them carried the two rows of Bread six Cakes apiece and the other two carried each of them a golden Dish in which the Frankincense was set upon the Bread See Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple Service Chap. 14. sect 5. Being taken from the Children of Israel At whose charge they were provided though prepared by the Levites See X Nehem. 32 33. By an everlasting Covenant By vertue of that Command which they had all agreed to observe which required the Shew-bread to be set before the LORD alway XXIV Exod. 3. XXV 30. Ver. 9. Verse 9 And it shall be Aaron 's and his sons Who as God's Servants eat of the Bread which came from his Table And they shall eat it in the holy place For the most holy things could be eaten no where else See VI. 26 29. For it is most holy unto him See Chap. II. of this Book v. 3. Of the offerings of the LORD made by fire It need not seem strange that this Bread which was not burnt upon the Altar as Meat-offerings were should be reckoned among the Offerings made by fire for as the Altar where those Meat-offerings were burnt is called God's Table I Mal. 12. so this Table where the Shew-bread stood was really God's Altar Insomuch that the Bread which was set upon it before him was lookt upon as offered upon him and the Frankincense set upon the Bread as a part of it being really burnt it may be called an Offering made by fire Thus the Gentiles also as an excellent Person of our own hath observed thought Tables rightly dedicated unto their Gods to supply the place of Altars So Macrobius saith Lib. III. Saturnal cap. 11. it evidently appeared by Papyrian's Law That arae vicem praestare posse mensam dicatam a Table consecrated might serve instead of an Altar Of which he gives an instance in the Temple of Juno Populonia and then proceeds to give a reason for it because Altars and Tables eodem die quo aedes ipsae dedicari solent were wont to be dedicated on the same day with the Temples themselves From whence it was that a Table hoc ritu dedicata dedicated in this manner was of the same use in the Temple with an Altar See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 8. n. 7. By a perpetual statute As long as these Sacrifices lasted Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman whose father was an Egyptian went out among the Children of Israel In the Hebrew the words run thus And there went out the son of an Israelitish woman and he was the son of an Egyptian man in the midst of or among the Children of Israel Which last words signifie that though his Father was an Egyptian by birth yet he was become a Proselyte by Religion And was one of those it is probable who went along with the Israelites when God brought them out of Egypt XII Exod. 38. So R. Solomon Jarchi interprets this phrase Among the Children of Israel Hence saith he we learn that he was a Proselyte of Righteousness And Aben-Ezra to the same purpose He was received into the number of the Jews See a great many more in Mr. Selden Lib. II. de Synedriis cap. 1. numb 2. where he observes That it is the common Opinion of the Jews this Man was the Son of him whom Moses kill'd in Egypt II Exod. 12. And this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the Camp When God was delivering the foregoing Laws unto Moses this Case seems to have hapned And the Jews say the Controversie between these two was this The former looking upon himself as having a good right to it by his Mother came and endeavoured to set up a Tent among the Children of Dan in that place where their Tribe had pitched their Tents which was opposed by one of that Tribe who told him the right of his Mother would do him no service unless his Father had been an Israelite for the Law was II Numb 2. that every Man of the Children of Israel should pitch by his own Standard with the Ensign of their Father's House Which Law though given afterward yet they suppose was the Rule before by which this Man was condemned by those that heard the Cause to be in the wrong Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the Israelitish womans son blasphemed the Name of the LORD and cursed Sentence being given against him he uttered blasphemous words against God himself perhaps renounced the LORD and also cursed those Judges that had condemned him The Jews commonly think that this Blasphemy was his pronouncing the peculiar Name of God which he heard at Mount Sinai when the Law was given But this is a meer fancy for there were some reproachful words utter'd against God as well as against the Judges as appears from v. 15. And they themselves acknowledge that a Proselyte was guilty of death whether he cursed by the proper Name of God or any other as Mr. Selden shows Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 12. Pellicanus thinks it probable that this Man mockt at the foregoing Laws which were delivered about the Worship of God and contemned God himself when he was told by whose Authority they were enacted And they brought him unto Moses If the occasion of their strife was such as the Jews imagine then Mr. Selden thinks it highly probable that the Cause had been heard and judged by some of the lesser Courts established by Jethro's advice XVIII Exod. 21 22. where the Blasphemy had been so plainly proved that he was convicted of it but they doubting about the Punishment of so high a Crime referred the consideration of that to Moses as the Supream Judge And his mothers name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri of the Tribe of Dan. I see no reason of mentioning the name of the Woman from whom he was descended but that all might be satisfied of the Truth of this History Ver. 12. Verse 12 And they put him inward Committed him to Prison that he might be secured till his Punishment was declared That the mind of the LORD might be shewed them In the Hebrew the words are That it might be expounded to them viz. by Moses according to the mouth of the LORD that is as the LORD should declare to him And so Onkelos renders them Till the matter was expounded to them according to the sentance of the word of the LORD For it is noted here by a famous Commentator among the Jews as Mr. Selden observes in the place before mentioned Lib. II. de Synedr c. 1. that God was consulted about this matter because they did not know whether he was to die for this crime or whether his judgment was to be expected from the hand of Heaven or otherwise Whence Jarchi says they did not know whether he was guilty of death or not And so Theodoret Q. XXXIII in Lev. There was no Law as yet about this matter But there was
Imposition of Hands belongs to Confession See Dr. Owtram de Sacrif Lib. I. cap. 15. n. 8. And it is observable that the High-Priest made Confession three times on this day First for himself and then for his Brethren the Priests and now for the whole Congregation saying this Prayer as they tell us in Joma cap. 6. sect 2. I beseech thee O LORD this People the House of Israel have done wickedly and been rebellious and sinned before thee I beseech thee now O LORD expiate the Iniquities the Rebellions and the Sins which thy People the House of Israel have done wickedly transgressed and sinned before thee According as it is written in the Law of Moses thy Servant viz. in the 30th Verse of this Chapter on that day he shall make an Atonement for you to cleanse you that you may be clean from all your Sins before the LORD Which last word LORD as soon as all the Priests and the People that were in the Court heard pronounced by the High-Priest they bowed and fell down flat upon their Faces and worshipped saying Blessed be the LORD let the Glory of his Kingdom be for ever All the iniquities of the Children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins These three words Iniquities Transgressions and Sins are the very words used by the High-Priest in his Confession before-mentioned which comprehend all manner of Offences whether committed deliberately or not against Negative or Affirmative Precepts as they call them Grotius in his Notes on this place hath thus distinguished them but whether exactly or not cannot be determined But it is probable that Sins signifie Offences committed by Error not deliberately Iniquities such as were deliberately committed against the prohibiting Precepts and Transgressions those that were deliberately committed against commanding Precepts All except those to which cutting off was threatned which were not expiated by any Sacrifice Putting them upon the head of the Goat By putting his hands on the head of the Goat and confessing their Sins over him with Prayer to God to remit them they were all charged upon the Goat and the punishment of them transferred from the Israelites unto it Just as the Sins of all Mankind were afterwards laid upon our Saviour Christ as the Prophet speaks LIII Isa 6. who his own self bare our sins in his own body saith S. Peter 1. II. 24. the punishment passing from us to him who was made Sin for us 2 Corinth V. 21. Which Expressions are manifest Allusions unto this Sacrifice on the great Day of Expiation which was the most illustrious Figure of the Sacrifice of Christ and shows beyond all reasonable contradiction that Christ suffered in our stead and not meerly for our benefit For it is very evident the Sacrifice offered on this day was put in the place of the People and all their Sins that is the punishment of them laid upon its head And it appears by the form of all other Sin-offerings which were occasionally offered at other times that he who brought them put off the guilt which he had contracted from himself and laid it on the Sacrifice which was to die for him Which he did by laying his hand on the head of it at the door of the Tabernacle while it was yet alive Then with his hand so placed he made a Confession of his Sins for which he desired forgiveness by the offering of this Sacrifice That is he prayed by these Rites that the Beast being offered and slain he might be spared from punishment which was a plain transferring the guilt from himself unto his Sacrifice Which being yet alive and thus laded with his guilt was then brought to the Altar and there slain for the guilty Person That is it died in his stead for there was no other reason of its being put to death there and in that manner I have insisted the longer on this because nothing can better explain the true meaning of Christ's dying for us which was by transferring the suffering due to our Sins upon him as the manner was in the Legal Sacrifices Which was a thing let me add so notorious in the World that other Nations from hence derived the like custom to that here mentioned by Moses Particularly the Egyptians as David Chytraeus hath long ago observed and since him many others out of Herodotus who tells us Lib. II. cap. 39. that they made this Execration over the Head of the Beast which they sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if any evil was to fall either on themselves who sacrificed or upon the whole Country of Egypt it might be turned upon the head of that Beast And this he saith was the custom over all the Land of Egypt and the reason why no Egyptian would taste of the head of any Animal Nor was this the Notion of the Egyptians only but of other Countries also who called those Sacrifices which were offered for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sacrificed in their stead and the Life of the Beast given for theirs Thus the Greeks sometimes sacrificed Men when some very heavy Calamity was fallen upon them whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiations to purge them for their Sins by suffering in their room For they prayed thus over him who was devoted every year for the averting Evils from them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be thou our Cleansing that is our Preservative and Redemption or Ransom And with these words they threw him into the Sea as a Sacrifice to Neptune And thus the Massilienses did as Servius tells us upon the 3d Aenead in time of a Plague praying ut in ipsum reciderent mala totius Civitatis that on him might fall the Evils of the whole City And shall send him away As soon as the Confession was over the Goat was sent away By the hand of a fit man By a Man prepared before hand as the Ancients interpret it or that stood ready for this purpose Jonathan saith he was designed for it the year before others say only the day before and that the High-Priest appointed him who might appoint any body whom he thought fit but did not usually appoint an Israelite as they say in Joma cap. 6. n. 3. Into the wilderness It is not certainly known what Wilderness this was but the Hebrews call it the Wilderness of Tzuk which they say was ten Miles from Jerusalem And they say that at the end of each Mile there was a Tabernacle erected where Men stood ready with Meat and drink which they offered to him that went with the Goat lest he should faint by the way And the Nobles of Jerusalem they add accompanied him the first Mile further than which they might not go because this day was a Sabbath After which they that were in the first Tabernacle accompanied him to the next and they that were there to the third and so forward to the last that they might be sure to have this great work done of carrying their Sins quite
by God's express Command for that Ceremonial Service which was unlawful to be performed any where else for then it might seem proper only to that Ceremonial Dispensation and to be now vanisht under the Gospel but the perpetual practice of the Jewish Nation shows that they thought themselves obliged by this Precept to use Reverence in their Synagogues Which were neither instituted by any written Precept of the Law nor for any Ceremonial Service which was confined to the Temple but for publick Assemblies to hear the Law read and expounded and to offer the Prayers of the People to God For in the Psalms of Asaph where there is the only mention we find of Synagogues in the Old Testament they are called not only Houses and Assemblies of God but also Sanctuaries as the word is here in Moses LXXIII Psal 17. LXXIV 4 7 8. LXXXIII 12. See Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State p. 213. Ver. 31. Verse 31 Regard not them Do not go to consult them nor follow their Directions That have familiar spirits It is uncertain what is here meant by Oboth which we translate familiar Spirits But the word Ob signifying a Bottle or hollow Vessel XXXII Job 19. the Jews think it probable that Oboth here signifies such as the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had a Spirit or Daemon speaking out of the Belly or Chest with an hollow voice as if it came out of a Bottle So the Woman whom Saul went to consult is called baalath ob a Mistress of such a Spirit where it is plain ob signifies the Spirit or Daemon See XX. 27. and he or she that had familiarity with such a Spirit was properly called Baal or Baalath ob the Master or Mistress who possessed it and gave Answers by it with a voice that seemed to come out of the lower parts of the Belly In one place indeed the LXX translates it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XIX Isa 3. They that speak out of the Earth because the Voice coming from the lower parts of her that was possessed seemed to come out of the Earth as Mr. Selden explains it in de Diis Syris R. Levi of Barcelonita saith the manner of it was thus Praecept CCLVIII. after certain Fumes and other Ceremonies a Voice seemed to come from under the Arm-holes so he takes it and so it is said in Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 7. of the Person that had the familiar Spirit which answered to the Questions which were askt For this he quotes Siphra But if it came from under the Arm-holes still it was so low and hollow as if it had been out of the bottom of the Belly or the Cavities of the Earth Others imagine such Persons had the name of Oboth because they were swelled with the Spirit as a Bladder is when it is blown However it was this continued till the times of the Gospel as appears from XVI Acts 16. For she that had the Spirit of Python was the same with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch informs us See Casaubon and L. de Dieu on that place The famous Pythia who delivered the Oracles of Apollo sate over a hole and by her Secrets Parts received the Spirit which swelled her and made her utter Oracles as Origen observes Lib. VII contra Celsum and St. Chrysostom Hom. XXIX in I Epist. ad Corinth See Beyerus in his Annot. upon Selden de Diis Syris p. 226 c. There are those that look upon all that these Authors say as old Stories to which no Credit is to be given But Aug. Eugabinus affirms That he himself had seen such Women called Ventriloquae which is the same with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whom as they sat a Voice came out of their Secret Parts and gave Answers to Enquiries And Caelius Rhodoginus Lib. VIII Antiq. Lect. cap. 10. saith this is not to be entertained with Laughter for not only he saw such a Woman and heard a very small Voice coming out of her Belly but innumerable other People not only at Rhodigium but in a manner through all Italy Among whom there were many great Persons who had her stript naked that they might be sure there was no fraud to whom a Voice answered unto such things as they enquired Hieron Oleaster also upon XXIV Isa 4. saith he saw such an one at Lisbon from under whose Arm-holes and other parts of her a small Voice was heard which readily answered to whatever was asked Neither seek after Wizards The Hebrew word Jideonim importing Knowledge as all confess signifies such as we call Cunning-men who pretended to tell what was lost or what Fortune people should have And these were Men as far as I can judge as the other were mostly Women who held intelligence with some Daemon For this word seems to have the very same derivation in Hebrew which the other hath in Greek for all say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowers and Jideonim are as much as Joadim which is the very same futurorum conscij as Mr. Selden observes And so the LXX translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Kings XXI 7. though here and XX. ult they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This knowledge they pretended to obtain as some think by looking into the Entrails of their Sacrifices or as Maimonides will have it by putting the Bone of a certain Bird called Jadua into their Mouths with certain Fumes and Adjurations which made them fall into an Ecstasie and foretel things to come R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCLIX And there are those who think that these Jideonim were such as pretended by Charms to cure Diseases c. of which we can have no certainty and it seems to rely only on the LXX in this place who as I observed translate it by a more general word in another To be defiled by them With the foulest sins For seeking to these was a forsaking of God and one peculiar kind of Idolatry And therefore they that were guilty of it were to be stoned as the same R. Levi observes if they committed this sin knowingly and there were Witnesses of it If there were no Witnesses then they were left to God to be cut off by his hand XX. 6. I am the LORD your God Unto whom you are to seek for all that you desire Ver. 32. Verse 32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head That they might accustom themselves to Modesty and Humility as Maimonides glosses upon this Law More Nevoch P. III. cap. 36. for the maintenance of which the usage was they say to rise up to them when they were at the distance of four Cubits and as soon as they were gone by to sit down again that it might appear they rose up purely in respect to them To this Nature directed all civilized People who anciently as Juvenal says Satyr XIII believed this a
