Unction which is here mentioned v. 21. of this Chapter where a mixture is ordered to be made of the Blood of the Sacrifice and of the anointing Oyl which was order'd to be sprinkled both upon Aaron and his Sons and upon their Garments and was a part of their Consecration For it was done accordingly at that time as we read VIII Lev. 30. So that Aaron himself had a double Unction one proper to him alone as High Priest upon whose Head the holy Oyl was poured another common to him with his Sons as he was a Priest whose Garments were sprinkled with the Oyl and Blood mingled together Ver. 8. And thou shalt bring his sons and put coats upon them The High Priest was first habited and then his Sons in the order I have described v. 5. Ver. 9. And thou shalt gird them with girdles c. See v. 5. And the Priests office shall be theirs c. That is as long as the holy Garments were upon them the Priesthood was upon them but if they were not upon them neither was the Priesthood upon them They are the words of Maimonides in Celi Hammikdash c. 10. Or the meaning may be they shall enjoy in perpetual Succession the Office of Priests as their Father and his Successors the Office of High Priests And thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons Thus doing they shall be compleatly consecrated For in the Hebrew the phrase is Shall fill the hand of Aaron c. which was done after the manner prescribed v. 22 23 24 c. Which shows that this was the principal part of their Consecration or at least the consummation of it And there was besides this a peculiar Offering which both Aaron and his Sons are commanded to offer in the day of their anointing VI Lâ—â— 20 21. Ver. 10. And thou shalt cause a bullock The young bullock he commanded him to take v. 1. To be brought before the Tabernacle of the Congregation In order to its being offered to God for in this and in the following Verses the Sacrifices are prescribed which were to be made at the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons which were three The first is this here mentioned which was an Offering for Sin as appears from v. 14. For till their Sins were expiated they were not fit to offer any thing to God much less to offer for the Sins of others The next was an Holocaust or whole Burnt-offering as a Gift or Present whereby they were recommended to God And the third was a Peace-offering on which they made a Feast and by that were initiated into God's Family And Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock This was the form in all Sacrifices both Burnt-offerings I Lev. 4. and Peace-Offerings III Lev. 2 8. by which they devoted the Sacrifice to be the LORD's But in Sin-offerings there being a Solemn Confession of Sins made XVI Lev. 21. he that laid his hands on the Beast seemed thereby to have transferred the Guilt from himself unto the Sacrifice desiring it might be accepted for him Ver. 11. And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD Though Moses was never Consecrated after the manner of Aaron yet he was made a Priest for this peculiar purpose by an extraordinary Commission from God By the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Where the Altar of Burnt-offering was placed at the crection of the Tabernacle XL. 6 29. Ver. 12. And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock and put it upon the horns of the Altar with thy finger Some have fancied that he means upon the horns of the Altar of Incense because when a Priest offered a Sin-offering for himself he was so to do IV Lev. 7. But it is to be considered that Aaron and his Sons for whom this Sacrifice was offered were not yet Priests but common Men who by this Sacrifice were to be made Priests Whose blood therefore was to be put upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-offering as is expresly required in other Sin-offerings IV Lev. 25 30. And pour all the blood All the rest of the blood Beside the bottom of the Altar This shows he speaks of the Altar of Burnt-offering at the bottom of which there was a Trench into which they poured the Blood of the Sacrifice as I shall show hereafter Ver. 13. And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards He means that part of the Beast which is called the Omentum in which all the Bowels are wrapped which in IX Lev. 19. is simply called that which covereth This hath a great deal of fat upon it to keep the Bowels warm and was much used in ancient Sacrifices both among the Greeks and Romans who herein followed the Jews Nay the Persians also offered to the Gods nothing but the Omentum or a part of it as Bochartus observes out of Strabo See Hierozoic P. I. L. II. c. 45. And from the Condition and Situation of the Omentum the Heathen Diviners made their Conjectures insomuch that some think it had the name of Omentum because they made their good or bad Omens from thence And the Caul that is above the Liver Our Interpreters take this for the Diaphragm or the Midriff upon which the Liver hangs But Bochartus hath demonstrated I think that it signifies the greatest lobe of the Liver upon which the Bladder of Gall lies L. II. Hierozoic P. I. c. 45. The only Argument against it is that this Jothereth as the Hebrews call it is said here to be above the Liver and therefore must signifie the Diophragm upon which the Liver depends But the Particle Al signifies upon as well as above and is to be here so translated upon or by the Liver And the reason why this lobe of the Liver was peculiar to the Altar was because of the fat that is upon it And the two Kidneys c. For the same reason the Kidneys were appropriated to God which had one of their names from the fat that is upon them which Homer as the same Bochartus there observes calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 14. And the flesh of the bullock and his skin c. The Burnt-offering being flead the skin of it was given to the Priest VII Lev. 8. But in Sin-offerings the skin was burnt and the Flesh also in some cases and that also without the Camp not at the Altar IV Lev. 11 12. VIII 17. The Heathen sometimes burnt the skin even of their Holocausts as Bochart shews P. I. Hierozoic L. II. c. 34. Shalt thou burn with fire c. The Hebrew word here for burn is quite different from that in the foregoing Verse which is used concerning the burning of Incense which soon vanished into smoke as the fat there mentioned did But the flesh and the skin and the dung were burnt with a stronger fire and were longer before they were consumed and therefore burnt without the Camp where the Ashes were poured out
Jethro had two Names Nay they fancy he had three being called Hobab they think IV Judg. 11. where Hobab is said to be the Father in Law of Moses But the word Son is there to be supplied which in other places is sometime to be understood he seeming to be Jethro's Son Brother to Zipporah And accordingly is said X Numb 29. to be Son of Raguel the Midianite i. e. of Jethro as many understand it See there And he led the Flock to the backside of the Desert Or as St. Hierom understands it ad interiora deserti to the inner parts of the Desert where there was better Pasture than in the place where he was before to which he was conducted by the Providence of God who intended here to reveal himself more fully to him And came to the Mountain of God even to Horeb. Sheep delight to feed on Mountains as Bochart observes out of Theocritus and Virgil. Whence such mountainous Places are often called in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sheep-walks they being wont to feed there as Eustathius and Hesychius interpret it See Hierozoic p. 1. L. II. c. 46. And this is called the Mountain of God because when Moses wrote this Book there had been a Divine appearance upon Horeb which St. Stephen calls Sinai VII Acts 30. For Horeb and Sinai seem to have been two tops of one and the same Mountain which it is plain by this was not far from the Country of Midian We understand also by St. Stephen's words when this fell out viz. after he had dwelt Forty years in Midian for so long it is certain he continued there VII Exod 7. But how he imployed