sworn or adjured i. e. By an Oath Administred and taken by the most Holy Name of God excited to give true Testimony in the matter under enquiry before the Judge who Administred the Oath and then to answer the Questions by him propos'd So are we to understand that of Levit. 5. 1. And if a Soul sin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hear the Voice of Adjuration and is a Witness c. The Party Accused was also Adjured by the Judge in the Name of God of which ancient Custom we have an Example in Ioshua 7. 19. and in Matth. 26. 63. And the form of Interrogating and Adjuring the Accused was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Give Glory to God as in the Examination of Achan by Ioshua My Son give Glory to the Lord God of Israel and make Confession unto him and tell me now what thou hast done Hence some Learned Men with good Reason Collect That Achan was not without hope That the Souls of Men survive their Bodies and remain after Death to Eternity For by what other hope could he be brought to confess himself guilty of a Crime which he knew to be capital without Pardon nor could he be ignorant of the common perswasion of the Hebrews that by Confession and Death full forgiveness of such Crimes might be impetrated or obtain'd from God This form of Adjuration was used by the Prophets and Judges of the Great Sanhedrin constituted by God as hath been rightly observ'd by Grotius ad Ioannis cap. 9. vers 24. and in the Thalmudic Digests titulo De Synedrio Simeon one of the Senators thus spake to King Iannaeus Non stas coram nobis sed coram eo qui dixit Fiat factus est Mundus Sometimes this form indeed was express'd in other words but the same sence was still retain'd as in 1 Kings 22. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I Adjure thee to speak to me the Truth in the Name of the Lord. Now this Crime of bearing false Witness which is here prohibited is also hainous and execrable in various respects First because Verity which is as it were another Sun among Men is thereby violated and brought into Contempt Then because the Guilty are helped and Absolved and the Innocent hurt and oppress'd both which are against the rules of Justice In fine because a false Witness deceives and mocks the Judge who is Gods Vicegerent and doubtless would do the same to God Himself also if he were not above all Illusion The Punishment appointed by the Law of Moses for a false Witness was most apposite namely what the Latines call poenam talionis i. e. an Evil equal to that which the Person against whom the false Witness gave Testimony might have suffer'd in case the Testimony had imposed upon the Judge so that the Punishment might reach even to death if the Party accused were upon Trial for Life CHAP. XI The Tenth Precept explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's Wife nor his House BY the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to desire here most fitly used by the Greek Interpreters is signified not every sudden motion of the Mind or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phantasie exciting the Mind as Philo speaks but the Passion or disease of the Mind call'd Lust when a Man resigns up the conduct of his Will to that sensual desire and pursues the Object of it or as the Poet pathetically expresses the Passion Vulnus alit venis caeco carpitur igne Seneca de ira Lib. 2. cap. 4. calls the former a Motion not voluntary a stroke of the Mind that cannot be declin'd by Reason the latter he saith arises from judgment and is by judgment to be taken away Of this moreover he makes two degrees one that is not yet obstinate but vincible by reason the other that already Triumphs over the Understanding and leads the Will captive in Chains of impotent desire In the Old Testament also we find the Hebrew words here used to express Concupiscence most frequently to denote not those first and indeclinable Motions alone but the permanent study and fixt purpose to obey cherish and gratifie them as in Michaea 2. Yea more in this place seem to be noted the Acts by which the Wife or House c. of another man is indirectly coveted such are the sowing or fomenting of discord and animosities betwixt Husband and Wife whence follows Divorce promoting Suits at Law and other Artifices of conceal'd iniquity And this to me seems to be the reason why St. Mark 10. 19. expounds this Precept by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ne fraudem feceris defraud not which both the order of the Laws there recited shews and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not Steal went before But although this may seem to be the sense of this Precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a grosser Interpretation yet have Philosophers of the soundest judgment always held that the meer purpose in Lust or Coveting though it never proceed to act is sinful Aelian said wisely non solùm malus est qui injuriam fecit sed qui facere voluit me quidem judice Nay Ovid himself though no example of Chastity could say Quae quia non licuit non facit illa facit Vt jam servaris benè corpus adultera mens est Seneca the Father saith the same thing and with equal Elegancy Incesta est etiam sine stupro quae cupit stuprum The Son Non immeritò in numerum peccantium refertur quae pudicitiam timori praestitit non sibi and in another place of Crimes in general Omnia scelera etiam ante effectum operis quantum culpae satis est perfecta sunt So Typhoninus the Lawyer Affirms That a Man is call'd an Adulterer Ex animi propositione sola though he hath never actually corrupted any Mother of a Family So also Porphyry de Abstinentia lib. 1. Postquam factis abstinueris abstinendum motibus ac maximè ipsis animi morbis Quid enim prodest factis absistere si causis unde ea proeedunt astrictus maneas These Philosophers then saw farther into the Nature of concupiscence and required greater purity of mind than the Iewish Masters