and become more one with them than they were with the Egyptians but was of great force to procure kindness to those who did not live by their Laws I am the LORD your God Who have done so much for you when you were meer Strangers that you should not stick to be kind to those who are in the like Condition Ver. 35. Verse 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment The Hebrews refer this word judgment to all the following particulars and think that Moses uses it here to show of what moment this Law is which he calls doing judgment So that he who measures or weighs hath the Office of a Judge and if he commit any fraud in his Measures or Weights he is a corrupter of Judgment and is called wicked abominable accursed They are the words of R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCLX where he adds that such Men are the cause of five Mischiefs which are imputed to unjust Judges who defile the Land prophane the Name of God remove the Presence of the Divine Majesty bring a Sword upon the People and at last carry them captive out of their own Country And therefore great Punishments have been enacted in all Countries against this Crime as destructive to Human Society Particularly Justinian ordained that such Offenders should be beaten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sorely as impious People In mete-yard By which they measured Lands Cloath and such like things for Middah as Fosterus observes is the Measure of continued quantity viz. in things dry In weight By which they paid and received Money in those days and sold Brass and Iron and things of like nature Or in measure The Hebrew word Mesurah from whence seems to come the Latin Mensura and our English word Measure denotes the Measure of Discrete Quantity as we speak as of Corn and of all continued Fluid Quantity as of Wine and Oil. And the forenamed R. Levi will have it to signifie the very least of such Measures about which saith he the Law concerns it self that Men should be exact in them as well as in the greatest And so Hesychius here notes that Moses provides against all Injustice in small things as well as in great for what the possession of a Field or a House is to a wealthy Man that the measure of Wine or Corn or the weight of Bread is to the Poor who have daily need of such things for the support of their Life Ver. 36. Verse 36 Just balances just weights This Verse only positively requires strict justice in those things wherein the former Verse forbad all deceit And these two words refer to things sold by weight A just Ephah and a just Hin shall ye have These two words Ephah and Hin comprehend all sorts of Measures of things whether wet or dry And that they might have such just Weights and Measures among them the Standard of them was kept in the Sanctuary by which all were to be governed as appears from 1 Chron. XXIII 29. See XXX Exod. 13. The Jewish Doctors also say that it was a Constitution of their wise Men for the preventing all Fraud in these matters that no Weights Balances or Measures should be made of any Metal as of Iron Lead Tin c. which were obnoxious to rust or might be bent or easily impaired but of Marble Stone or Glass which were less liable to be abused For these Constitutions Moses was so famous that his Name was celebrated on the account of them in other Nations Nay Lucius Ampelius a rude kind of Writer but who had collected much out of better Authors saith that Mochus was the Inventer of Scales and Weights and that his memory is preserved in the Constellation called Libra Now if for Mochus we read Moschos it is the very name of Moses in Hebrew viz. Moscheh who is called so by other Authors as the learned Huetius observes in his Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. cap. 7. n. 16. I am the LORD your God which brought you out of the Land of Egypt This is the general reason for their Obedience which is repeated in this Chapter above a dozen times Sometimes more briefly I am the LORD and sometimes a little larger I am the LORD your God and here with this addition which brought you out of the Land of Egypt Whereby he in a special manner demonstrates himself both to be their LORD faithful to his promise VI Exod. 3. and their God who obliged them to his Service by the most singular benefit Ver. 37. Verse 37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes and all my judgments and do them These words Statutes and Judgments comprehend all the Laws of God some of which were Prohibitions which they were to mark and observe diligently so as to abstain from such things and others Precepts or Commands which they were to practise and do according to them I am the LORD No more need be said to engage your Obedience in every thing than this that I am your Soveraign and the Soveraign of the whole World CHAP. XX. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying Sometime after the delivery of the Laws mentioned in the two foregoing Chapters the chief of them were inforced with the addition of Penalties which are set down in this Chapter Ver. 2. Verse 2 Again thou shalt say to the Children of Israel Repeat what I said before XVIII 21. and add this which follows unto it Whosoever he be of the Children of Israel or of the stranger that sojourneth among you The Proselytes who had embraced their Religion were no less concerned in this Law than the Native Israelites See XVII 8 10 c. That giveth any of his seed unto Molech This looks like the Prohibition before given XVIII 21. and R. Levi gives this reason of its repitition because it was a piece of Idolatrous Worship so usual in those days when the Law was delivered that there needed great indeavours to preserve them from it Praecept CCVIII And Maimonides also observes as I noted upon XVIII 21. that Idolaters used to fright People into this Worship by telling them their Children would dye if they did not make them pass through the fire and thereby devote them to their Gods But upon due consideration of these words it may appear probable that there is something more in them than in the former importing a higher degree of this sin For to give their Children to Molech seems to be no less than to offer them in Sacrifices So Christ giving himself for us constantly signifies in the New Testament which was a more horrid thing than meerly making them pass through the fire which did them no hurt And therefore this Crime is here forbidden under the Penalty of Death whereas in the XVIIIth Chapter no punishment is threatned Certain it is Children were really burnt upon the Altars of the ancient Pagans especially in times of great Distress when they hoped to pacisie the Anger of their Gods by offering to
a plain Law that whosoever cursed his Father or Mother should die XXI Exod. 17. from whence they might justly infer he was to be so punished who cursed his heavenly Father there being also another Law against those that reviled the Judges and Rulers XXII Exod. 28. And therefore I take it they only doubted what kind of death he should die about which Moses consulted the Divine Majesty Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying It 's likely Moses went into the Sanctuary to enquire of God who from the Mercy-seat pronounced the following Sentence against him and also made a perpetual Law about this Case with some others Ver. 14. Verse 14 Bring forth him that cursed without the Camp This is the Sentence pronounced by the mouth of God from whom they expected it And first he orders the Criminal to be carried forth out of the Camp as an unclean V Numb 2 3. nay an accursed thing VII Josh 24. And let all that heard him Next he orders the Witnesses to be produced who heard him speak the blasphemous words Lay their hands upon his head This was a peculiar thing in this Case Hands being laid upon no Man's head condemned by the Sanhedrim but only upon a Blasphemer By which Ceremony they solemnly declared that they had given a true testimony against him and thought him worthy of the Death he was condemned to suffer And perhaps prayed God that all the punishment of this Sin might fall upon this Man and not upon them nor the rest of the People And so the Jews tell us their manner was to say Let thy blood be upon thy own head which thou hast brought on thy self by thy own guilt And let all the Congregation stone him This was the last part of the Sentence that when they that heard him Curse had taken off their hands all the Congregation should stone him Which is the same Punishment the Law inflicted on him that cursed his Father or his Mother XX. 9. See there Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel saying Upon this occasion a new Law is made in express terms against Blasphemy Whosoever curseth his God Some of the Hebrews understand this of a Gentile who lived among them and was not yet solemnly made a Proselyte of the Gate that if he cursed the God which was worshipped in his Country he should die for it See Selden Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. ult And Procopius Gazaeus extends the words to such Persons as cursed the God they worshipped though he were a false God Which is according to the common Rule of the Talmudists that where we find these words isch isch man man which we well translate whosoever they comprehend Gentiles as well as Jews But no doubt this Law particularly concerned the People of Israel whom God intended by this Law to preserve from such horrid impiety as is here mentioned Shall bear his sin Be stoned See XX. 9. If the word curseth be understood in the proper sense Procopius well observes that nothing could be more sensless than this Sin and upon that account deserved stoning for he that curseth his God upon what God will he call to confirm his curse But the Hebrew words seems to import only speaking contemptuously of God Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death c. It is uncertain whether this be an higher degree of the Sin mentioned in the foregoing Verse or only a repetition of the same Law with a more express declaration of the punishment he should bear for his sin The Jews unreasonably understand it of him alone that expressed the Name i. e. the most holy Name of God as they say in Sanhedrim cap. 7. num 5. where Joh. Ã Coch observes out of the Hierusalem Targum on XXXII Deut. that it is thus explained Wo unto those that in their Execrations use the holy Name which is not lawful for the highest Angel to express But this is a piece of their Superstition the meaning undoubtedly is That if any Man reproached the most High he should die for it but the meer pronouncing his holy Name could be no Crime when Men might swear by it though not take it in vain VI Deut. 13. XX Exod. 7. All the Congregation shall certainly stone him As they were ordered to do with the present Offender v. 14. As well the stranger as he that is born in the Land c. By Stranger may be meant a Proselyte like the Egyptian whose Offence was the occasion of this Law But the Jews extend it to Samaritans and Gentiles only they say such were to be punished by the Sword and not by Stoning Ver. 17. Verse 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death This Law was given before XXI Exod 12. And it is not easie to give an account why it is here repeated after the Case of a Blasphemer Perhaps it was upon the occasion of the last words in the foregoing Verse As well the stranger as he that is born in the land when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall be put to death For after the following Laws they are repeated again as a general Rule v. 22. that no Man might think it hard a Stranger should be punished for Blasphemy as much as an Israelite when in other Cases the same Judgment passed upon them both Procopius Gazaeus thinks a Murderer is joyned with a Blasphemer because they have the same mind and intention the one desiring to destroy God if it were possible as the other doth his Neighbour Therefore the Law puts them together just as on the contrary when it commands the love of God it couples with it the love of our Neighbour So he Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good beast for beast It was not incongruous as the same Procopius speaks to annex unto the Law against Murder a Law against other Injuries And concerning this see XXI Exod. 33 34. For the Hebrew word Behemah here used signifies such domesticktame Beasts as are there mentioned Ver. 19 20. Verse 19 20. If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour as he hath done so shall it be done to him c. This Law concerns only free Persons not their Slaves and hath been explained XXI Exod. 24 25. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And he that killeth a beast he shall restore it and he that killeth a man he shall be put to death This is a short repetition of the two first Laws here mentioned v. 17 18. to make them the more regarded Ver. 22. Verse 22 Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger as for one of your own Country In these and in all other Cases as well as Blasphemy v. 16. you and the Stranger shall be judged by one and the same Law For I am the LORD your God Who will neither favour
crucifying Christ the LORD and accept the Punishment of their Iniquity acknowledging that so horrid a Crime deserved so long and so heavy a Punishment For every Child as he observes in another place Book XI p. 3750. is born as it were heir to his fathers sins and to their Plagues unless he renounce them by taking their Guilt upon him and such hearty Confession as this Law prescribes and patient Submission of himself to God's Correction Ver. 46. Verse 46 These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the LORD made between him and the Children of Israel This may be thought to refer either to all the foregoing Book of Laws or to what is said in this Chapter Menochius thus expounds it these are the Punishments which God threathed to the breakers of his Laws But it is more reasonable to take in the whole in this manner these are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws together with the Promises and Threatnings annexed to them which the LORD made between him and Israel In Mount Sinai See XXV 1. By the hand of Moses By the Ministry of Moses who delivered these Laws from God's own Mouth It is obvious to observe that instead of these are the Laws which the LORD made between him and the Children of Israel Onkelos the famous Chaldee Interpreter hath between his WORD and the Children of Israel Which Theodorick Hackspan produces among other places to prove that in those Paraphrasts the WORD of the LORD signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself Which though it be true in some places yet in others as I have observed before it cannot have that signification particularly in CX Psal 1. where the Hebrew words are The LORD said unto my Lord which are thus expounded by Jonathan The LORD said unto his WORD Where it can signifie nothing but another Divine Person And so Onkelos might intend it here that the LORD made all these Laws between his Eternal WORD and them CHAP. XXVII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying Some Religious People it is possible were touched with such a sense of what Moseshad now delivered in the foregoing Promises and Threats that they thought of giving themselves wholly unto God or of vowing some of their Goods to him and therefore he gives Moses further Directions for the regulating of such Vows Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them when a Man shall make a singular Vow And first If any Man vowed himself or his Children wholly to the Service of God in the Tabernacle he directs what was to be done in that case Which he calls a singular or extraordinary Vow and by Philo is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Vow it being a wonderful piece of Devotion as the word japhli in the Hebrew imports because Men were desirous to help God's Priests in the meanest Ministry such as bringing in Wood carrying out Ashes sweeping away the Dust and such like The person shall be for the LORD by thy estimation The meaning would have been more plain if the words had been translated just as they lie in the Hebrew According to thy estimation the person shall be for the LORD For this immediately suggests to ones thoughts That the Service of the Persons themselves thus devoted was to be employed in the Tabernacle but a value set upon them by the Priest and that to be employed for the LORD i. e. for holy uses for repairing the Sanctuary suppose or any thing belonging to it The reason why God would not accept the Persons themselves as they desired but the value of them for his Service seems to be because there was a sufficient number of Persons peculiarly designed for all the Work of the Tabernacle which he would not have incumbered by more Attendants there than were needful Ver. 3. Verse 3 And thy estimation shall be That the Priest might not either overvalue or undervalue any Person the Rates are here set down which he should demand for their Redemption Of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old For at Twenty years of Age saith Procopius Gazaeus Men begin to be fit for business and continue so till sixty when it is time to leave it off Thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver That this one Rule should serve for all Men though of different qualities Philo thinks was fit for several reasons which he gives in his Book of Special Laws The principal is because God regarded only the Vow the value of which was equal whosoever made it whether a great Man or a poor After the shekel of the Sanctuary See XXX Exod. 13. Ver. 4. Verse 4 And if it be a female then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels Women could not be so serviceable as Men and therefore were valued at a less rate For all that they could do was to spin or weave or make Garments or wash for the Priests and Levites Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old It appears by this that though a Child of five years old could not make a Vow yet his Parents might solemnly devote one of that Age to God and it did oblige them to pay what is here required for the use of the Sanctuary Thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels Less is required than for those above twenty because their Life was more uncertain and they were less capable to do any Service before they came to their full growth Ver. 6. Verse 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old c. Before a Child was a Month old it seems it was not capable to be devoted to God but then it might And still less was still demanded as the value of them because Children so small were very weak and imperfect and the price therefore set accordingly But the words may be understood not of Children that were a Month old but that were in the first Month of their Life And Samuel we find was devoted to God before he was born Ver. 7. Verse 7 And from sixty years old and above if it be a male then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels c. They are valued much less after sixty than before v. 3. because their Service then was little worth and their Life likely to be short And for a female ten shekels The Hebrews think it observable that in their youth v. 3 4. Males were valued almost double to Females but now in old Age they are made almost of equal value For old Women continue very serviceable in many things when old Men are not whence they have a saying An old Woman in an House is a Treasure in an House Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if he be poorer then thy estimation If he be not able to pay according to the forenamed Rates Then he shall present himself before the Priest Who was then