all that time we are not told No doubt in something else than meer feeding Sheep For being learned in all the Egyptian Wisdom we may well think he both taught others and made also great improvements himself in studying the Records of that and all other Neighbouring Countries and besides received it is likely Divine Revelations There are those likewise who think he now wrote the Book of Job to comfort the Israelites by the example of his admirable Patience under their heavy Oppressions in Egypt and the Book of Genesis also that they might the better understand what Promises had been made to their Noble Ancestors Abraham Isaac and Jacob and that the Time drew near when they would be fulfilled It is noted by Ludovicus Capellus in his Chronolog Sacra that the Number Forty was much observed in the Administrations of Divine Providence Moses being XL years old when he fled into Midian and staying there another XL years and then leaving the World in the end of the next XL years of his Age. It was so many years before the Israelites got to Canaan after they were delivered out of Egypt Forty days Moses continued with God in the Mount both the first and second time of his going up thither So many days the Spyes were in searching out the Land and the Israelites had just so many Mansions in the Wilderness Their first Judge governed just XL. years and the next twice as many Deborah Barak Gideon Eli all judged XL years and so long David reigned Ver. 2. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him So St. Stephen also VII Acts 30. By which some understand the Eternal WORD the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity But I think he is not called simply an Angel any where but with some addition as the Angel of the Covenant for it would be a dangerous insinuation that he was but a meer Creature Yet I believe he is not here to be excluded for I take this to have been the Appearance of the SCHECHINAH which comprehended both the LORD himself and the Angels that attended him as his Ministers One of which now appeared so gloriously that he showed God to be present and accordingly we find in the following words that he himself spake to Moses And thus the LORD is said to have sent his Angel when they cried to him and brought them out of Egypt XX Numb 16. Which Angel is called Michael by Menachem and the same which they also call Goel who redeemed Jacob from all evil XLVIII Gen. 16. In a flame of sire The Glory of the LORD as the SCHECHINAH is frequently called appeared in a flaming manner like fire exceeding bright and with an amazed splendor So it appeared though not so bright when the first Promise was made of their Deliverance XV Gen. 17 18. Out of the midst of a Bush To show say the Jews in Pirke Eliezer Cap. XL. that God was present with them in their great Affliction and Tribulation which was represented by this Bush of Thorns or Briers for so the Hebrew word signifies such a Bush as pricks those that touch it or as the Prophet Isaiah speaks LXIII 9. in all their affliction he was afflicted And by his Providence ordered things so that their Affliction did not consume them but rather multiplied and increased them for as it there follows the Angel of his presence saved them And thus Eusebius tells us in the latter end of L. V. Demonstr Evang. c. 13. some Christians understood it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Fire also in the Bush might be intended to show that God would there meet with the Israelites and give them his Law in Fire and Lightning and yet not consume them For this is the place where God after they came out of Egypt delivered the Law to them which thence was called Sinai saith the fore-named Author in Pirke Elieser from this Bush which in Hebrew is Sene and signifies in Arabick a Thorn-bush whereas before this it was called Horeb from its driness and barrenness as that word imports And behold the Bush burnt with sire and the Bush was not consumed The Heathens had either read or heard of this wonder as appears by Artapanus who mentions it in Eusebius L. IX Praepar Evang. c. 27. but he disguises it and misreports it saying it was a Fire which suddenly broke forth out of the Earth and flamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was no Matter nor any kind of Wood in the place to feed it But in the next Chapter but one an ancient Tragaedian reports it exactly saying just as Moses doth here That the Bush burnt in a great fire and yet remained intire and green in the slame which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest Miracle The meaning of which I have already explained in the foregoing Observation There is a Story something like this in Dion Prusaeus Orat. XXXVI where he saith the Persians relate concerning Zoroaster that the Love of Wisdom and Vertue leading him to a Solitary Life separate from Company upon a Mountain he found it one day all in a flame shining with Celestial Fire out of the midst of which he came without any harm and instituted certain Sacrifices to God who then he made account appeared to him Which Joh. Henricus Vrsinus a
good while ago endeavoured to prove was nothing else but a corruption of this Apparition to Moses And Huetius lately in his Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. Cap. V. had made such a laborious comparison between what is said of Moses and of Zoroaster as is sufficient to make it probable the ancient Persians derived their Religion from these Books of Moses Ver. 3. And Moses said I will now turn aside It seems this glorious Appearance was not directly before him but on one side of him and some distance from him And see this great sight This wonderful Appearance or as Philo translates it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this most stupendious and astonishing Sight or Vision Why the bush is not burnt A Fire which did not burn that is consume what it laid hold on was very amazing Yet the Gentiles did not think such things incredible as appears out of Seneca in his Thyeste where he speaks of a Forest which appeared all on a flame without fire and out of Lucan and divers other Authors among the Pagans produced by the Learned Huetius in his Questiones Alnetanae L. II. Cap. XII n. 10. Ver. 4. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside c. It is plain by this that the LORD himself was here present his Angels being but Attendants as I said upon his Majesty See XXII Gen. 11.15 God called unto him out of the midst of the Bush He now calls him God whom just before he called LORD Both which are sometimes put together as comprehending all the Divine Attributes Maimonides who makes Eleven Degrees of Prophecy or Divine Communications to Men justly thinks this the very highest of all and it was peculiar to Moses to hear God himself speaking to him in a Vision when he was intirely awake And said Moses Moses He repeats his Name to excite his attention And some take it for a token of Familiarity See XLVI Gen. 2. This is called by Gregor Nyssen de Vita Mosis p. 172. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. a Voice of that Light or Splendour i. e. of the Divine Majesty which appeared to him And he said here am I. A common expression of readiness to hearken and to obey Ver. 5. And he said draw not nigh hither He commands him to keep his distance and not to approach nearer to him This and what follows plainly demonstrate what I said before that this was an Appearance of the SCHECHINAH or Divine Majesty to whom he could not pay too great a Reverence Put off thy shoes from off thy feet Many frivolous Reasons have been given of this Precept as may be seen in Braunius L. I. c. 3. de Vestitu Sacerd. Hebr. But the plain Reason is immediately added in the Text because the place where he stood was holy into which it was irreverend to enter with their Shoes on because thereby it might be defiled with the dirt that adhered to them Certain it is that in the Temple afterwards the Priests officiated barefoot and all the Eastern People came into their Holy Places in the same manner which Justin Martyr thinks they learnt from this Example of Moses But Mr. Mede's Opinion seems truer That Moses did not give the first beginning to this Rite but it was derived from the Patriarchs before him and transmitted to future Times from that ancient general Tradition For we find no Command in the Law of Moses for the Priests performing the Service of the Tabernacle without Shoes but it is certain they did so from immemorial Custom and so do the Mahometans and other Nations at this day See Mr. Mede Book II. p. 442 c. and p. 516. And Huetius in his Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. Cap. XI Sect. 2. The place whereon thou standest is holy ground It was made holy by the special Presence of God which was now there who is most holy and makes every thing relating unto him to be holy also For thus the Tabernacle the Temple and the Utensils thereof with all things destined to the Divine Service were called holy Ver. 6. Moreover he said I am the God of thy Father i. e. Of Amram who it seems was a very pious Man And the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Who were so dear to him that he made a Covenant with every one of them which is the reason he is distinctly called the God of each of them as Maimonides observes More Nev. P. III. c. 51. from XXVI Lev. 42. And this Covenant was that he would be their God after a peculiar manner For otherwise he was the God of Noah and of all the holy Patriarchs before him but he is called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob for a peculiar reason because of the Promise made to these three of the blessed Seed which should spring from them in opposition to the Pretensions of other Neighbouring People who as the Learned Dr. Alix observes were their Rivals in that Hope These words being as much as if he had said the God of Abraham and not of Lot as the Ammonites and Moabites pretended the God of Isaac and not of Ishmael as his Posterity pretended the God of Jacob and not of Esau as the Edomites boasted And Moses hid his face In token of Humility Submission and Reverence So Elijah did in after times 1 Kings XIX 12. Nay the Angels cover their faces in the presence of God VI Isa 2. For he was afraid to look upon God The Splendour of the Divine Majesty was so great that it dazled his Eyes and he was not able to behold it For though he stirr'd not a step further after God prohibited him to come nearer yet we may suppose him to be now nearer to it than he was at the first Ver. 3. and it 's Glory also was much increased Ver. 7. And the LORD said I have surely seen the affliction c. To see signifies more than to observe and take notice including in it such Resolutions of Divine Providence as would certainly produce their Deliverance For the doubling of the Expression seeing I have seen as it is in the Hebrew denotes there was no doubt of it And have heard their cry Both this and the next Phrase know their sorrows signifie more than the simple words hear and know import viz. such a regard to their miserable Condition as moved him to order speedy Relief to be given them Ver. 8. And I am come down to deliver them I now appear unto thee for that purpose Out of the hand of the Egyptians From their tyrannical Power And to bring them up out of that Land Where they are Strangers and used as Slaves Into a good Land A fruitful Country of their own And a large Where they shall not be pent up so as they are in Goshen And if it were considered according to the Extent of the Original Promise it was large and spacious indeed even from the River of Egypt unto Euphrates XV. Gen. 18. Vnto a Land flowing
Moses as they seem to me to be And said surely a bloody Husband art thou to me If the foregoing Interpretation be true these are not the words of an angry Woman but spoken with great affection signifying that she had espoused him again having saved his Life by the Blood of her Son Our famous Mr. Mede indeed Discourse XIV carries the Sense quite another way because an Husband he saith is never called Chatan after the Marriage Solemnity was over Which if it be true makes nothing against what I have said because she lookt upon her self as a second time espoused or married to him by this act which had restored him to her when his Life was in danger It must be granted that the word Chatan doth not signifie only a Spouse but sometime a Son in Law but why Zipporah should call her own Child by this Name I do not see Yet so Mr. Mede understands it and adds that the Rabbins tell us it was the custom of the Hebrew Women to call their Children when they were Circumcised by the Name of Chatan i. e. Spouse as if they were now espoused unto God And indeed Aben-Ezra saith so but I cannot find that this was an ancient Notion among them If it were his Interpretation might be the more easily embraced which is this That these were a solemn form of words used at Circumcision signifying as much as I pronounce thee to be a Member of the Church by Circumcision Thus Val. Schindler also expounds it in his Lexic Pentaglot p. 677. a Child was called Chatan upon the Day of his Circumcision because then he was first joyned to the People of God and as it were espoused unto God And he thinks the Targum countenances this Sense when it thus expounds these words by this Blood of Circumcision a Spouse is given to us Which may as well be understood of Moses being given to her as of the Child for he was as I said restored to her and to his Family upon the Circumcision of the Child So it follows in the next Verse They that have a mind to see the Sense of an eminent Writer of our Church concerning this Passage may consult Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity Book V. in the latter end of the LXII Section where he thus far agrees with me that these words were spoken out of the flowing of abundance of Commiseration and Love with her hands laid under his feet For so he thinks these words She cast it at his feet import Ver. 26. So he let him go i. e. The Angel no longer threatned Moses with death but his Wife to her great joy saw him restored to her in safety From which in after times sprang the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were so famous among the Greeks and Egyptians in the Feasts of Bacchus and Osiris whose Stories Huetius hath lately shown were framed out of this of Moses From whence also as he probably conjectures they used Remedies for Diseases in forma fascini which they hung as Amulets about their Childrens Necks Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. Cap. IV. n. 3. Then she said or when she said a bloody Husband thou art c. i. e. As soon as Zipporah had Circumcised the Child and thrown the Foreskin at her Husband's feet and said these words Moses was delivered from his danger Or according to our Translation as soon as her Husband was safe she repeated the foregoing words saying I have redeemed thy life by circumcising thy Son They that make these words to have been spoken in a rage because she was forced to do what she did suppose her to have had little kindness for her Husband and as little regard to Circumcision I should rather Translate the words So she let him go i. e. let Moses go to Egypt and went back her self to her Father only repeating these words before she went Remember me how I have saved thy Life and made thee my Husband again when Death was at hand by the Blood of thy Son whom I have Circumcised There is only this Exception to it that the Hebrew word for let him go is of the Masculine Gender which is of no great weight because it is usual in this Language when they speak of Females as I observed on I. 21. and it is certain she returned to her Father but whether in this manner no Body can certainly determine For we are not told any where upon what occasion she went back to Jethro unless it be here insinuated as we find she did XVIII 2. together with her Children But it is very probable that she fearing some other danger into which she and her Children might fall by the way or in Egypt might desire Moses to send her home again till he had finished the work he went about unto which he consented Ver. 27. And the LORD said unto Aaron In Egypt I