A COMMENTARY UPON THE Third Book of MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS BY The Right Reverend Father in GOD SYMON Lord Bishop of ELY LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCVIII A COMMENTARY UPON LEVITICUS THE Third Book of MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS CHAP. I. THE Greeks and Latins give it this Name of LEVITICUS not because it Treats of the Ministry of the Levites properly so called of which the Book of NUMBERS gives a fuller account than this Book doth but because it contains the Laws about the Religion of the Jews consisting principally in various Sacrifices the charge of which was committed to Aaron the LEVITE as he is called IV Exod. 14. and to his Sons who alone had the Office of Priesthood in the Tribe of Levi Which the Apostle therefore calls a Levitical Priesthood VII Hebr. 11. Verse 1. Verse 1 And the LORD called unto Moses That is bad him draw near and not be afraid because of the Glory of that Light which was in the Tabernacle XL Exod. 35. For this is a word of love as the Hebrew Doctors speak who observe that God is not said to call the Prophets of the Gentiles but we only read that God jikar met Balaam not jikra called to him as he did here to Moses Who as Procopius Gazaeus hath well observed upon this word appointed no Service of God in his House which he had lately erected without his order whereas the Worship performed in the honour of Daemons was without any Authority from him Nay there were Magical Operations in it and Invocation of Daemons and certain tacit Obligations which their Priests contracted with them For which he produces Porphyry as a Witness And spake unto him but of the Tabernacle Hitherto he had spoken to him out of Heaven or out of the Cloud but now out of his own House Into which it is not here said he bad him come as he did afterwards when the Glory of the LORD dwelt only in the inner part of the House over the Ark but he stood it is likely without the Door of the Tabernacle till the Sacrifices were appointed as it here follows and the High Priest entred into it with the Blood of Expiation I can find no time in which this can so probably be supposed to have been done as immediately after the Consecration of the Tabernacle as soon as the Glory of the LORD entred into it And so I find Hesychius understood it who observing this Book to begin with the word And which is a Conjunction used to joyn what follows with that which goes before thence concludes that the beginning of this Book is knit to the conclusion of the last and consequently what is here related was spoken to Moses on the same day he had set up the Tabernacle and the Glory of the LORD filled it When Moses might well think as the Hierusalem Targum explains it that if Mount Sinai was so exalted by the Divine Presence there for a short space that it was not safe for him to approach it much less come up into it till God commanded him he had much more reason not to go into the Tabernacle which was sanctified to be God's dwelling place for ever till God called to him by a Voice from his Presence nay he durst not so much as come near the Door where I suppose he now stood without a particular Direction from the Divine Majesty Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them The Tabernacle being erected it was fit in the next place to appoint the Service that should be performed in it which consisted in such Sacrifices as are here mentioned in the beginning of this Book There could not be a more Natural order in setting down the Laws delivered by Moses than this which is here observed If any man of you bring It is the Observation of Kimchi that in the very beginning of the Laws about Sacrifices God doth not require them to offer any but only supposes they would having been long accustomed to it as all the World then was To this he applys the words of Jeremiah VII 21. and takes it for an Indication that otherwise God would not have given so many Laws concerning Sacrifices but only in compliance with the usage of the World which could not then have been quite broken without the hazard of a Revolt from him And therefore they are directed to the right Object the Eternal God and limited to such things as were most agreeable to Humane Nature An offering unto the LORD The Hebrew word Korban which we translate an Offering and the Greeks translate a Gift is larger than Zebach which we translate a Sacrifice For as Abarbinel observes in his Preface to this Book though every Sacrifice was an Offering yet every Offering was not a Sacrifice A Sacrifice being an Offering that was slain but there were several Offerings of inanimate things as those mentioned in the beginning of the second Chapter of this Book which therefore were not properly Sacrifices but were accepted of God as much as the Offering of Beasts when they had nothing better to give And therefore the same Abarbinel will have the Name of Korban to be given to these Offerings because thereby Men approached to God For it is derived from a word which signifies to draw near from whence he thinks those words in Deuteronomy IV. 7. What Nation is there that hath God so nigh unto them c. Ye shall bring He speaks in the Plural Number say some of the Hebrew Doctors who have accurately considered these things to show that two Men might joyn together to offer one thing Your offering of the Cattle I do not know what ground Maimonides had to assert in his More Nevochim Pars III. cap. 46. that the Heathen in those days had brute Beasts in great veneration and would not kill them for it is no Argument there was such a Superstition in Moses his time because there were People in the days of Maimonides as there are now who were possessed with such Opinions But he thinks God intended to destroy this false Perswasion by requiring the Jews to offer such Beasts as are here mentioned that what the Heathen thought it a great sin to kill might be offered to God and thereby Mens sins be expiated By this means saith he Mens evil Opinions which are the Diseases and Ulcers of the Mind were cured as Bodily Diseases are by their contraries Yet in the XXXII Chapter of that Book he saith God ordered Sacrifices to be offered that he might not wholly alter the Customs of Mankind who built Temples and offered Sacrifices every where taking care it may be added at the same time that they should be offered only to himself at one certain place and after such a manner as to preserve his People from all Idolatrous Rites Which if they had considered who contemned this Book of LEVITICUS as Procopius Gazaeus tells us some did
because ittreated too much of Sacrifices they would not have thought it unworthy of the Creator of the World especially if they had lookt further to the Wisdom hidden under these things which were Examples Shadows and Patterns of heavenly things as the Apostle speaks VIII Hebr. 4. IX 13. And so was the Tabernacle it self a Figure as we there read v. 9. for the time present of a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands Even of the herd and of the flock That is Bullocks Sheep and Goats For under the word tzon which we translate Flock both Sheep and Goats are comprehended And so Moses expounds himself v. 10. These were the principal Sacrifices and most acceptable to God as Abarbinel observes in the fore-named place For though Doves and Turtles were accepted when Men were not able to bring the other yet in Publick Sacrifices these Birds were never allowed but only the three sorts of four-footed Beasts before-mentioned Which were therefore chosen as he proceeds because these were the most-excellent of all-brute Greatures on several accounts and because they were not hard to be found but easily procured and therefore no wild Beasts were required to be offered because God would not impose upon his People as his words are so great a Burden as to bring him that which could not be got without some difficulty For which cause also young Pigeons and Turtles were only offered among Birds He gives other Reasons for this which seem to me very far fetcht and therefore I shall not mention them But this I may further add That as they were the most ready at hand and in common use among Men at their Tables which he should have noted as the plainest Reason of all so they had been in most ancient use among Religious People in their Sacrifices See XV Gen. 9. And it is very likely they were restrained peculiarly to these that they might not follow the Customs of the Gentiles as they would have done had they not been abridged in their liberty Now though we find in Homer mention made of Hecatombs which were a Sacrifice of an hundred Oxen and of perfect Lambs and Goats whereby Achilles hoped Apollo might be appeased and moved to cease the Plague he had sent upon the Greeks yet there was no more ancient Sacrifice among the Heathen if we may believe themselves then that of Swine Which made that Learned Roman Varro derive the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Greek word for that Creature from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. from a Sacrifice because it was most anciently offered to their Gods there being no more delicious Food at their own Tables then Swines Flesh See Petrus Castellanus de Esu Carnium Lib. II. cap. 1. And afterwards they also sacrificed not only Harts to Diana but Horses to the Sun Wolves to Mars nay Dogs to Hecate whereby they destroyed the very Nature of Sacrifices or at least of Sacrifical Feasts in which People had communion with the Gods whom they worshipped by partaking at their Table For who could endure to eat of such Meat as Horse-flesh and the Flesh of Wolves nay Asses which were offered to Priapus Ver. 3. Verse 3 If his offering be a Burnt-sacrifice Having prescribed what sort of Creatures should be offered he first directs them about their Holocausts as the Greeks call them which were wholly burnt upon the Altar and were the most ancient Sacrifices that had been in the World They are often mentioned by the Greeks particularly by Xenophon in his Cyropaedia Lib. VIII where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. they sacrificed whole Burnt-offerings of Oxen to Jupiter and afterwards of Horses to the Sun See Bochart L. II. Hierozoic cap. 33. P. I. Sometimes indeed the Heathen burnt only a part and reserved the rest to feast upon as he there observes But among the Jews no Man ever partaked of these Offerings For there being four sorts of Sacrifices prescribed by the Law as Abarbinel observes in his Preface to this Book cap. 2. the whole Burnt-offerings the Sin-offerings the Trespass-offerings and the Peace-offerings There was this difference made between them that of the first of these whether it was a publick or a private whole Burnt-offering no Body partaked no not the Priests themselves but it was intirely consumed except the Skin Of the second some part was burnt the rest the Priests had and were to eat it in the Court of the Tabernacle though there was one sort of Sin-offering which was wholly consumed as the Burnt-offerings were The third sort which were Trespass-offerings were only offered for private Persons some part of which as in the former were burnt upon the Altar and the rest eaten by the Priests As for the last the Peace-offering some part of such Sacrifices were burnt on the the Altar the Priest had the Breast and the right Shoulder and the remainder he that brought the Sacrifice eat with his Friends I shall add no more but that these whole Burnt-offerings seem to have been simple Acknowledgments of God the Creator of the World and Testifications that they owned him to be their LORD and continued in Covenant with him and implored his Blessing upon them And therefore with respect to the first and last of these Considerations the Gentiles were permitted to bring these Sacrifices as the Jews tell us but no other whatsoever to be offered unto God Of the herd As Burnt-offerings were the principal Sacrifices and therefore mentioned in the first place so those of Beeves were the chief of all Burnt-offerings both among the Jews and among the Gentiles Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sacrifice Oxen became a Proverb for a magnificent Entertainment Let him offer a male These were accounted the best and therefore principally appointed And so they were among the Heathen insomuch that the Egyptians offered only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Herodotus tells us Lib. II. cap. 41. and thought it unlawful to offer Females Which shows that Moses did not conform his Laws to their Customs for he admitted the Sacrifice of Females III. 1. Nay it was particularly prescribed in some Cases XIX Numb 2. Without blemish Or perfect as the Hebrew word Tamim signifies Which word Homer expresly uses when Achilles speaks about the Sacrifices to Apollo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to the Gods as Eustathius there observes who are most perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most perfect things ought to be offered The like passage a very learned Friend of mine now with God Dr. Owtram observes out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes his Acharnenses Lib. I. de Sacrificiis cap. 9. sect 3. where more may be seen to the same purpose Now that is perfect in which there is no defect in any part and is not decayed by Age. For which reason Abarbanel observes great care is taken in the Law that this sort of Creatures were to be offered before they were three years old and the other
the voice of swearing and is a witness Being adjured in the Name of God when he is called to be a Witness in a Cause to speak the Truth For Judges had this power to use such Adjurations that they might either draw a Confession from an accused Person or a faithful Testimony from a Witness Of the former of which there is a solemn Form remaining in Scripture 1 Kings XXII 16. 2 Chron. XVIII 15. as Grotius hath observed upon XXVI Matth. 63. And Dr. Hammond upon the same place hath observed instances of the latter 1 Kings VII 31. XXIX Prov. 24. And Micah's Mother seems by her own Authority to have adjured her Family as they dreaded the Vengeance of the Divine Majesty to discover if they knew any thing of the Eleven hundred Shekels of Silver which had been stoln from her XVII Judg. 2. In all which Cases Men were bound to answer as much as if they had taken a solemn Oath so to do Insomuch that our blessed LORD himself being thus adjured made an Answer to the Court of Judgment though before he had stood silent Whether he hath seen or known of it Whether he can say any thing of the Matter in question either from his own Knowledge or from the Information of credible Persons If he do not utter it Declare what he knows being thus adjured Then he shall bear his iniquity Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the Truth when he is so solemnly admonished to declare it but offer such a Sacrifice for his sin as is prescribed v. 1. which belongs to all the following Cases The Jews make four sorts of Oaths in their Courts or commerce one with another as Mr. Selden hath observed out of their Writers L. II. de Synedr cap. 11. n. 8. which are rash Oaths vain Oaths of which they also make four sorts Oaths about Trusts mentioned VI. 2 3. and this which they call the Oath of Testimony which they say every Man was bound to give before the Sanhedrim when he was required With this distinction between Capital and Pecuniary Causes that in the latter a Man was not bound to come and testifie unless he was cited by the Plaintiff or by the Court but in Capital Causes and in such things as the Law prohibited as if a Man saw another smite his Neighbour he was bound to come of his own accord without any Summons and give his Testimony in Court Yet in this they make some difference as may be seen in R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CXX They who would see more of these several sorts of Oaths among the Jews may find them consider'd in Sam. Petitus his Var. Lectiones cap. 16. And such a Law as this there was anciently in other Countries that he who saw a Crime committed if he could not hinder it should be bound at least to prosecute the Malefactor So the Egyptian Lawgiver saith concerning Theft which a Man saw committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prosecute the Law against that Crime So Plato uses the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. IV. de Legibus saying that he who knew of such a Fact or had certain Information of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth not prosecute the Person that did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be liable to the same punishment See Henr. Stephanus his Praefat. ad Fontes Juris Civilis Ver. 2. Verse 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast c. The Hebrew Doctors expound this of such Persons as having touched any of the unclean things which are mentioned in this Verse and in the next came into the Sanctuary or did eat of the holy things Which they gather out of VII 20 21. and XIX Numb 20. where cutting off is threatned to those who knowingly were so guilty For otherwise it was sufficient for a Man's Expiation who touched any unclean thing to wash himself and his uncleanness lasted only till the Evening See Chap. XI and Numb XIX But why may it not be meant of those who neglected to wash themselves Who were to expiate that neglect by a Sacrifice He also shall be unclean and guilty Obliged to offer the Sacrifice prescribed v. 6. for eating that which is holy saith Rasi or coming into the Sanctuary Ver. 3. Verse 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man c. Such uncleannesses as are mentioned in the XIIth XIIIth and XVth Chapters of this Book And if it be hid from him when he knoweth of it then he shall be guilty The words may be translated Whether he did it ignorantly or had some knowledge of it and yet offended he shall be obliged to offer the Sacrifice mentioned v. 6. Ver. 4. Verse 4 Or if a soul swear This the Hebrew Doctors expound of that sort of Oath which they call futil or rash when a Man saith he hath done or will do or not do a thing that is in his power to do Pronouncing with his mouth It was to be uttered in words and not meerly thought in his mind To do evil or good That he hath done a thing or not done it of whatsoever kind it be or that he will or will not do it For these four kinds of Oaths of this sort the Hebrew Doctors make two about things past and two about things to come See Selden de Synedr L. II. cap. 11. n. 8. As if he swear that he did eat or he did not eat of such a meat did talk or not talk with Reuben or Simeon c. Rasi thinks by doing good is meant something for his own advantage and consequently by doing evil we are to understand afflicting himself or punishing his Servant c. But it may as well be understood generally of all things whatsoever which are comprehended under the name of good and evil And it be hid from him He did not rightly understand or consider the thing about which he sware whether it was in his power for instance to do what he swore he would do or whether he could lawfully do it or if through forgetfulness he omitted to do what he might have done Some interpret these and the following words as those of the foregoing Verse He shall be guilty in one of these Obliged to offer a Sacrifice as it follows v. 6. if he have sworn rashly in any of the foregoing instances Ver. 5. Verse 5 And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing When he laid his hand upon the Head of his Sacrifice this Confession of his Offence it is likely was made without which his Sacrifice would have been of no avail So all the Hebrew Doctors understand it Particularly Abarbanel upon the XVIth Chapter of this Book saith That Confession was necessary to be added to every Sacrifice for sin For what is here commanded in this Case they resolve belongs to all Sin-offerings and
any Oil to it which was more costly and also had something of Magnificence in it Kings and Priests being anointed and therefore not becoming the meanness or the grief and humility of the Person that brought this Offering For which reason Frankincense was also omitted being a pleasant thing and not fit to be added to an Offering for sin which was offensive to God To this purpose the same R. Levi in the same place And we find this imitated also by the Heathen for Pliny saith in his Preface to Vespasian before his Natural History Mola tantum salsa litant qui non habent thura Ver. 12. Verse 12 Then shall he bring it to the Priest Confessing his Sin to him as is ordered v. 5. for which he desired this Offering might be accepted And the Priest shall take his handful of it even a memorial thereof For an Acknowledgment of his Fault and as a Caution to him hereafter Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the Priest shall make an atonement for him as touching the sin that he hath sinned in one of these With one of these three fore-mentioned Sacrifices either with a Lamb or with two Turtles or young Pigeons or with fine Flour For as Rasi hath observed there are three sorts of Men Rich Poor and very Poor and so three sort of Offerings are prescribed in this Chapter sutable to each of their Abilities And the remnant shall be the Priests as a meat-offering See Chapter the second v. 2 3. where the whole Meat-offering except one handful is given to the Priest who had nothing at all of some of the Sin-offerings mentioned in the foregoing Chapter v. 12 21. which were intirely consumed Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying Here begin the Orders which were given to Moses about another sort of Sacrifice near of kin to the former but delivered it is likely at some other time after he had written down the foregoing Laws about Sin-offerings See IV. 1. Ver. 15. Verse 15 If a soul commit a trespass In the Hebrew this is a different phrase from what hath been hitherto used signifying another sort of Guilt And sin through ignorance in the holy things of the LORD By applying to his own private use any thing that was dedicated to God as Maimonides expounds it in his More Nevochim P. III. cap. 46. which might be committed in the payment of Tithes and in First-fruits and the First-born of Cattle or medling with that part of the Sacrifice which belonged to the Priest alone Which things he that committed presumptuously was to be cut off XV Numb 30. but if ignorantly he was to do as here is directed in this Verse But these words seem to be particularly restrained to the last of those things now mentioned eating any part of the Sacrifice which belonged to the Priest alone XXII 14. and the end of this Law as R. Levi Barcelonita speaks Praecept CXXII was to excite fear and reverence in all those who approached unto holy things Then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a Ram without blemish out of the flocks As a Sheep was a more noble Species among Creatures than a Goat so a Ram was of a greater value among Sheep than a Female and therefore this Sacrifice was more costly than the Sin-offering mentioned v. 6. With thy estimation Besides his Sacrifice he was to make Satisfaction in Money according as the Priest should esteem the damage For that 's the meaning of with thy estimation according to the value thou shalt set upon the thing which he applied to his own use By shekels of silver At least two Shekels as the Jewish Doctors resolve After the shekel of the Sanctuary See XXX Exod. 13. The Jews were thus confined to these Rites and such as are mentioned v. 8 9. in the rest of these Prescriptions that there might be no room for Idolatrous Ceremonies nor might Men among themselves be left at liberty to invent impious or frivolous ways of Worship and that the Obedience of good Men might be also exercised in these minute matters and the contempt of wicked People be the more apparent in refusing to comply with these known Laws of God For a trespass-offering The Hebrew word Ascham which we translate Trespass-offering is so near of kin to Chattah which we translate Sin-offering that one of them is sometimes used for the other as I observed upon v. 6. yet there is a real difference between them though it be not easie to determine wherein it consists For the greatest Men differ in their opinion about the quality of the Offences for which these two kinds of Sacrifices were to be offered Some saying that the Offences for which Ascham was offered were inferior to those for which Chattah was offered which is the Opinion of Maimonides in his More Nevochim P. III. cap. 46. Others on the contrary think that the Offences which were expiated by Ascham were more grievous than those expiated by Chattah which is the Opinion of no less Man than the deservedly admired Bochartus in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 33. Where he adds that the former sort of sins were committed knowingly the other only ignorantly For so the LXX translate Chattah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to denote a Fault committed by Error and Mistake but Ascham by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which carries in it the Notion of something premeditated and designed But this is directly contrary to the very words of Moses here in this Verse which expresly speak of a Trespass committed through ignorance Aben-Ezra therefore distinguishes these two much better making Chattah to significe a Sacrifice which was made for the purging Offences committed through ignorance of the Law and Ascham for such as were committed through forgetfulness of the Law But as he gives no proof of this so he was sensible it was liable to exception there being one of this sort of Sacrifices mentioned v. 17. which he saw could not be comprehended under this Rule Others therefore think the former hath respect to Offences against God and the latter to those against Men not observing that the very same sort of sin which when it was known is called Chattah when it was doubtful is called Ascham From whence a very learned Person of our own now with God who had much and long considered this matter concludes That an Offence was peculiarly called Ascham which is a name for the Sin as well as for the Sacrifice as Chattah also is about which either a Man was dubious as in the following Verse or did a manifest damage to other Men. There being no Ascham or Trespass-offering commanded to be offered by the Law but for such Offences as were so committed against God that their Neighbours also were injured by them As in the Case of those who did eat holy things here mentioned whereby the Priests were damaged and of those mentioned VI. 2 3 4. and such as lay with a
matter with that which went before it is likely was spoken at the same time And these words signifie that the LORD further spake unto Moses what concerned Trespass-offerings Ver. 2. If a soul sin and commit a trespass The same sort of expression is used in the beginning of this Law concerning the Offerings V. 15. Which some translate prevaricate or act insincerely Against the LORD The Soveraign of the World who was peculiarly affronted by the following Sins especially by swearing falsly which was calling him to bear witness to a lie And lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep Deny the Trust which was committed to him and that when he was brought upon his Oath to deliver the Truth as appears by the next Verse For this is the instance of that sort of Oath which the Jews call The Oath about a thing deposited See V. 1. For there being no witness of what was done between two Friends or Neighbours who trusted one another in such matters but God alone they appealed unto him from whom Nothing could be hid And this Oath the Jews say was governed by another which they call The Oath of Testimony which a Man was not bound to give unless he were adjured to it by the Court of Judgment and so it was in the Oath about the things deposited he was not guilty who was adjured by private Persons and denied it but he that denied it before the Court. So they resolve in Halicah Olam Pars IV. cap. 2. Or in fellowship To carry on a common Trade in joynt-stock or as others understand it in any thing for which he gave his hand unto another for so the Hebrew words are putting of the hand as Contracts were oft-times made Which if a Man afterwards denied he fell under the guilt here mentioned And there is some reason to think that this is much of the same nature with the former because when he speaks of Restitution v. 4. this is not repeated And therefore it seems to be included in that which was deposited with another whether it were Money called here Pikkadon or any other Goods called Tesumah jad They that would see more Opinions about these words putting of the hand may consult Const l'Empereur in his Annotations on Bava kama cap. 9. sect 7. Or in a thing taken away by violence That is by Robbery or Stealth as the word gazel signifies For Theft not being punished among the Jews with death they tendred an Oath to those who were accused or suspected of it to clear themselves from the imputation XXII Exod. 11. Or hath deceived his neighbour Wrong'd him by false Accusation as the Hebrew word Hoschok seems to import Which St. Hierom always translates Calumny as the word Haschak he translates to calumniate It signifies also extortion and Rasi takes it for defrauding an Hireling of his Wages Ver. 3. Verse 3 Or have found that which was lost and lieth concerning it Deny that he found a thing lost which in truth came to his hand And sweareth falsly They put Men to their Oath in this case also when there was a just cause of suspicion as they did in matters of Theft In any of all these In any of these sorts of things as the Hebrew may be translated That a man doth Wherein one Man dealeth with another or which frequently happen as Grotius thinks this phrase signifies in his Annotations upon 1 Corinth X. 13. Sinning therein By these means contracting a guilt Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then it shall be because he hath sinned and is guilty The last words should rather be translated and acknowledges his guilt For so this word Ascham guilty ought to be expounded as I showed IV. 22 23. to make a clear sense of the Law there mentioned And it would otherwise be superfluous here for when a Man had sinned so grievously as the foregoing Verses suppose who could doubt of his guilt The true meaning therefore is when he hath sinned so the first words may be translated by committing any of those things fore-mentioned and acknowledges his guilt he shall restore that which he took away violently c. And this most plainly reconciles the contradiction that otherwise would be between this Law and that in XXII Exod. 1 7 9. Where a Man that stole an Ox is condemned to restore five Oxen and four Sheep for one and if he delivered Money to another to keep and it was stolen the Thief was to pay double whereas here one simple Restitution is exacted with the addition of a fifth part The reason is because in Exodus he speaks of those Thieves who were convicted by Witnesses in a Course of Law and then condemned to make such great Restitution but here of such as touched with a sense of their sin came voluntarily and acknowledged their Theft or other Crime of which no Body convicted them or at least confessed it freely when they were adjured and therefore were condemned to suffer a lesser Punishment and to expiate their Guilt by a Sacrifice See L'Empereur upon Bava kama cap. 7. sect 1. and cap. 9. sect 1 5 7. Where he observes very judiciously that this Interpretation is confirmed by V Numb 7. where the first words may be translated If they shall confess their sin that they have done c. And this seems to me more reasonable than the account which Maimonides gives of this matter in his More Nevochim P. III. c. 41. where expounding these words which he took violently of an open Robber he gives these Reasons why he was not punished so much as a Thief but restored only the Principal with a fifth part because Rapine happens seldom but Theft often for it cannot be committed so easily as Theft and is done openly and manifestly whereas Theft is committed more secretly so that a Man may be aware he imagines of a Robber and defend his Goods against him better than against a secret Thief Yet this is better than the account of R. Johannes f. Zachei mentioned by J. Coch upon the Gemara of the Sanhedrim cap. 7. p. 271. that a meer Thief fears Man more than God but a Robber fears both alike Ver. 5. Verse 5 Of all that about which he hath sworn falsly he shall even restore it in the principal The same numerical thing which he took away if it still remain in his possession unalter'd or else the just price of it as R. Levi Barzelonita expounds it Praecept CXXV And the Jews pretend to such scrupulosity in this matter that they say a Man who was to have a share in his Father's Estate from whom he had taken something by robbery was to restore it before the Division was made and not by detaining it to make his share greater than it ought to be See Bava kama cap. 9. sect 9. And shall add the fifth part more thereto The Jews have many subtilties about this as may be seen there sect 6 7. The plain sense is that he should