suppose he received this order from God but we do not know how whether by an Apparition of the Divine Majesty to him or in a Dream or otherways Go into the Wilderness to meet Moses The Wilderness was a wide place therefore he directed him no doubt into what part he should go And he went and met him in the Mount of God He went almost to Midian that he might have the more time to hear what Moses's Commission was before they came to Egypt Ver. 28. And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD c. Mentioned III. 6 7 8 c. and in this Chapter 14 15 16 c. And all the signs c. See v. 2 3 c. which he told him to confirm his belief that God had spoken those words to him Ver. 29. And Moses and Aaron went Came into Egypt And gathered together all the Elders of the Children of Israel The chief Persons in every Tribe who bore a great sway among them See III. 16. Ver. 30. And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses According to what God had promised v. 15 16. And did the signs The Signs are done by Moses as the Words were spoken by Aaron v. 17. In the sight of all the People Who came along with the Elders Ver. 31. And the People believed All the rest of the People also to whom the Elders reported what they had heard and seen believed that God had sent Moses to be their Deliverer And when they heard that the LORD had visited c. See III. 7 16 17. Then they bowed their heads and worshipped Most humbly acknowledged the Goodness of God and his Faithfulness to his Word CHAP. V. Verse 1. AND afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh When they had convinced the Elders of Israel of their Commission they desired Audience of Pharaoh Which having obtained they went to Court taking some of the Elders along with them to attend them Which is not a meer Conjecture from the decency of the thing that they should go alone on such a Solemn Embassy but so they were commanded
Children of Israel and also unto Pharaoh So these words have respect to both parts of the foregoing Objection And gave them a Charge unto the Children of Israel He laid his Commands upon them strictly requiring them to obey him Which is an higher Expression than we meet withal before in the foregoing Injunctions either in v. 6. or 11. and makes me think this Verse is not a meer Recapitulation of what had been said as some take it but an Inforcement of what he had before commanded And unto Pharaoh King of Egypt to bring the Children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt I suppose he now gave them Authority to Threaten him if he did not obey Ver. 14. These are the Heads of their Fathers Houses The principal Persons of the several Families of Israel The Sons of Reuben the first-born c. See XLVI Gen. 9. where the Sons of Reuben are reckoned up in this very order in which they are here mentioned again to introduce the Genealogy of Moses and Aaron Who being chosen by God to be the Deliverers of his People it was sit to show that they were of the same Stock though not of the eldest Family of the Children of Israel To whom God promised when he went down into Egypt that he would surely bring him up again XLVI Gen. 4. that is in his Posterity which would not have been so manifestly the Work of God if they that were the Instruments of it had not been of his Posterity Ver. 15. The Sons of Simeon c. They are mentioned for the same reason and in the same order that they were in Genesis XLVI 10. Ver. 16. These are the Names of the Sons of Levi c. Having briefly set down the Heads of the two eldest Families of Israel he enlarges now upon the third from which he himself was descended Gershon Kohath and Merari These three are mentioned also in the XLVI Gen. 11. as coming with Jacob into Egypt And the years of the Life of Levi were an hundred thirty and seven years He is thought to have lived the longest of all the Sons of Jacob none of whose Ages are recorded in Scriptures but only his and Joseph's whom Levi survived Twenty seven years though he was much the elder Brother Kohath also the second Son of Levi attained near to the same Age with himself v. 18. And his Grandson Moses his Father lived just so long as Levi did v. 20. Next to Levi the longest Liver of all Jacob's Sons was Naphthali if we may believe the Tradition in R. Bechai who saith he lived to the Age of an Hundred thirty and three years which was the Age of Kohath Ver. 17. The Sons of Gershon Libni and Shimi c. These were born in Egypt from whom descended two Families mentioned afterwards III Num. 18 21. Ver. 18. The Sons of Kohath Amram c. He had the most numerous Off-spring of all Levi's Sons III Numb 28. from the eldest of which Moses came And the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred thirty and three years He sets down the Age of none but only of Levi his great Grandfather and Kohath his Grandfather and of Amram his Father And Primate Vsher makes account that Kohath was Thirty years old when Jacob came into Egypt and lived there an Hundred and three years and died Thirty two years before Moses was born See Chronolog Sacra Cap. XI Ver. 19. The Sons of Merari Mehali From this Mehali it is thought sprung the famous Singer Heman who composed the LXXXVIII Psalm 1 Chron. VI. 33. And Mushi From whom descended Ethan who composed the LXXXIX Psalm 1 Chron. VI. 44. Ver. 20. And Amram took him Jochabed his Father's Sister to Wife It must be acknowledged that the Hebrew word Dod signifies an Uncle and therefore some would have the word Dodah in this place to signifie only his Vncle's Daughter So the Vulgar and the LXX translate it But Moses tells us so expresly that she was born to Levi in Egypt XXVI Numb 59. that it unavoidably follows she was Sister to Amram's Father Which the forenamed great Primate maintains Cap. VIII of the same Book against Scaliger and Pererius who would have Jochabed called Levi his Daughter only as Ephraim and Manasseh are called Jacob's Sons Which would make a very easie Sense as I observed II. 1. if it would consist with those words in Numbers XXVI 59. whom her Mother for that must be understood bare to Levi which show she was his Daughter And thus R. Solomon understood it and so did Tostatus and Cajetan and divers others whom our Vsher there mentions And see our most Learned Selden L. V. de Jure N. G. Cap. IX p. 584. Which shows how sincere a Writer Moses was who doth not stick to relate what might be thought in after Ages when the Law against such Marriages was enctaed a blot to his Family And it is observable that he doth not say one Syllable in Commendation of his Parents though their Faith deserved the greatest Praise as the Apostle to the Hebrews shows XI 23. But Moses as Jac. Capellus truly observes did not write for his own Glory but for the Service of God and of his Church ad A. M. 2481. And she bare him Aaron and Moses This shows that God exactly fulfilled his Promise of Delivering the Israelites out of Servitude in the fourth Generation XV Gen. 16. i. e. the fourth from their Descent into Egypt for Moses was the fourth from Levi being his great Grandson And the years of the Life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years The very same Age with his Grandfather Levi v. 16. Ver. 21. And the Sons of Izhar Korah c. He gives an account of his Uncle's Sons but saith not one word here of his own Who were not to succeed him in his Place and Dignity nor to be advanced to any other Office Such was his Humility and generous Love to his Country that he only sought the Good of that but Nothing for his own Family Ver. 22. And the Sons of Uzziel c. This was another of his Uncles whose Posterity he mentions that it might be seen how God blessed the Tribe of Levi notwithstanding the Sin he had committed at Schechem and the Punishment his Father denounced against him for it XLIX Gen. He saith nothing of Hebron another of his Father's Brothers because perhaps he died Childless or his Children had no Issue Ver. 23. And Aaron took him Elisheba Daughter of Aminadab Sister of Naashon to Wife Though he says nothing here of himself yet he relates particularly what concerned Aaron who he shows was matcht into an honourable Family with the Sister of a Prince of the Tribe of Judah chief Commander of their Host when they were come out of Egypt I Numb 7. II. 3. The knowledge of this he thought might breed in Posterity a greater Reverence to the Priesthood which was setled in the Family of Aaron And
she bore him Nadab and Abihu These two perished in the very first Sacrifice which their Father offered because they did not take Fire from the Altar but offered with strange Fire X Lev. 1 2. Eleazar Who succeeded his Father in the Priesthood Numb XX. 25 c. and assisted Joshua in the Division of the Land of Canaan XIV Josh 1. XIX 51. XXI 1. From him sprung Zadok and the following High-Priests till the Destruction of Jerusalem 1 Chron. VI. 4 c. And Ithamar From whom came Eli and Ahimelech and Abiathar in the time of David in whom this Family was Extinct Ver. 24. And the Sons of Korah c. Though he himself perished in his Rebellion against Moses who was his Cosin-German yet his Family remained XXVI Numb 58. and were famous in the days of David being often mentioned in the Book of Psalms Ver. 25. And Eleazar took one of the Daughters of Putiel to Wife Who this Putiel was is not certain Dr. Lightfoot thinks he was an Egyptian Convert whose Daughter Eleazar married But I see no good ground for this Opinion but rather think it more likely Eleazar would marry one of the race of Abraham being Son to the High-Priest He was married indeed before his Father was promoted to that Dignity yet Aaron was so great a Man in his own Tribe See IV. 14. and married into so honourable a Family in Israel v. 23. that it is not probable he would suffer his Son to match with an Egyptian Proselyte These are the Heads of the Fathers of the Levites c. The great Persons from whom sprung the principal Families among the Levites He saith nothing of the other Tribes because his intention was only to derive his own Pedigree and his Brother Aaron's from Israel Ver. 26. These are that Moses and Aaron to whom the Lord said bring out the Children of Israel c. These are the two Persons to whom God gave Commission to be the Deliverers of their Nation out of the Egyptian Bondage He had mentioned just before their Genealogy the Charge God gave them both to the Children of Israel and unto Pharaoh v. 13. And now he goes on to show that they were the Men who were peculiarly chosen by God to discharge that Office first by going to the Children of Israel which he mentions here and then to Pharaoh which he mentions in the next Verse Bring out the Children of Israel from the Land of Egypt Assure them of their Deliverance notwithstanding the Pressures under which they groan According to their Armies Not by a disorderly Flight but every Family in such good order as an Army keeps XII Exod. 41 51. XIII 18. Ver. 27. These are they that spake to Pharaoh c. Who carried the Message from God to Pharaoh requiring him to let Israel go out of Egypt V. 1 2 c. VI. 13. These are that Moses and Aaron He repeats it again that all Generations might mark who were the Men that God imployed in this great and hazardous Work of Demanding the Liberty of the Children of Israel from Pharaoh's Servitude and effecting it in such manner as is afterward related in this Book There have been Critical Wits who made this an Argument that Moses was not the Author of these Books because it is not likely they imagine he would write thus of himself But no Body but these Criticks can see any Absurdity in it that he and his Brother being the Instruments in Gods hand of effecting such wonderful things should not let Posterity be ignorant of it but take care not only to Record it but to set a special Note upon it that none might rob them of the Honour God bestowed on them and He by whose direction this was written might have the glory of working such mighty things by such inept Instruments as Moses often acknowledges himself to have been Nor is this more than Ezra Nehemiah and Daniel say concerning themselves and St. John may as well be denied to be the Authour of the Gospel which bears his Name because he saith This is the Disciple that testifieth these things c. XXI 24. And besides this the History of succeeding Ages show us the necessity of this which Moses hath said of himself For if he had not told us what his Progeny was we see by what we read in Justin and Corn. Tacitus and such like Authours what false Accounts we should have of him for Justin from Trogus Pompeius makes him as I observed before the Son of Joseph Nay the Jewish Writers have been so fabulous that we should have learnt as little Truth from them if Moses had not told it us himself Ver. 28. And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spake unto Moses c. Having finished the Account he thought fit to give of himself and of his Brother whom God was pleased to imploy in this great Embassy he resumes the Relation of it which he broke off at the end of v. 13. Ver. 29. That the LORD spake unto Moses saying I am the LORD c. This and the next Verse seem to be a Recapitulation of what God said in his last Appearances to him v. 2 10 c. and of his desire to be excused from the Employment on which he was sent urged by two Arguments v. 12 13. where they are related something more largely than they are here in the last Verse of this Chapter In which he mentions them again that there might be a clearer connexion with what God further added for his Encouragement when he gave him the forenamed Charge v. 13. to deliver a new Message unto Pharaoh Ver. 30. And Moses said before the LORD We read the very same v. 12. which makes me think this is not a new Objection but meerly a Recital of what he had objected there See what I have said on the foregoing Verse Behold I am of uncircumcised Lips c. See v. 12. CHAP. VII Verse 1. AND the LORD said unto Moses He received new Orders from the SCHECHINAH or Divine Majesty before whom he stood VI. 12 30. See Mark what I say in answer to all thy Objections I have made thee a God to Pharaoh Therefore why shouldest thou fear to appear before him who is but a Man Moses is not called absolutely a God but only a God unto Pharaoh Which denotes that he had only the Authority and Power of God over him or rather he was God's Ambassadour to speak to him in his Name with a Power ready to Execute all that he desired for the Humbling of Pharaoh and Punishing his Disobedience to his Message And Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet Let therefore the Vncircumcision of thy Lips be no longer an Objection for he shall interpret thy Mind as Prophets declare the Mind of God Some slight Wits have from this place also drawn an Argument that this Book was not written by Moses but by some other Authour long after his time Because the word
III Hierozoic c. 6. p. 1. He shall serve him for ever Till the Year of Jubilee or till his Master died for his Son was not to detain him when his Father was dead unless he would release him or he was redeemed Ver. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant Besides the two former sorts of Persons sold to be Servants there was a third here mentioned which is thus expounded by the Hebrews That she was to be a Virgin under Age that is less then XII years old and a day For if she was more than that it was not lawful for him to sell her and when she came to be of Age it put an end to her Servitude as well as the Year of Jubilee did or Redemption or the Death of her Master Besides her Father might not sell her unless he were reduced to extream Poverty If he did without such necessity he was forced by the Court of Judgment to Redeem her And she was not to be sold neither unless there were some hope her Master or his Son might take her to Wife She shall not go out as the men-servants do There were other and better Conditions for her than for the Servant mentioned v. 3 4. particularly her Master could not marry her to any Body but to himself or his Son Ver. 8. If she please not her Master who hath betrothed her to himself This shows she was sold to him upon the presumption he would take her for his Wife and there was such a previous agreement about this that there needed no other Espousals But if after this he changed his mind and did not like her enough to make her his Wise then God ordains as follows Then shall he let her be redeemed She was to serve her Master six years if she was sold for so long unless she was redeemed which her Master is here required not to refuse or manumitted or set free by the Year of Jubilee or by the Death of her Master or which was peculiar in this case the signs of her being ripe for Marriage appeared See Selden in the place before mentioned To sell her to a strange Nation he shall have no power No Man had power to sell an Hebrew Servant to one of another Nation And therefore by a strange People as the word is here in the Hebrew must be meant an Israelite of another family that was not of her Kindred nor had any right of Redemption Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her Frustrated her hope of marrying her Ver. 9. If he hath betrothed her to his Son Which was expected from him if he did not think fit to marry her himself he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters If the word he relate to the Father the meaning is he shall give her a Portion as if she were his own Daughter If it relate to the Son the meaning is he shall treat her like a Wife Ver. 10. If he take him another wife her food c. If after the Son had married her he took another Wife besides he was still to perform to this all those things that belong to a Wife viz. give her Food and Raiment and at certain times which were determined by Law in some Countries cohabit with her as her Husband From this place the Hebrews have made a general Rule that these three things are owing to all Wives from their Husbands viz. Alimony Clothes and the Conjugal Duty For howsoever the Vulgar Latin understand the last word the Hebrews generally take it for that which St. Paul calls due Benevolence 1 Cor. VII 3. See Selden de Vxor Hebr. L. III. c. 4. Now what was accounted Alimony and sufficient for Clothes he shows cap. 5. and what belongs to the other cap. 6. The Hebrew word Gonata which we translate duty of marriage properly relates to the stated and determined time wherein every thing is to be done and therefore here signifies the use of marriage certo tempore modo as Bochart hath well expounded it L. II. Canaan c. 11. Many indeed will have it derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an habitation as if it signified here the cohabitation of a Man with his Wife But Aben-Ezra rather refers it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time whence Gonat signifies the set and appointed time wherein every thing is done And so the Chaldee use the word goneta for the term prescribed to every thing as the same Author observes that it may be done in due time and manner Theodorick Hackspan thinks Moses here speaks of the Father to whom all the precedent and subsequent acts belong and not to the Son Ver. 11. And if he do not these three to her i. e. Neither marry her to himself nor to his Son nor suffer to be redeemed Then she shall go out free without money When she came of Age and was ripe for Marriage she was to be set free and pay nothing for her freedom Nay on the contrary he was to give her something as appears from XV Deut. 12 13 17. What the signs of Puberty were Mr. Selden shows Lib. de Successionibus c. 9. Ver. 12. He that smiteth a man so that he die That is commit wilful Murder as we now speak Shall surely be put to death Wheresoever we find this word Maveth death absolutely without any addition it always signifies strangling They are the words of R. Levi Barzelonita But the Jewish Doctors will not have this Law extend unto Proselytes of the Gate much less to Gentiles whom if any Israelite killed he was not to suffer death for it See Mr. Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. But Plato in his Book of Laws L. IX p. 872. hath determined more justly than these Rabbies that in the Case of Murder the same Laws should be for Strangers and for Citizens Ver. 13. And if a man lie not in wait Do not design to kill another But God deliver him into his hand But he happens as we speak to kill a Man by that action which aimed at another end This the Scripture expresses more religiously by acknowledging God in every thing that falls out who permits such things as are mentioned XIX Deut. 5. whereby a Man is killed without the intention of him who was about such actions Then I will appoint him a place whether he shall flee He may flee to one of the Places which I will appoint for his Security Which place the Jews say was the Camp of the Levites while they continued in the Wilderness but when they came to Canaan there were Cities appointed for this purpose as we read XXXV Numb 11 12. XIX Deut. 2 3 c. And there being several kinds of involuntary killing Men the Hebrews make these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Places of Refuge to belong only to one of them for the rest did not need them as Mr.
Selden shows L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 2. An Officer of Justice was not bound to flee if he chanced in the Execution of his Office to kill a Man that resisted him Nor a Master if he killed his Scholar or a Father his Son when he gave him Correction Ver. 14. But if a man come presumptuously The Vulgar Latin rightly translates it industriously or with design to kill him for it is opposed to ignorance The Hebrew word also carries in it a signification of boiling anger which doth not alter the Case For if a Man in the height of his Rage resolved to kill another and laid wait for him to execute his Design it was justly judged to be wilful Murder and punished with Death Which was far more equal than Plato's Law That such a Man should only be banished for three years as he that on a sudden killed a Man in his Anger only for two L. IX de Legibus p. 867. Vpon his Neighbour The Hebrew Doctors by Neighbour understand only an Israelite or a Proselyte of Justice As for others they were not put to death if an Israelite killed one of them Which was not the intent of this Law whereby God would have all Men that lived among them safe and secure from being murdered To slay him with guile By which it appeared the Act was designed and deliberate For two things are denoted by this word with guile first fore-thought and then delay as Isaac Karo observes See L'Empereur in Bava kama cap. 3. sect 6. Thou shalt take him If it be inquired who should take him it seems to be determined XIX Deut. 12. where the Elders of the City were to fetch away a wilful Murderer from the City of Refuge In after times the King ordered it as Moses did while he lived 1 Kings I. ult II. 29. By which places it appears That if a Man refused to come from the Altar being judged upon proof to be a wilful Murderer or other high Offender he might be there killed as Georg. Ritterhusius shows L. de Jure Asylorum c. 8. where he observes out of Plutarch in his Laconioa that Agesilaus declared publickly at the Altar of Pallas where he sacrificed an Ox that he thought it lawful to kill one that treacherously assaulted him even at the Altar And thus the practice was among Christians as he there shows when their Temples became Sanctuaries to Malefactors From my Altar This was an Asylum as well as the Cities of Refuge but under many Limitations both with respect to the part of the Altar and to the Persons that fled thither and to the Crime they had committed as Mr. Selden shows in the place above-mentioned p. 475. That he may die Though he was the High Priest and in the Act of Sacrifice he was to be taken away without delay if he had committed wilful Murder If it was involuntary then he was to be taken from thence and carried to the City of Refuge For God would not have a Pious place as Conradus Pellicanus glosses be a Protection to Impiety See Mr. Selden L. III. de Synedr c. 8. p. 100. Maimonides his Observation is pertinent enough upon this occasion That the Mercy which is shown to wicked Men is no better than Tyranny and Cruelty to the rest of God's Creatures and therefore though such Persons