the meaning is he shall present it to the LORD before the Altar and then afterward as is directed in the next Verse burn an handful of it upon the Altar And so the Rule is Chapter second v. 8 9. When it is presented to the Priest he shall bring it to the Altar c. Ver. 15. Verse 15 And he shall take of it his handful of the flour of the meat-offering c. According to the prescription in the second Chapter v. 2. where all this Verse is explained Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat If they had no pollution upon them XXII 6. See Chapt. II. 3. The reason of the Precept was as R. Levi Barcel observes Praecept CXXXIII that it preserved the dignity of the Sacrifice to have it eaten only by the Priests and by them I may add only in the holy place and not carried out from thence as it here follows With unleavened bread shall it be eaten There is nothing in the Hebrew Text to answer unto the word with which makes the sense unaccountable that otherwise is easie and natural If we translate it as the Hebrew words plainly signifie unleavened it shall be eaten See X. 12. In the holy place There was a room in the Court of the Priests where they ate these holy things as Kimchi observes upon XLII Ezek. Which may be confirmed out of XVIII Numb 10. where the most holy place can signifie nothing but the Court of the Priests as L'Empereur rightly understands it in his Annot. upon Middoth cap. 2. sect 6. In the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation they shall eat it As the Priests did eat it in their own Court so their Male-children had a place in the Court of the Israelites wherein to eat it X. 12 13. And they are all said to eat before the LORD because this was a part of the Tabernacle as was also the Court of the Women where there was a place for the Priest's Daughters to eat as well as their Sons of the Firstlings that were offered to the LORD XVIII Numb 19. Ver. 17. Verse 17 It shall not be baken with leaven There were two little rooms at the East-gate of the Court of the Temple called The Gate of Nicanor one of which was a Vestry for the Priests to put on their Garments when they went to Minister and the other was for baking this flour and that mentioned v. 21. So they tell us in Middoth cap. 1. sect 4. And therefore it is ordered to be baken without leaven because it was a part of the LORD's Sacrifice which being offered unleavened Chapt. second v. 11. the remainder must needs be unleavened also because the whole was God's and the Priests could have it no other ways than it was offered unto him I have given it to them for their portion of my offerings made by fire That is of the Meat-offerings before-mentioned It is most holy c. This is the reason why it was not to be carried to be eaten out of the holy place See Chapt. second v. 10. As is the sin-offering and as the trespass-offering See v. 26. and VII 6. Ver. 18. Verse 18 All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it And none but they because it was a thing most holy It shall be a statute for ever in your generations That is as long as the Law about Sacrifices shall last Every one that toucheth them shall be holy According to this translation of these words the meaning is That it was not sufficient to be descended of Priests and to be Males but they were also to be free from any legal defilement who were admitted to eat of this Offering XXII 6. But these very words which we here translate every one in the 27th Verse we translate whatsoever and then the meaning is Every thing that toucheth them shall be made holy by them That is the very Dishes into which such holy things were put or the Spoons or Knives wherewith they were eaten were never to be imployed to any other use See XXIX Exod. 37. Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying At the same time the LORD gave direction about another Offering near of kin to the former but not yet mentioned Ver. 20. Verse 20 This is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they shall offer unto the LORD The Jews call this a Mincah of imitation which every High-Priest and every other Priest as they understand it were bound to offer when they were Consecrated and the High-Priest to continue every day as long as he lived So Abarbanel in his Preface to this Book Section 2. reckoning the various sorts of Meat-offerings makes this the fourth kind which the High-Priest offered every day and every other Priest once in his Life viz. when he first was admitted to Minister at the Altar at the Age of twenty years For both these Meat-offerings saith he are comprehended in this Verse But it may as well be understood only of Aaron and his Successors in the Priesthood of whom the following words seem to speak and not of the common Priests In the day when he is anointed The Hebrew word bejom may be translated from the day and so the Jews understand it that he was to make this Oblation not only upon the day of his Consecration but ever after as I said every day as long as he continued in the Priesthood And so the next words seem to explain it The tenth part of an Ephah of fine flour for a meat-offering perpetual half thereof in the morning and half at night The High-Priest saith Josephus L. III. Antiq. cap. 10. sacrificed twice every day at his own charges and then he describes this very Offering which was distinct from that which attended the daily Burnt-offering as appears by the quantity of this Meat-offering and by the manner of ordering it For that seems to have been raw Flower mixed with Oil but this baken as it follows in the next Verse See XXIX Exod 40 41. The reason why it is here mentioned is because it was a Mincah or Meat-offering of whose Rites Moses is treating and this is an Exception from the rest Ver. 21. Verse 21 In a pan shall it be made with Oil. With three logs of Oil as the Jews determine And when it is baken See v. 17. Thou shalt bring it in Unto the Altar And the baken pieces shalt thou offer c. If it was a Meat-offering of the High-Priest it was divided into XII pieces as Maimonides saith if of a common Priest for they will have both to be included in this Law then into X pieces which were so exactly divided that half of them were offered in the Morning and the other half in the Evening And the handful of Frankincense which they say was offered with them was in like manner divided and burnt on the Altar Maase Korban cap. 13. Ver. 22. Verse 22 And the Priest of
after the first chewing and another into which it is sent after it hath been grinded a second time That shall ye eat The Hebrews truly observe particularly R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CLIX. that all kinds of Animals which had not every one of these Marks of parting the Hoof and being cloven-footed and chewing the Cud were unlawful to be eaten Ver. 4. Verse 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the end or of them that divide the hoof This is added as an Explication of the foregoing Rule to show that if any of the fore-mentioned Marks werewanting such Creatures must not be eaten As the Camel because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof c. The latter part of this Character is not to be understood as if the Camel did not divide the Hoof at all but not quite thorow so as to be cleft as well as divided For though its Hoof be divided above it coheres below as R. Solomon observes And so doth Aristotle Lib. II. cap. 1. and Pliny L. XI cap. 45. This being so very plainly expressed in this Law it is something strange that Heliogabâ—lus should order the Flesh of Camels and Ostriches to be served up to his Table Dicens praeceptum Judaeis ut ederent saying The Jews were commanded to eat them as Lampridius reports his words cap. 28. Salmasius indeed upon that place saith he found these two words Struthiones and Camelos joyned together to make one word in a MS. of the Palatine Library which reads Struthiocamelos exhibuit in caenis Which seems to some to mend the matter but then they are forced to interpret praeceptum by concessum as if he had said God did not forbid this Meat to the Jews which is altogether uncertain It is better to say That though many of the Pagans did read the Law of Moses yet they did it carelesly without sufficient attention to it Ver. 5. Verse 5 And the Coney Much might be said to justifie our Translation of the word Saphan by the English Coney if it could be proved that they chew the Cud which they do not having upper Teeth Therefore Bochart by many Arguments proves this word Saphan to signifie a Mountain Mouse which as Solomon saith XXX Prov. 26. Make their holes in Rocks which Rabbets do not but this Creature doth as he proves out of the Arabian Writers who call it Aljarbuo and say it chews the Cud. See Hierozoicon P. I. L. III. cap. 33. Because he cheweth the cud c. Or rather Though he chew the cud yet wanting the other Mark they were to look upon it as unclean Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Hare because he cheweth or though he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof he is unclean unto you The same Author shows in the same Book cap. 37. that the Hebrew word Arnebeth is rightly translated a Hare For though no Author but Moses saith it chews the Cud yet Aristotle saith something like it Lib. III. cap. 22. where he observes it hath a runnet in the Stomach And Th. Bartholinus in his Anatom Hist. Cent. 2. Histor LXXXVI tells us That in his Dissection of an Hare though he found but one Stomach which made him wonder at first that Moses should reckon it among the Creatures that ruminate yet he found that what was wanting in the simple Stomach was supplied by the largeness of the intestinum Caecum Which Gut is of a great bigness consisting of two parts In one of which he found liquid and white Excrements like to Chyle as if it were another Stomach The other part towards the Ileon being full of black Excrements Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the Swine though he divide the hoof and be cloven-footed yet he cheweth not the cud he is unclean to you Though the Swine hath the first part of the Mark of a clean Creature compleatly being cloven-footed as well as having the Hoof divided yet not chewing the Cud it is forbidden to be eaten And this no doubt was the sole foundation of the Jews abstaining from this Meat Whose filthy feeding and wallowing in the Mire Maimonides fancies was the only cause why it was prohibited More Nevoch P. III. cap. 48. To which others add its feeding upon Flesh as Vossius observes L. III. de orig progressu Idol c. 42. where he gives other reasons also for it One of which viz. that it was apt to breed the Leprosie to which they were very subject in those Countries is ingeniously treated of by Petrus Cunaeus in his Republ. Hebraeor Lib. II. cap. ult and more lately by another very learned Person J. Wagenseil Carminis R. Lipmanni Confutatio p. 556. To which Clemens Alexandrinus adds several other reasons Lib. VII Strom. p. 718. and there are many more in Lactantius relating to Morality Lib. IV. Divin Instit cap. 17. But whatsoever grounds there might be of this Prohibition that alone could not be the reason why the whole Nation of the Jews abhorred this more than any other unclean Creatures which were equally forbidden with this Insomuch that they would not when they spoke of it mention its proper name but called it another or a strange thing Which arose sure from some other cause that in process of time made this the most abominable of all other Creatures And that was I take it because the Gentiles used it in their Sacrifices and Mysteries of Religion and because nothing was accounted a more delicious Food among many great Nations which if a vehement abhorrence had not been infused into the Jews of this Creature might have invited them to their Tables and bred such Familiarity with them as might have concluded in Idolatry Pliny observes Lib. VIII cap. 51. that no Creature affords greater plenty of delicious Dishes at their Tables than this Neque alio ex animali numerosior materia ganeae c. Insomuch that old Homer relating how Eumaeus entertained Vlysses Odyss XIV saith only that he killed a great Hog of five years old and that only for five Guests They that would see more of this may look into Petrus Castellanus Lib. II. de Esu Carnium cap. 1 2 c. where he shows also out of Varro Lib. II. de Re Rustica cap. 4. that the Gentiles knew of no ancienter Sacrifices than this after they began to offer Animals upon their Altars For they thought that would be most acceptable to their Gods which best pleased themselves insomuch that a Swine which the later Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab illo verbo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from that word which signifies to Sacrifice For the first Sacrifices were of this Creature as appears by the Mysteries of Ceres in which a Sow was offered and at their Marriages the ancient Kings and great Men of Etruria offered the like Sacrifice and so did the Latins and Greeks in Italy The Hierapolitans indeed looked upon Swine as unclean
Divine Presence no more than the Mother till the days above-mentioned were accomplished Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if she be not able to bring a Lamb then she shall bring two Turtles and two young Pigeons c. This was a merciful provision for the poorer sort as in other cases V. 7 11. And from this very place we may learn in how mean a Condition the Mother of our LORD was who for her Purification did not bring a Lamb unto which her Piety no doubt would have prompted her if she had been able but only this lower sort of Offering as we read II Luke 24. And the Priest shall make an atonement for her and she shall be clean This Sacrifice was as available as the other to restore her to Communion with God's People The Greeks imitated this among whom the fortieth day was insignis as Censorinus speaks famous or remarkable upon more accounts than one For Women with Child did not go to the Temple ante diem quadragesimum before the fortieth day and after their Delivery commonly they were not fit to go out till forty days more his words are quadraginta diebus pleraeque foetae graviores sunt nec sanguinem interdum continent during which time their little ones were sickly never smiled nor were out of danger Which is observed by that great Physician Celsus Lib. II. cap. 1. Maxime omnis pueritia primum circa quadragesimum diem periclitatur And therefore when this day was past they were wont to keep a Feast as Censorinus there tells us cap. 11. de Die Natali which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at which time it is likely they offered Sacrifices also as the Jewish Women did CHAP. XIII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron saying Here God speaks to Aaron again as well as unto Moses See XI 1. because he and his Posterity were peculiarly concerned in the following Laws about the Leprosie both in judging and cleansing of it Ver. 2. Verse 2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh For there this Disease lay and shewed it self A rising a scab or a bright spot The Leprosie appeared in one of these three forms either as a tumor or swelling or a scab or a bright spot in the skin And it shall be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of Leprosie There were some Swellings and Scabs and Spots which were not the Leprosie but only like it And therefore Moses here teaches the Priests how to discern between a true Leprosie and the resemblance of it that accordingly they might either pronounce a Person clean or unclean shut him up or let him have his liberty shave him or let his Hair grow Plague of Leprosie If we may believe Pliny Lib. XXVI cap. 1. this Disease was peculiar to Egypt which he calls genetrix talium vitiorum And if Artapanus in Eusebius saith true Lib. IX Praepar Evang. cap. 27. Pharaoh who sought to kill Moses was the first who was struck with this Disease and died of it So false is the story of Manetho who to hide the true cause of the Israelites departure out of Egypt saith that they cast out a company of leprous People of whom Moses was the Captain Out of Egypt it is likely this Disease spread into Syria which is noted likewise to have been much infested with such foul irruptions in the Skin which have as many various names as there are Risings or Breakin gs out or Spots there and are commonly all comprehended under the name of Leprosie as P. Cunaeus observes L. II. de Republ. Judaeorum cap. ult But Moses here distinguishes them and seems to instruct the Israelites that the Leprosie which he speaks of was no common Disease but inflicted by the Hand of Heaven So the Hebrew Doctors understand it particularly R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CLXVIII a leprous Man ought not to look upon his disease as a casual thing but seriously consider and acknowledge that some grievous sin is the cause of it Which made the knowledge of their Priests so admirable as the Author of the Book Cosri speaks P. II. sect 58. that they were able to understand what was divine in the Leprosie and what was from natural temper For that there was something Divine in it is confirmed by the story of Naaman 2 Kings V. 7. where the King of Israel plainly declares none but God could cure a Leper whom therefore they lookt upon as smitten by God and thence called the Disease the Plague or stroke of Leprosie and sometimes simply the Plague or Stroke v. 3 5 17 22. of this Chapter For they could not understand how such a Pestilent Disease as infected not meerly Mens bodies but the very Walls of their Houses and Garments should proceed meerly from ordinary Causes and therefore they thought there was an extraordinary hand of God in it Then he shall be brought to Aaron the Priest or unto one of his sons the Priests Not to the Physicians but to the Priests who were the only Judges whether it was a true Leprosie or no And if it were could best direct him to his cure by Repentance and Prayer to God and cleanse him when he was cured But they might resort to any Priest whatsoever as Mr. Selden observes out of the Talmud where there is a large Treatise of this matter though he was maimed in any part of his Body and so unfit to minister at the Altar provided his eyes still continued good Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 14. num 5. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the Priest shall look on the plague in the skin of his flesh When there is a suspicion that it is the Leprosie The same great Man observes that this inspection might be made upon any day of the Week but the Sabbath or Festivals Yet not in the night nor in any hour of the day but the IVth Vth VIIIth and IXth For they accounted the morning evening and noon not such proper times to make this inspection Which they say also might be made by any Israelite though none but the Priest could pronounce one clean or unclean For though perhaps the Priest was ignorant and stood in need to be informed by wiser Persons than himself yet that Man who was not a Priest could only direct him what to judge but not give the Judgment According to that Law XXI Deut. 5. Out of their mouth or by their word shall every stroke be tried which particularly relates to the Leprosie XXIV 8. And when the hair in the plague is turned white c. He begins with the last of the three Indications of a Leprosie viz. the bright Spot In which if the very Hair was turned white and it was not only a superficial whiteness but the Spot seemed to have eaten deeper into the very Flesh then it was to be judged a true Leprosie R. Levi Barcelon expresses it thus when there was one or more places so white that their whiteness was