sought to God for his Patronage by betaking themselves to that which was dedicated to his Name he would not afford them any protection but commanded them to be delivered up to Justice More Nevoch P. III. c. 39. Ver. 15. And he that smiteth his Father or Mother So as to wound them and to make the Blood come or to leave a mark of the stroke by making the flesh black and blue as we speak Selden L. II. de Synedr c. 13. p. 556. Shall be surely put to death Strangled say the Hebrews see v. 12. by the Sentence of the Judge there being competent Witnesses of the Fact as in other Cases The giving them saucy words or making mows at them which signified Contempt was punished also with Whipping There was no need to say any thing of killing them for all wilful Murder was punished with Death And Solon it is commonly noted made no Law about this because it was not to be supposed any Man would be so wicked Nor was this Crime known among the Persians as Herodotus saith in his days Nor do we find any mention of it in the Law of the XII Tables But in after times there were most severe Punishments enacted against Parricide which are described at large by Modestinus And Diodorus Siculus tells us of the like among the Egpytians See Hen. Stephanus in his Fontes Rivi Juris Civilis p. 18. Plato would have him that killed either Father or Mother Brethren or Children not only to be put to Death but to be disgraced after his Execution by throwing his dead Body naked into a common place without the City where all the Magistrates in the Name of the People should every one of them throw a Stone at his head and then carrying him out of the Coasts leave him without Burial L. IX de Legibus p. 873. Ver. 16. He that stealeth a Man By a Man the Hebrews understand an Israelite whether he was a Freeman or but a Servant as Mr. Selden observes L. VI. de Jure N. G. c. 2. And selleth him No Israelite would buy him and therefore such Plagiaries sold him to Men of other Nations Which made the Crime to be punished with Death because it was a cruel thing not only to take away his Liberty but make him a Slave to Strangers Or if he be found in his hand Though he had not actually sold him yet his intention was sufficiently known by his stealing him Shall be surely put to death I observed above v. 12. they interpret this Phrase every where to signifie strangling If it be said any where his blood shall be upon him it signifies stoning Maimonides makes this the reason why such a Man was condemned to die because it might well be thought he intended to kill him whom he violently carried away at least as I understand it if he could not find means to sell him More Nevoch P. III. c. 41. Ver. 17. And he that curseth his Father or his Mother c. The Hebrews take this Law to concern those who cursed their dead Parents no less than those who cursed them when they were alive but not without Praemonition and Witnesses as in other Capital Crimes And not unless they cursed their Parents by some proper Name of God as Mr. Selden observes out of the Jewish Doctors L. II. de Synedr c. 13. This and the other Law v. 15. enacted Death as the Punishment of such Crimes because they were a sign saith Maimonides More Nevoch P. III. c. 41. of a desperate Malice and audacious Wickedness being a subversion of that Domestick Order which is the prime part of good Government
See XX Lev. 9. And thus far the Athenians went in this matter that by their Law a Son was disinherited who reproached his Father And if the Father did not prosecute such a Son he himself became infamous So Sopater ad Hermogenem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the same Law also if he struck his Father both his hands were to be cut off as we read in Heraclides Ponticus in Allegor Homen and in Quimillian Declam CCCLXXII Qui patrem pulsaverit manus ei incidantur And by another Law he was to be stoned to death as the Author of Problemata Rhetor. tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that without any formal Process against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 18. And if men strive together Fall out and quarrel And one smite another So that from words they proceed to blows With a Stone c. Men usually in their anger take up any thing that is next at hand to throw at him against whom they are inraged or finding nothing smite them with their fists And he die not but keepeth his bed Sometimes the blow falls in such a place that sudden Death follows or such a Wound or Bruise is given as confines a Man to his Bed Ver. 19. If he rise again and walk abroad c. If a Man recovered so far as to get up and walk abroad after the stroke it was presumed though he died not long after it was by his negligence or something else not of the Blow he received And upon the hearing of the Cause the Judges were to acquit the Man that gave the blow i. e. he was not to die for it Only The Hebrew particle Rak signifies but or truly as well as only and here expresses that the Man who gave the blow should not escape all punishment but suffer something for the hurt he had done Yet if we take it to signifie only the sense is not much altered for the meaning is as Constant L'Empereur observes in Bava kama cap. 8. sect 1. by this word to exclude Death but not other Punishment in his Purse He shall pay for the loss of his time c. The Jews say in Bava kama cap. 8. sect 1. that satisfaction was to be given him for the loss he had sustained in five things for the hurt in his Body the loss of his Time the Pain he had indured the Charge of Physician or Chyrurgeon and the Disgrace all which they there indeavour to prove out of the Scripture Two of them are plainly here The first of which the Doctors upon the Misna consider with great Nicety as L'Empereur observes upon the fore-named Treatise some Men being able to earn more by their Labours than others and the disability the stroke brought upon them being more or less of a larger or shorter continuance with respect to all which a proportionable Compensation was made to them And shall cause him to be throughly healed Here they also distinguish between the Cure of the Wound Bruise or Swelling caused by the stroke and of any other breaking out that he chanced to have at the same time He was bound to pay for the Cure of the former but not of the latter And if after a Man was cured he fell ill again he that struck him was not bound to take care of his Cure The same Provision is made in the Civil Law as L'Empereur notes which perfectly agrees with this Constitution of Moses Judex computat mercedes medicis praestitas caeteráque impendia quae in curatione facta sunt Praeterea operas quibus caruit aut cariturus est ob id quod inutilis factus est According to Plato's Laws he that wounded another in his Anger if the Wound was curable was to pay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double to the Damage the wounded Man sustained thereby If it was incurable he was to pay fourfold and so he was to do likewise if it were curable but left a remarkable Scar. If the Wound was given involuntarily he was to pay only simple Damages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For no Law-giver is able to govern Chance L. IX de Leg. p. 878 879. Ver. 20. If a man smite his servant c. A Slave who was not an Israelite but a Gentile He shall surely be punished With Death say the Hebrew Doctors in Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. p. 463. if the Servant died while he was beating him For that is meant by dying under his hand But it seems more likely to me that he was to be punished for his Cruelty as the Judge who examined the Fact thought meet for his smiting with a Rod not with a Sword was a sign he intended only to correct him not to kill him And besides no Man could be thought to be willing to lose his own Goods as such Servants were Ver. 21. Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two A day and a night as the Hebrew Doctors interpret it He shall not be punished Because it might be presumed he did not die of those strokes He is his money His Death was a loss to his Master who therefore might well be judged not to have any intention to kill him and was sufficiently punished by losing the benefit of his Service Ver. 22. If men strive and hurt a woman with child Who interposed between the contending Parties or came perhaps to help her Husband So that her fruit depart from her She Miscarry And yet no mischief follow She do not die as the Hebrew Doctors expound it See Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. p. 461. He shall be surely punished according as the womans husband will lay upon him Her Husband may require a Compensation both for the loss of his Child and the hurt or grief of his Wife Yet he was not to be Judge in his own Case but it was to be brought before the Publique Judges as it here follows And he shall pay as the Judges determine Who considered in their Decree what Damage was done which was estimated by the hurt his Wife received in her Body and by the lessening of her price if she were a Slave and might be sold Unto which several other Mulcts were added to be given to the Woman her self as Mr. Selden observes in the place above-named Ver. 23. And if any mischief follow If the Woman did die Thou shalt give life for life In the Interpretation of this saith Jarchi our Masters differ For some by Life understand that which is properly so called or the Person himself so that it should signifie being put to death But others understand by it a pecuniary Mulct that so much Money should be paid to the Heirs as the Person killed might have been sold for The LXX carry it to quite another sense which is that if a Woman Miscarry and the Child was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not yet formed and fashioned that the Man who occasioned the Miscarriage was to pay a Fine But
time that it had been known to push But if the Ox had formerly been known to be so unruly and he had been told of it and yet did not take care to prevent further mischief then he as well as the Ox were to be put to death The Jewish Doctors indeed have softned this by divers Exceptions As first they say it was to be proved that the Ox had pushed upon three several days for though it appeared he pushed a great many times in one day it would not make the Man liable And secondly it was to be testified not only to the Owner but before the Magistrate that he had pushed so often And lastly they interpret the last words of this Verse the Owner also shall be put to death of Punishment by the Hand of Heaven that is they leave him to God See Bochart in his Hierozoic P. I. L. II. c. 40. But though Abarbinel propound this as the opinion of their Wise men yet he was sensible of its absurdity For he confesses that God doth decree the Sentence of Death should be executed upon the Owner of the Ox only he thinks that he remits something of the strictness of it in the next Verse And there are three Cases here mentioned relating to this matter One in the foregoing Verse where the Ox is ordered to be stoned Another in this where the Owner is also made liable to be put to death And a third in the next Verse where a Pecuniary Mulct is only set upon him Ver. 30. If there be laid upon him a sum of money then he shall give it for the ransome of his life By this it appears there might be a Case wherein the Owner of the Ox should not be put to death but only be fined though the Ox had been wont to push and he was told of it And the Interpretation of this and the foregoing Law which is given by Constantine L'Empereur is not unreasonable upon Bava kama c. 4. sect 5. Either the knowledge which the owner had of the ill Conditions of his Ox was certain or uncertain and his carelesness in preventing the Mischief he was wont to do was greater or lesser and the Friends of him that was killed pressed the strictest Justice or were content to remit it In the former cases if the knowledge was certain the carelesness very gross and the Friends were strict in the Prosecution he was punished with death but if otherwise he was punished only by setting a Fine upon him Certain it is that the foregoing Law might prove too rigorous in many cases as if the Ox pushed being provoked or broke loose when he was tied up or was let go by the negligence of a Servant c. and therefore God permitted the Judges to accept of a Ransom as they saw cause which was to be paid according as the Sanhedrim thought meet So Jonathan Whatsoever is laid upon him He was to submit to the Fine whatsoever it was and it was given to the Heirs of him that was killed If a Man's Wife was killed the Jews say it was given to the Heirs of her Father's Family and not to her Husband Ver. 31. Whether he have gored a son or have gored a daughter c. Because what was said v. 29. of killing a Man or a Woman might have been restrained to the Father or Mother of a Family whose loss was greatest and their lives most precious therefore the same Law is here extended to the Children yet both Jonathan and Onkelos consine it to the Children of Israelites as if all Mankind besides were nothing worth See Bochartus in the place above-mentioned Ver. 32. If an Ox shall push a man-servant or a maid-servant c. Whether the Servant was of greater or lesser value saith Maimonides the Punishment was the payment of thirty shekels and the loss of the Ox half the price of a Free-man who was estimated he saith at sixty shekels More Nevoch P. III. c. 40. He adds in another place in his Treatise of Pecuniary Mulcts that the Owner was not bound to pay this Ransom unless the Ox killed the Man out of his own Ground For if he was killed within in the Owners Ground the Ox indeed was stoned but no Ransom was paid Divers other cases he mentions in that Book as L'Empereur observes upon Bava kama p. 85. where he takes notice that Solon himself wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law concerning the mischief done by Cattle as Plutarch relates in his Life Ver. 33. And if a man shall open a pit c. In the Street or publick High-way as Jonathan rightly interprets it For if he opened or digged a Pit in his own Ground he was not concerned in this Law though another Man's Beast fell into it And not cover it If he did cover it conveniently though in time the Cover grew rotten and a Beast fell into it he was not bound to make it good as Maimonides resolves the Case Ver. 34. The owner of the pit shall make it good c. There were so many Cases arose upon this Law that it is not easie to number them Maimonides hath amassed together abundance belonging to this matter with wonderful accuracy as Bochartus observes who hath transcribed a great many of them in his Hierozoic P. I. L. 2. c. 40. p. 391 c. Ver. 35. If one mans Ox hurt anothers that he die Which equally belongs to all other Cattle as Maimonides observes for the Law mentions an Ox only for example sake They shall sell the live Ox and divide the money c. Though the Ox that was killed was worth as much more as the other yet satisfaction was to be made only out of the live Ox which did the mischief as the same Maimonides observes who hath several Cases upon this Law as may be seen in the fore-named Book of Bochart's p. 393. But it might so happen that the Ox which was killed was of little value and the live Ox worth many pound in which case it seems so unreasonable the Man whose loss was small should be a great gainer by the Sale of the Ox which did the mischief that the Jewish Lawyers resolve the meaning of this Law is the Man whose Ox was killed should receive half the Damage he had sustained as L'Empereur observes upon Bava kama cap. 1. sect 4. Ver. 36. Or if it be known that the Ox hath used to push c. There is a great difference between what is done casually and what is done constantly The former Verse speaks of the hurt done by a Beast that was not wont to push and this of the hurt done by one that was notoriously mischievous And accordingly greater Damages were given in this latter case than in the former And by this general Rule the Jews regulated all other Cases making those Mischiefs that were done by Beasts which were wont to hurt or were of a hurtful Nature to be punished above as much more than the Mischief done by a