spreading of them after they were first discovered The plague is a fretting leprosie The Hebrew word Mamereth which we translate sretting is very variously rendered by the ancient Interpreters as Bochart hath observed in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 45. where from the Arabick Tongue he thinks it may be best translated an exasperated or irritated Leprosie That is very sharp and pricking which sutes well with our Translation eating into the Garment or Skin till it was consumed Abarbanel translates it painful because this sort of Leprosie in the body of a Man was full of anguish And so this word is used in XXVIII Ezek. 24. where a Thorn is called Mamir and translated by us a grieving Thorn Ver. 52. Verse 52 He shall therefore burn that garment c. It seems this Leprosie could never be got out of the Garment or Skin wherein it was which therefore was ordered to be burnt as never likely to be fit for use Ver. 53 54. Verse 53 54. If it be not spread in the garment c. If the Spot was at a stay and did not proceed further then the Garment as the following Verse directs was to be washed and shut up for seven days in which time it appeared whether the impurity were quite gone or still remained Ver. 55. If the plague hath not changed its colour If washing had not altered that vitious colour but it still continued very red or green And the plague be not spread Or though it be not spread yet it was to be pronounced unclean and adjudged to be burnt It is fret inward Though it did not spread in breadth yet it fretted in depth Whether it be bare within or without In the Hebrew the words are In the baldness of the hinder part or in its forepart which seems to be a manner of speaking taken from v. 42 43. where he treats of bald heads And the meaning is whether it eat into the right side of the Garment which is compared to the forehead or into the wrong side which is compared to the hinder part of the head making it as bare as a bald head is when there is not a hair left For this sort of Leprosie was wont to eat off the nap of the Cloth and make it thread-bare Ver. 56. Verse 56 And if the Priest look and behold the plague be somewhat dark after the washing of it c. If it had changed its colour from very green or red and become duskish or as Abarbanel understands it the Spot was contracted or shrunk up in the washing so that it was gone in part if not in whole then the Priest was to cut out that part of the Garment where the Spot was there being some indication that the whole Garment might not be tainted Ver. 57. Verse 57 If it appear still in the garment c. If after that Spot was cut out the neighbouring parts appeared to have a tincture of a very green or red colour it was to be taken for a demonstration that there was a spreading Leprosie as it here follows in the Garment or Skin which would proceed till it was intirely infected with it Thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire Therefore the Leprosie being incurable there was no other remedy but to destroy the thing wherein it was Ver. 58. Verse 58 And the garment either warp or woof or whatsoever thing of skin it be which thou shalt wash if the plague be departed from them c. Whatsoever after washing had no appearance of such Spots as are before-mentioned v. 49 c. remaining in it there was no further trial to be made of it but being washed a second time it was to be accounted clean i. e. fit for common use Ver. 59. Verse 59 This is the Law of the plague of leprosie in a garment of wollen or linen c. By these Rules the Priests were to judge whether Garments were lawful to be used or no and accordingly to determine as by the Rules in the foregoing part of the Chapter they were to judge and pronounce whether Men and Women were fit to be allowed to keep company with others And when we consider how nice and diligent many Nations were and still are in their washings after any sort of defilement it is no wonder as Conradus Pellicanus here glosses that some Laws of Cleanliness even about their Garments were prescribed to the Jews which admonished them of that inward purgation of their hearts from all impure affections about which they were to be far more solicitous I have forborn to apply what is here said of the Leprosie in this Chapter to the various degrees of Pollutions that are in mens minds because that would have made this Book too large and it is done already by a great number of Commentators both Modern and Ancient particularly among the later by Procopius Gazaeus and Hesychius Presb. Hierosolymorum who sometimes have done it very ingeniously CHAP. XIV Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying All that is said before concerning the Rules whereby they were to discern the Leprosie from the like Diseases were given unto Aaron as well as unto Moses XIII 1. For Aaron and his Posterity were constituted the Judges of such matters in which they had need to be well studied and versed But the way and manner of cleansing a Leper is delivered only to Moses to be by him given unto Aaron and his Sons who were to depend on him as God's great Minister and their Instructer in all Religious Rites Ver. 2. Verse 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing The manner and means which God hath ordained of purifying a Leper as Maimonides expounds it and restoring him to the Communion of God's People He shall be brought unto the Priest Not to the House of the Priest for he was to go out to the Gate of the Camp as appears by the next Verse and thither the Leper was to be brought to him But these words seem to import the Leper was first to come towards the Camp unto some place which the Priest it is likely appointed and then the Priest having notice of it was to go out and look upon him Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the Priest shall go forth out of the Camp To the place where the Leper was XIII 46. And the Priest shall look Diligently examine in what condition the Leper is by the Rules mentioned in the foregoing Chapter And behold if the plague of leprosie be healed in the leper The Priest no doubt had been informed before he went to make the inspection that there were good grounds to believe the Man was freed from his Leprosie Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then shall the Priest command to take for him c. That some of his Friends or such as he ordered should provide what follows for his Purification Two birds alive that are clean The margin of our Bibles translates it two Sparrows and they
And he shall take the cedar-wood and the hysop c. This whole Verse is explained before v. 6. which differs not from this in any thing but only that the living Bird is there mentioned in the first place and here in the last and in this Verse is more distinctly declared that all these things should be dipped in the blood of the slain Bird and in the running water Ver. 52. Verse 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird c. There is nothing to be observed here more than before but only this That the House is said to be cleansed by the living Bird as well as by the blood of that which was slain its flying away being a declaration the House was free for any Man's Habitation Thus the Scape-goat which was let run into the Wilderness took away the Sins of the People as well as the Goat offered at the Altar See XVI 5. Ver. 53. Verse 53 And he shall let go the living bird out of the City into the open field This justifies what the Jewish Doctors say upon v. 7. See there And make an atonement for the house An Atonement was made for the House no otherways than for the Altar See upon v. 18. by cleansing it so as to make it fit for any Man to dwell in it And it shall be clean The Owner who was commanded to forsake the House v. 36. or any one else might return to it and inhabit it as before it was suspected to have the Plague in it Ver. 54. Verse 54 This is the law for all manner plague and leprosie and scall The Rule whereby to judge and to cleanse all Leprosies in the Bodies of Men and that Leprosie in the Head or the Beard called a Scall XIII 30 31 32 to v. 38. Ver. 55 56. Verse 55 56 And for the Leprosie of a garment and of an house and for a rising c. The foregoing Verse and these two are a recapitulation of the Laws delivered in the XIIIth Chapter and in this Ver. 57. Verse 57 To teach when it is unclean and when it is clean To guide the Priest in judgment when to pronounce a Man a Garment or an House infected with the Leprosie or when to declare them free from it This is the Law of Leprosie Here is a Conclusion of what belongs to this Matter Which prophane Minds who love to disparage the Holy Scripture and admire no ancient Authors but such as Homer Virgil and Plautus to use the words of Pellicanus upon v. 39. may deride as unworthy to be made a part of a Divine Law But Men better disposed may discern herein the great goodness of God to the Israelites whom he had adopted for his peculiar People in taking care to give them Precepts about all manner of things which were many ways profitable both for the regulating their Manners and preserving their Health and accustoming them to an exact Obedience to him in every thing And who doth not see that by these external Rites and Ceremonies he admonishes us to keep pure Consciences void of Offence both towards God and Men in a strict observance of all the Rules of our most holy Religion CHAP. XV. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron saying For Aaron was particularly concerned to see these Laws observed as well as the foregoing Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them Moses it is likely first delivered these Laws to them in the presence of Aaron who afterward instructed and exhorted them to the observance of them When any man hath a running issue He speaks of that Disease which Physicians call a Gonorrhaea which commonly proceeded from an ill course of Life and had in those Countries a great virulency in it If it proceeded meerly from some strain in the back by carrying too great a Burden or by violent leaping and several other natural Causes which Maimonides enumerates in his Mechuss Kapparah cap. 2. the Man was not defiled with it nor concerned in this Law And therefore the Causes from whence it proceeded were diligently to be considered as Maimonides there admonishes which might be discerned by such effects as made it a very nasty and offensive Disease in those hot Countries as it is sometimes here in these colder Climates Out of his flesh The word Flesh signifies the Secret Parts as it doth VI. 10. XVII Gen. 13. XVI Ezek 26. and other places Because of his issue he is unclean Upon that account alone he was to be kept from the Sanctuary and separated from Company See v. 31. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue The Rule whereby to judge of it Whether the flesh run with his issue or his flesh be stopped from his issue it is his uncleanness Whether there were a continued distillation of the corrupt Matter or it was so coagulated as to stop in the passage either way it made the Man unclean Be stopped from his issue Rather with his issue as the Hebrew words will bear Ver. 4. Verse 4 Every bed whereon he lyeth that bath the issue is unclean and every thing whereon he sitteth c. This and the following Verses unto v. 13. are a demonstration that this Disease made a Man legally Unclean to a very high degree being so offensive that not only every thing he touched became unclean but whosoever touched such things was made unclean also There is little in them that needs any Explication the only difficulty was to know whether a Man laboured under this Disease Which was not wholly left unto his Conscience to determine but his Countenance discovered it the continual Flux making a great alteration in the whole habit of his Body For virulent Gonorrhaea's sometimes last several years as Th. Bartholinus saith he knew one that had it ten years and was reduced to skin and bone being frequently accompanied with Inflamations and Ulcers in the neighbouring parts from which the filthy Humor flows Bartholin Histor Artatom Cent. II. Hist XXXVI Ver. 5. Verse 5 And whosoever toucheth his bed Upon which he hath lain Shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the even Which was the Law in other Cases when Men bad touched an unclean thing XI 28. Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he that sitteth on any thing whereon he sat that hath the issue Though he did but just sit down and did it ignorantly presently rising up a-again as soon as he knew his Error he became defiled and might not go to the Sanctuary till he was purified by washing his Clothes and himself in water Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue That is any part of his Body Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean c. By the same reason if he blowed his Nose upon him it defiled him Then he shall wash his
dwelt apart from them in a Chamber of the Temple that he might the better prepare himself for the Offices of this day by sprinkling the Blood of the daily Sacrifice burning Incense and such like things And lest he should be either ignorant of his Duty as some proved in the latter end of their State when the High-Priesthood was bought for Money or forgetful the Sanhedrim sent some to read before him the Rites of this day who adjured him also to perform every thing according to God's Command The night before also they let him eat but little that no accident in the night might make him unfit to officiate the next day and that he might awake the sooner and begin the Service of the day betimes as they did upon all great Solemnities All this and a great deal more is related in Codex Joma cap. 1. And Mr. Selden likewise hath observed out of Sepher Schebat Jehuda with what a magnificent Pomp the High-Priest was conducted from his own House when he went to the Temple seven days before this Day of Atonement accompanied by the King and the whole Sanhedrim the Royal Family and the whole Quire of Priests c. Lib. III. de Synedr cap. 11. n. 7. Something like this was the Triumph wherein our blessed High-Priest Christ Jesus was conducted to Jerusalem five days before he offered himself there for the Sins of the whole World XII John 1 12 13. With a young bullock for a sin-offering To be offered for himself and for his Family as appears from v. 6. For no other Sacrifice was allowed for the Sin of the High-Priest though it were dubious but only a young Bullock IV. 2 3. And a ram for a burnt-offering Which accompanied the Sin-offering at his Consecration VIII 18. But first of all the Morning Sacrifice was offered with the Additionals usual on this Day as the Jews say viz. a Bullock a Ram and seven Lambs all for Burnt-offerings Ver. 4. Verse 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat c. There were eight Garments-belonging to the Attire of the High-Priest four of which are here mentioned which the Jews call his white Garments and four more mentioned XXVIII Exod. 4. which they call the golden Garments because there was a mixture of Gold in them whereas these were all made of fine Linen Upon other days when the High-Priest officiated he was bound to put them on all not one of the eight being wanting but on this day when he went in to the most holy place he put on only those four which were the Habit of the ordinary Priests as well as his This some conceive was in token of Humility because this day was appointed for Confession of Sins and Repentance c. Upon which account they imagine also these Linen Garments were courser than those which he wore every day with his golden Garments But all the Jews agree that these Garments which he wore on the Day of Expiation were made of the purest and most precious Linen of all other which they call in Massechet Joma cap. 3. fine Linen of Pelusium which was a City in Egypt famous for the richest and whitest Linen as our Sheringham shows in his Notes on that Treatise out of Pliny and Silius Italicus And if we may believe the Talmudists as the High-Priest put on fine Linen of Pelusium in the morning of this day so he put on fine Linen of India i. e. in their Language of Ethiopia or Arabia as Braunius observes Lib. I. de Vest Sacerd. cap. 7. n. 9. in the evening of it which was not of much less value than the other And this is not disagreeable to Moses who saith God commanded the Priests Garments to be made for glory and beauty XXVIII Exod. 2. And therefore the High Priest appeared even upon this day in a splendid and noble Habit which was not inconsistent with inward Humility and Lowliness of Mind whereby the comely and beautiful performance of God's Service was not to be obstructed For whereas upon other days the High-Priest washt his hands and his feet in the Brasen Laver on this day if we may believe the Jews he washt them in a Vessel of Gold as the same Braunius observes out of Massechet Joma c. 4. There are those who fancy the High-Priest went into the most holy place with the Ephod and Breast-plate whereon were the Names of the Children of Israel but that is quite contrary to what Moses here delivers who mentions no other Garments but these of fine Linen which he wore upon this day no not when he went into the holy place v. 23. And the Hebrew Doctors all thus understand it as Mr. Selden shows out of them and Josephus Lib. II. de Succession in Pontific Hebraeor cap. 7. p. 250. Yet the Roman Church hath grounded a solemn Practise upon the fore-mentioned fancy the Priests and Bishops too being wont on Good-Friday to minister only in the Habit of Deacons while they are reading or singing the Office of the Passion But when they come to the Sacrifice of the Mass as they call it then they put on richer Vestments proper to their order Which is a mistaken Imitation of the Ceremonies under the Law upon this great Day of Atonement when the High-Priest never put on any of his golden Garments for the Service of it And he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh To cover his secret parts For the word Flesh is to be understood here as in XV. 2. And shall be girded with the linen girdle and with the linen mitre c. These two with the two foregoing make up the four white Garments which might possibly as the Jews say be made of the finest and richest Linen that could be got that the High-Priest might appear splendid in the simplest Habit wherein he ministred But it is evident he was not allowed to appear in those Garments which were wrought with Gold and Scarlet and Blue and Purple XXVIII Exod. 6 8 c. because such very sumptuous Apparel it must be acknowledged was not so sutable to the Service of the day On which the High-Priest as the Hebrew Gloss notes upon this place did not so much put on the Person of a Patron as of an Accuser Confessing their Sins before God and begging pardon for them These are holy Garments To be used only when he ministred in the Sanctuary XXVIII Exod. 2. Therefore he shall wash his flesh in water and so put them on There was no need upon other days to wash more than once in the beginning of Divine Service but on this great Day he washed five times as oft as he shifted his Garments and went from one ministry to another as appears in part from v. 23 24. where see what I have observed Here he seems to speak of his washing after he had offered the Morning Sacrifice c. in his golden Garments and then began the Service of the day in these white Garments alone Ver. 5.
there But the Expiation of the High-Priest himself who was to make the Expiation of the Sanctuary preceded all the rest as is apparent from v. 11. Ver. 34. Verse 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute The repetition of this the third time See v. 29 31. shows of how great importance it was that this annual Solemnity should be observed Vnto you The High-Priests before-mentioned of whom he speaks in the Plural Number because none of them could continue always as I observed v. 32. but enjoyed the Office successively upon the death of their Predecessors To make an atonement for the Children of Israel for all their sins once a year This is only a repetition of what was said v. 30. that it should be incumbent on the High-Priest by a perpetual Obligation to make an Atonement for the Peoples sins on this day as it was incumbent on the People v. 29. to afflict their Souls upon this day And he did as the LORD commanded Moses The Service of this day was immediately performed by Aaron according to the fore-named order CHAP. XVII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying After he had ordered the great Anniversary Sacrifice in the foregoing Chapter he gives some Directions about other Sacrifices for which there would be occasion every day Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto Aaron and his Sons and all the Children of Israel Who were all concerned in what follows and therefore this Command is directed to the whole house of Israel v. 3. to whom this was delivered it is likely by their Elders or else Moses himself went from Tribe to Tribe and spake to their several Families And say unto them This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded Enjoyned by a Special Law Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever man there be of the House of Israel that killeth an Ox or Lamb or Goat viz. For a Sacrifice or Offering as it follows v. 4. these being the only Creatures of the Herd and the Flock that were permitted to be brought to God's Altar There are those indeed who think Moses speaks of killing these Creatures for common use which it was lawful for them to do any where after they came to the Land of Canaan XII Deut. 15. but now they were not to kill them for their food unless they brought them to the door of the Tabernacle and there first sacrificed some part of them to the LORD before they tasted of them themselves By which their sacrificing to Daemons was prevented to which they were prone v. 7. and they also constantly feasted with God while they dwelt in the Wilderness But this is better founded upon XII Deut. 20 21. where it is supposed that they had thus done while they remained in the Wilderness and were so near to the House of God that they might easily bring thither every Beast they killed for ordinary use But they were dispensed withal as to this when they came into Canaan and could not possibly when they had a mind to eat Flesh go so far as to the Tabernacle or Temple which was many Miles from some of them Instead whereof they were bound to come at the three great Festivals and appear before God at his House wheresoever they dwelt In the Camp or that killeth it out of the Camp This seems to show that he doth not speak of killing these Beasts ad usum vescendi as St. Austin's words are for the use of eating for that they did not do out of the Camp but in their Tents but de Sacrificiis he speaks concerning Sacrifices For he prohibits as he goes on private Sacrifices lest every Man should take upon him to be a Priest c. Ver. 4. Verse 4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation to offer an offering unto the LORD In ancient time every Man had performed the Office of a Priest in his own Family But now that liberty is taken away because they had abused it to Idolatry and every Man was bound to bring his Sacrifice to the House of God where none but the Sons of Aaron could officiate and had the most sacred Obligations on them to offer only to the LORD The very Heathens themselves in future times found it necessary to enact the very same as appears by Plato in the latter end of his Tenth Book of Laws where he hath these memorable words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let this be a Law imposed absolutely upon all that no Man whatsoever have a sacred place in private Houses but when he hath a mind to offer Sacrifice let him go to the publick Temples and deliver his Sacrifice to the Priests whether Men or Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose business it is to take care that these things be performed in an holy manner By which it appears that these were two established Principles of Religion in wise Mens minds to Sacrifice publickly and to bring their Sacrifices to the Priests who were to take care to offer them purely Unto which Moses adds one thing more that their publick Sacrifices should be offered only at one place which was a most efficacious preservative from all strange Worship nothing being done but under the Eye of the Ministers of Religion and the Governours of the People Insomuch that St. Chrysostom as our learned Dr. Spencer observes Lib. I. de Rit Leg. Hebr. L. I. cap. 4. sect 1. calls Jerusalem which was afterwards established to be this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of bond or knot whereby the whole Nation were tied fast to the Judaical Religion Before the Tabernacle of the LORD Before the Divine Majesty which dwelt in the Tabernacle round about which they all inhabited and were so near it while they travelled in the Wilderness that as there was no trouble in bringing all their Sacrifices thither so they knew certainly whether to go And thus the Hebrew Doctors observe it was when they came into Canaan where while the Tabernacle was fixed in Shilo none might Sacrifice any where else But when it wandred uncertainly after Shilo was destroyed being sometimes in Mispeh sometimes at Gilgal and at Nob and Gibeon and the House of Obed-Edom they fancy it was lawful to Sacrifice in other places For so we find Samuel did 1. Sam. VII 9. IX 13. where he sacrificed in an high place XI 15. XVI 2. and David 2 Sam. XXIV 18. and Elias 1 Kings XVIII 23. But these may be thought extraordinary acts done by an immediate warrant from God for none of these Persons were Priests but Prophets guided by Divine Inspirations See Dr. Owtram Lib. I. de Sacrific cap. 2. Blood shall be imputed unto that man he hath shed blood He was to be punished as a Murderer that is die for it For to have Blood imputed to a Man in the Hebrew phrase or to be guilty of Blood is to be liable to have his Blood shed or to lose his Life Which as of old it was
of other Idolatrous Practises besides that of worshipping the Golden Calf XXXII Exod. And so much is expressed XXXII Deut. 17. And it was a sin of which their Fathers had been long guilty especially in Egypt XXIV Josh 14. XX Ezek. 7. XXIII 2 3. which they had not left but continued in the Wilderness V Amos 25. Offer their Sacrifices unto Devils These words show the reason why God commands them under such a heavy Penalty to offer only in one place at the Tabernacle because while they sacrificed in the open Fields they had been in danger to be seduced by Daemons who were wont to frequent those places especially in Deserts and present themselves to ignorant People as if they were Gods and intice their Devotion towards them Which Daemons or Evil Spirits appeared it is likely in the form of Goats and therefore are here called Seirim which properly signifies Goats And hath made some imagine that they really sacrificed to these Creatures as some of the Egyptians did who held Goats to be sacred Animals So Diodorus tells us Lib. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. they deified a Goat upon the same account that the Greeks worshipped Priapus Herodotus in his Euterpe cap. 46. saith the same of the Mendesij who he saith worshipped the Males more than the Females And many other Authors mentioned by Bochartus in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 53. report the same But I question whether the Egyptians were guilty of such Idolatry in the days of Moses Nor is there more truth in their opinion who think the Israelites now worshipped Images in this form of Goats Which the LXX seem to have thought when they translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to vain things as Idols are called in Scripture And yet this very word Seirim is by the Greek Translators rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XIII Isaiah 21. which we here follow only instead of Daemons translating it Devils whom the ancient Zabij worshipped they appearing to them in the form of Goats and this Custom was universally spread as Maimonides thinks in Moses his time which was the cause of this Precept More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. And indeed nothing is more common in the Writings of the ancient Heathen than the mention of Fauns and Satyrs and Aegipanes whose shape below was that of a Goat And to this day in the solemn Conventions of Witches the chief Devil that presides in their Assemblies is said by all that have examined such matters to have the form of a Goat And our famous Country-man Alexander Hales in his Discourse upon the Scape-Goat which is in his Summa P. III. Q. 55. derives the reason of it from the frequent appearance of Daemons in this shape in the Wilderness as Mr. Selden observes in his Prolegomena to his Book de Diis Syris They that would see more of these Seirim may consult J. G. Vossius L. I. de Orig progr Idolol cap. 8. and Bochartus his Hierozoicon P. II. L. VI. cap. 7. There is one indeed Anton. Van Dale who hath lately endeavoured to explode all these Fancies as he esteems them of Daemons which he would have to be the meer invention of the ancient Chaldaeans and from them derived to other Nations But he will never be able to make any wise Man believe that the World was so sottish as to worship the Images of Goats which he takes to be meant by Seirim if there had not been an appearance of some thing in that shape which they accounted Divine After whom they have gone a whoring i. e. With whom they have committed Idolatry For this sin was justly called by the name of whoredom ever after they were solemnly contracted and espoused to God to be his peculiar People XIX Exod. 5. Which is the reason that he is said so often to be a jealous God particularly XX Exod. 5. highly incensed that is at their worshipping other Gods besides him For this and such like words are never used but concerning Idolatry which Ezekiel describes as the foulest Whoredom XVI 22. and particularly mentions this Whoredom with the Egyptians v. 26. and the Assyrians v. 28 c. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout all generations These words seem to me to determine the sense of the foregoing Precept to which they relate from v. 2 c. not to be that all the Meat they killed for their own Tables should be Peace-offerings for that all confess was not a statute for ever if it were one at all throughout all generations but only while they were in the Wilderness Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt say unto them whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel or of the strangers which sojourn among you These words also show he speaks in the foregoing of bringing all Sacrifices whatsoever to the Tabernacle the same Law which was given before to the Israelites being now extended to all Strangers that sojourned among them By whom he means all such as were Proselytes to the Jewish Religion So the LXX here translate it and they add the very same words to v. 3. where the house of Israel is only mentioned in the original Hebrew The only question is What sort of Proselytes are here intended And I take it he speaks of the Proselytes of Righteousness as the Jews call them who were Circumcised and thereby embraced the whole Religion of Moses And this I find is the general opinion though some few learned Men contend that any Stranger who had renounced Idolatry whom they called A Proselyte of the Gate might bring their Sacrifices to the Altar Which one can hardly allow though asserted by so great a Man as Grotius Lib. I. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 16. because he speaks of the same Strangers here which are mentioned v. 10. where all such Strangers are forbidden to eat Blood Which plainly belongs to such Strangers as were become Jews by Circumcision for other Strangers might eat it as appears from XIV Deut. 21. where the Israelites are allowed to sell what died of it self to a Stranger that he might eat it if he pleased and such Creatures had their Blood in them That offereth a Burnt-offering or Sacrifice i. e. Any other Sacrifice besides Burnt-offerings viz. Sin-offerings or Trespass-offerings or Peace-offerings None of which were accepted but from such as were admitted into the Jewish Religion though the pious Gentiles the Jews say might bring Burnt-offerings Ver. 9. Verse 9 And bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation to offer it unto the LORD As he ordered their Peace-offerings to be v. 4 5. Shall be cut off from among his people This demonstrates that the foregoing Precept and this belong to the same matter being inforced with the same Penalty v. 4. And it also shows that the Strangers before-mentioned signifie such Gentiles as were Circumcised for otherwise they were not of the Body of the People of Israel from which they
therefore saw his Neighbour kill a Beast and neglect to cover its Blood with Dust he was bound to go and do it himself because God speaks here unto the Children of Israel i. e. to all of them v. 12. as R. Levi Barcelonita glosses Praecept CLXXXV And the forenamed MS. mentioned by Wagenseil saith they covered the Blood with this form of Benediction Blessed be the LORD our God the King of the World who hath sanctified us with his Precepts and commanded us to cover Blood Which shows they thought this a Precept of great weight Ver. 14. Verse 14 For it is the life of all flesh c. Whether of Beasts or Fowl before-mentioned and therefore prohibited to be eaten by them as was before observed because it was offered to God and accepted by him for their Life when they had forfeited it by their sins Therefore I said unto the Children of Israel ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh See v. 12. Where the same thing is said but not so fully as here for he only saith in that Verse No soul of you shall eat blood but in this Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh For the life of all flesh is the blood thereof This is so often repeated no less than three times in this Verse the more to deter them from eating Blood which was the Life of the Beast and therefore offered to God as the LORD and Giver of Life and consequently belong'd to no Body else Ver. 15. Verse 15 And every soul that eateth that which dieth of it self And consequently had the Blood remaining in it as all things also which were not rightly killed had the Hebrews think and therefore here forbidden Or that which was torn with Beasts Which was nothing else as Maimonides speaks but the beginning to be a dead Carcase More Nevochim P. III. cap. 48. Whether it be one of your own Country or a stranger By a Stranger is meant one that had embraced the Jewish Religion for other Gentiles might eat such things Nay the Israelites themselves as Maimonides observes when they went to War and entred the Countries of the Gentiles and subdued them might eat that which died of it self or was torn of Beasts nay Swines-flesh and such like Food when they were hungry and could find no other Meat See Schickardi Mishpat Hamelek cap. 5. Theor. 18. He shall both wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water c. When he had eaten these things unwittingly and came to know it he was thus to purifie himself If he did it knowingly it was an high Crime against an express Law repeated more fully XIV Deut. 21. and punished as some think with Death But I suppose they mean he was obnoxious to the Divine Displeasure and in danger to be cut off by him if he did not offer a Sacrifice to expiate his Offence which seems to be allowed in such Cases as it was for greater Offences VI. 1 2 c. And the Jewish Doctors say he who violated this Law was only to be beaten for cutting off either by the hand of God or the Court of Judgment was not threatned to sins of so light a Nature as this So Maimonides observes in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 41. Ver. 16. Verse 16 But if he wash them not nor bathe his flesh he shall bear his iniquity Be liable to be punished by God for the neglect of the means of his Purification And if while he continued thus unclean he adventured to eat of the Peace-offerings he was in danger to be cut off from his People VII 20. CHAP. XVIII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying It is not said when the LORD delivered these Laws to Moses but it is likely after the other and before those that follow Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them They were all concerned in these Laws about Marriage and therefore they are directed to the whole Body of the People who received them I suppose by their Elders and Heads of the Tribes to whom Moses delivered them and charged they should be communicated to every Family and Houshold See XVII 2. I am the LORD your God I have a right to give you Laws being your Soveraign upon more Titles than one to which all Human Customs must yield though long practised and spread every where in the World This reason is mentioned six times in this Chapter and oftner in the next See v. 4. Ver. 3. Verse 3 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do The Manners of these two Countries of Egypt wherein they had dwelt a long time and of Canaan wherein they were going to settle they were in the greatest danger to imitate Especially in taking the liberty of making such Marriages as they saw practised among them against which they are here severely cautioned But though these words seem to have a particular respect to those Marriages yet Maimonides extends them to all their other Practices for which they could see no reason Magick being in much use among them in dressing their Trees and ploughing their Ground and such like common things in which they had a respect also to the disposition of the Stars of Heaven which led them to the Worship of them as he shows at large in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. R. Levi Barcelonita also extends these words to the Customs of all other Nations Praecept CCLXII which he that observed was to be beaten But the Doings or Customs which Moses here speaks of seem to be those that follow v. 6 7 c. as appears from v. 24 c. And the other Customs of those Nations about their Clothes and cutting their Hair which the forenamed Author mentions are forbidden in other places Neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances The Hebrew word Chukkoth which we commonly translate Statutes and here Ordinances seems to import that the incestuous Marriages here mentioned were allowed by the Laws and Constitutions of those Countries which made their Wickedness the more intolerable v. 24. Ver. 4. Verse 4 Ye shall do my Judgments and keep my Ordinances to walk therein Frame your Lives according to the Laws and Rules which I give you to observe and not according to their wicked Practises which were grown into Customs and Precedents The Gemara Babylonica mentioning these words saith it is a Tradition of their Doctors that by Mishpatim which we translate Judgments are to be understood such Natural Laws as all Mankind are bound to observe though there were no written Commands for them such as those against Idolatry and those about uncovering the Nakedness of such near Relations as are here mentioned and Murder c. And by Chukkim Ordinances or Statutes such Laws are meant as depended only on the Pleasure of God and obliged none but
those to whom they were given such as those about Meats and Garments and Leprosie c. Against which lest any one should object it is here added I am the LORD your God I am the LORD your God I who am your Soveraign LORD and by redeeming you from the Egyptian Bondage am become in a special manner your God have ordained these things Therefore let no Man dispute them or make a question of them as the forenamed Gemara expounds these words See Selden Lib. I. de Jure N. G. cap. 10. p. 122. where he observes that the Laws called Statutes are in their Language such as depend only on the Royal Authority Ver. 5. Verse 5 Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my Judgments Observe the Laws before-mentioned For the word we here translate Statutes is the same with that translated Ordinances in the foregoing Verse Which if a man do he shall live in them Not be cut off but live long and happily in the enjoyment of all the Blessings which God promised in his Covenant with them I am the LORD Who will faithfully keep my Covenant and fulfil my Promises VI Exod. 3. Ver. 6. Verse 6 None of you In the Hebrew the words being isch isch as much as to say Man Man that is no Man the Talmudists take it as if he had said neither Jew nor Gentile For all Mankind they say are comprehended under these Laws about Incest Nay the very Karaites or those who adhere only to the Scripture and reject all Talmudical Expositions are of this mind as Mr. Selden observes Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 5. But the Talmudists themselves do not all understand this matter alike For some of them think all the Gentiles at lest those who were under the Dominion of the Israelites were bound to refrain from all incestuous Marriages to which Death is threatned by the Law But others of them think they were concerned only in those six things which were unlawful before the Law of Moses was given See Selden Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 1. and cap. 11. p. 596 c. But the ancient Hebrews give a good reason for all these Laws as Grotius observes Lib. II. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 5. sect 13. n. 2. Shall approach Some of the Jews have been so rigorous as to expound this word as if it bound them not to have any familiarity with the Persons after named R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CLXXXVIII which is against all Reason and natural Affection The plain sense is they should not approach or come near to them for the end afterward mentioned viz. to uncover their Nakedness Nay this very phrase is used for the same thing XX Gen. 4. without the addition of uncovering their Nakedness Any that is near of kin to him It must be confessed that these words near of kin do not sufficiently express the full sense of the Hebrew phrase nor are they of a determinate signification for a Man maybe near of kin to a Woman who is not the remainder of his flesh as the Hebrew phrase is that is so near of kin to him that nothing comes between them This is properly the nearness of flesh here spoken of she that is immediately born of the same Flesh that a Man is or she out of whose Flesh he is born or she that is born out of his Flesh that is in plainer words a Man's Sister Mother or Daughter These are a Man 's own immediate Relations which the Karaites call the Foundation and Root of all that is here forbidden as Selden notes Lib. I. Vx Hebr. cap. 2. For the sake of whom the rest here mentioned are prohibited having a nearness of flesh to them viz. his Father or Mother's Sister his Grand-daughter and his Niece For the best Explication of this Phrase is the express Particulars mentioned by God himself in this place To uncover their nakedness To have Carnal knowledge of her as the Scripture modestly speaks in other places For nakedness in the holy Language signifies the Secret Parts which natural Modesty teaches all civilized People to cover and not to reveal them to any but those whom they marry Therefore not to uncover the nakedness of the Persons here named is properly not to take them in Marriage and much less to have Knowledge of them without Marriage Answerable to this is the Name of a Virgin whom the Hebrews call Alma which is as much as covered clothed or veiled because those parts were never exposed to any one but those to whom they were espoused and joyned in Marriage I am the LORD By my Authority who am your Soveraign and the Soveraign of the World these Laws are enacted and I will punish those that break them Ver. 7. Verse 7 The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of thy mother thou shalt not discover It is commonly thought by Interpreters that the Particle we translate or is here as much as that is for so it signifies in some places particularly 1 Sam. XXVIII 3. So that the latter part of the Verse is only an Explication of the former and makes them but one Prohibition against a Man's marrying his Mother And this indeed the next words seem to imply she is thy Mother who bare thee and therefore not to be taken to be thy Wife much less to be otherwise known by thee But we may as well think that the nakedness of the Father and of the Mother are both here mentioned to show neither the Daughter might marry her Father nor the Son his Mother and consequently that in all the following Particulars Women were concerned just as Men were though the Men be only mentioned And under the Name of Father and Mother are comprehended Grandfather or Grandmother or other Progenitors before them She is thy mother thou shalt not uncover her nakedness This is the very first Prohibition it being a going back in Nature for a Man to marry his Mother Which though it was practised in those days by the Canaanites and Egyptians and by the Persians also in after times and some other Eastern Countries yet in the Western part of the World as Mr. Selden observes such Marriages were nunquam non execranda execrable in all Ages Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 11. p. 601 c. Such were the Marriages of Oedipus with Jocasta of Nero with Agrippina Pelopeja and Thyestes her Father of whom Aegistus was born which every Body detested See Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis Lib. II. cap. 5. sect 2. For the Law of Nature was against such Marriages notwithstanding the practice of Persons nay whole Nations whom God gave up to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul shows dishonourable affections for their other sins especially for their forsaking him and falling to Idolatry Maimonides gives this as the general reason of prohibiting this and all the following Marriages because the Persons here forbidden to be so joyned together are all in
a manner such as are wont to live together in the same House for so Fathers Mothers Children Brothers and Sisters do who might easily be tempted to lewdness one with another if even marrying together were not severely forbidden And thus the LXX translate the words of the foregoing Verse none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as other Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are so near of kin that they usually dwell in the same House as Parents and Children Brothers and Sisters and the Brothers and Sisters of our Parents Mahomet as lewd and impudent as he was had not the boldness to controul these Laws but in the fourth Chapter of his Alcoran expresly forbids his Followers to marry their Mothers their Mothers-in-law c. and a great many of the rest which here follow Ver. 8. Verse 8 The nakedness of thy fathers wife shalt thou not uncover That is of a Step-mother Such was the incest of Reuben with Bilhah XXXV Gen. 22. and of Absolom with the Wives of his Father David 2 Sam. XVI 21 22. And of Antiochus Soter with Stratonice who abhorring from such a Conjunction was taught that all things were honest that pleased the King But the thing it self is so hateful that the very naming it is a Condemnation and therefore it is all one with the prime Natural Law which prohibits the Conjunction of Parents and Children For she that is one flesh with my Father as a great Man speaks is as near to me as my Father and that 's as near as my own Mother As near I mean in the estimation of Law though not in the accounts of Nature and therefore though it be a Crime of a less turpitude yet it is equally forbidden and is against the Law of Nature not directly but by interpretation Book II. chap. 2. Ductor Dubitantium Rule 3. n. 29. It is thy fathers nakedness He having known her it was not permitted the Son to have her also Nay the Jews say if the Father had only espoused her it was not lawful for the Son to have her to Wife or if he had divorced her it was not lawful for the Son to have her even after he was dead See R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CXCI. Buxtof de Sponsal p. 16 17. Ver. 9. Verse 9 The nakedness of thy sister As the nearness of flesh mentioned v. 6. above a Man is his Mother and below him is his daughter so on the side of him is his Sister The daughter of thy father Though she were begotten by his Father of another Wife not of his Mother yet he might not marry her Or the daughter of thy mother Born of her by another Husband not by his Father Whether she be born at home or born abroad Be legitimately born in wedlock or illegitimately out of wedlock as the Talmudists expound it See Selden Lib. V. de Jure N. G. cap. 10. p. 591. where he observes that though the Egyptians as Philo and others report with such like Nations thought the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters to be lawful and it was practised also in Greece yet the greatest Men in the Western Countries condemned such Marriages which some of the Greek Philosophers also disallowed and Euripides himself called barbarous even when it was practised Insomuch that in after Ages this wicked Custom was quite abolished and that before Christianity was well settled among them For Sextus Empiricus saith that in his time it was utterly unlawful See there cap. 11. p. 603 605 c. Where he shows the Romans always abhorred such Marriages nay it was late before the Persians took up this abominable Custom after the example of Cambyses who being in love with his own Sister as Herodotus relates in his Thalia cap. XXXI and having a Mind to marry her which was never practised before in that Country he commanded the Royal Judges as he calls them who were the Interpreters of the Laws to advise whether he might lawfully do it or no. Who to please him and yet not seem to give an illegal opinion answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That they could find no law which permitted a Brother to marry his Sister but there was a Law that the Persian King might do even what he would See Grotius Lib. II. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 5. sect 13. Even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover It shall be unlawful to thee to marry any of the forenamed Sisters For though the Marriage of Brother and Sister was necessary in the beginning when God created but one Man and one Woman by whose Children the World was peopled yet when it was so there was great reason that it should be made utterly unlawful as many have demonstrated Particularly Bishop Taylor in his Ductor Dubitantium Book II. chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 24 25 c. For now it is next to an unnatural mixture as he speaks it hath something of confusion in it and blending the very first parting 's of Nature which makes it intollerably scandalous and universally forbidden for if it were not the mischief would be horrible and infinite Ver. 10. Verse 10 The nakedness of thy sons daughter or of thy daughters daughter even their nakedness thou shalt not discover This Law concerns a Man's Grand-daughters by his Son or his Daughter whether legitimately or spuriously begotten as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it Praecept CXCIII Who adds in the next Precept but one this is another Prohibition Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter which saith he is not expresly mentioned in this Law because it was not necessary For a Man's Grand-children either by Sons or Daughters which are more remote being forbidden there was no need to say it was unlawful for him to marry his own Daughter For theirs is thy own nakedness They have their original from thy Nakedness For which reason some of the Jews extended this to those Descendants which were still further off as an Hedge to this Law So R. Levi calls it in the place forenamed The ancient Romans also as our Mr. Selden shows were very strict in restraining the Marriage of Men with their Nieces either by their Brothers or Sisters and with others mentioned in the following Laws of Moses Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gentium c cap. 11. p. 605. c. Ver. 11. Verse 11 The nakedness of thy fathers wives daughter begotten of thy father she is thy sister thou shalt not uncover her nakedness This Prohibition seeming to be the same with that v. 9. some of the Hebrews have expounded this concerning the Daughter of a mother-in-Mother-in-law begotten by another Father For the words may be thus translated as Mr. Selden observes the order of them will bear Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4. The nakedness of the Daughter of thy Father's Wife for she that is born of thy Father is thy Sister thou shalt not discover And with
Woman and her daughter If a Man married a Widow that had a Daughter it was a wicked thing to marry that Daughter either while her Mother lived or after she was dead Neither shalt thou take her sons daughter nor her daughters daughter to uncover her nakedness To preserve them from this the Jews added as a Hedge to this Law a Prohibition to marry the Grand-daughters of such Daughters as R. Levi Barcelonita tells us Praecept CCV For they are her near kinswomen Of such Consanguinity with her from whom they directly come as makes it very Criminal in him that is one with her to marry them It is wickedness The Hebrew word Zimmah imports more than Wickedness The LXX translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impiety the Vulgar Latin Incest others nefarious wickedness which is the word in the Civil Law for those Marriages that are contrary to Nature Such were these in some measure though not in the highest degree Ver. 18. Verse 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister There are a great many eminent Writers who following our Marginal Translation one wife to another imagine that here plurality of Wives is expresly forbidden by God And they think there is an example to justifie this Translation in XXVI Exod. 3. Where Moses is commanded to take care the five Curtains of the Tabernacle were coupled together one to its sister as the Hebrew phrase is i. e. one to another And so the Karaites interpret this place That a Man having a Wife should not take another while she lived Which if it were true would solve several difficulties but there are such strong Reasons against it that I cannot think it to be the meaning For as more Wives than one were indulged before the Law so they were after And Moses himself supposes as much when he provides a Man should not prefer a Child he had by a beloved Wife before one by her whom he hated if he was the eldest Son Which plainly intimates an allowance in his Law of more Wives than one And so we find expresly their Kings might have though not a multitude XVII Deut. 17. And their best King who read God's Law day and night and could not but understand it took many Wives without any reproof Nay God gave him more than he had before by delivering his Master's Wives to him 2 Sam. XII 8. And besides all this Moses speaking all along in this Chapter of Consanguinity it is reasonable as Schindlerus observes to conclude he doth so here not of one Woman to another but of one Sister to another There being also the like reason to understand the word Sister properly in this place as the words Daughter and Mother in others v. 17. and XX. 14. where he forbids a Man to take a Woman and her Daughter or a Woman and her Mother as Theodorick Hackspan judiciously notes Disput I. de locutionibus sacris n. 29. See Selden L. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. and Buxtorf de Sponsal p. 28 29. The meaning therefore is That though two Wives at a time or more were permitted in those days no Man should take two Sisters as Jacob had formerly done begotten of the same Father or born of the same Mother whether legitimately or illegitimately as the fore-named R. Levi expresses it Praecept CCVI. Which though it may seem to be prohibited before by consequence and analogy because the Marriage of a Brother's Wife is forbidden v. 16. yet it is here directly prohibited as other Marriages are which were implicitly forbidden before For v. 7. the Marriage of a Son with his Mother is forbidden and v. 10. the Marriage of a Father with his Daughter To vex her There were wont to be great Emulations and Jealousies and contentions between Wives some of them being more beloved than others and also superiour to them which between two Sisters would have been more intolerable than between two other Women who not being à consanguinitate aequiore animo sub eodem marito aetatem unà agant as Petrus Cunaeus speaks Lib. II. de Repub. Hebr. cap. 23. of the same Consanguinity as two Sisters are might live with more equal and quiet minds under the same Husband The Vulgar Latin understands this as if Moses forbad them to make one Sister their Wife and the other their Concubine which could not but beget the greatest discords between them In her life time From hence some infer that a Man was permitted to marry the Sister of his former Wife when she was dead So the Talmudists but the Karaites thought it absolutely unlawful as Mr. Selden observes Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4. For it is directly against the Scope of all these Laws which prohibit Men to marry at all with such Persons as are here mentioned either in their Wives life time or after And there being a Prohibition v. 16. to marry a Brother's Wife it is unreasonable to think Moses gave them leave to marry their Wive's Sister These words therefore In her life time are to be referred not to the first words Neither shalt thou take her but to the next To vex her as long as she lives Chaskuni refers it to both the Sisters according to the Targum and makes this the sense least they should both be afflicted Widows as long as they live for no Body would marry either of them being defiled by such an incestuous Conjunction for which God cut off their Husband In this the ancient Christians were so strict that if a Man after his Wife died married her Sister he was by the tenth Canon of the Council of Eliberis to be kept from the Communion five years Ver. 19. Verse 19 Also thou shalt not approach to a woman No not to his own Wife as the fore-named R. Levi expounds it Praecept CCVII. though all other Women also are comprehended even their Canaanitish Slaves as he observes As long as she is put apart for her uncleanness Which was seven days XV. 19. All the Laws about Marriages unto this place seem to have a special regard to the wicked Customs among the Egyptians who above all other People were then polluted with such incestuous mixtures And now he proceeds to direct them to abhor the Customs of the Canaanites who were polluted more than other Nations with Adulteries and offering their Children to Molech and the rest of the foul Crimes which follow For against the practises of these two Nations the Egyptians and the Canaanites Moses cautions them v. 3. and accordingly first mentions the doings of the Egyptians unto this place and then those of the Canaanites in the following Verses Ver. 20. Verse 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbours wife While he lived with her for this was to commit Adultery To defile thy self with her This signifies the foulest impurity as appears from v. 23. and was punished with death XX. 10. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed i. e. Of
us Lib. VII p. 802. that at Mendes where they worshipped Pan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goats which were there also worshipped lay with Women For which he quotes Pindar as do also Priscianus and Aelian Lib. VII de Animal cap. 19. as Casaubon there notes And Herodotus vouches this upon his own knowledge and saith they did it openly so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies when he was in Egypt His words are these in his second Book called Euterpe cap. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This prodigy hapned in this part of Egypt i. e. among the Mendesians when I was there a Goat had to do with a Woman in the view of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How long this beastly Custom had been among them none can tell but these words import that then it was notorious and so far from being kept secret that they rather made an ostentation of it Which I look upon as an argument that this had been a very old practice otherwise they would have blushed at it Ver. 24. Verse 24 Defile not your selves in any of these things This seems to relate particularly to the sins before-mentioned v. 20 21 22 23. See v. 26. For in all these the Nations are defiled which I cast out before you The seven Nations that inhabited the Land of Canaan mentioned in many places particularly VII Deut. 1. were so over-run with these filthy Vices that God could not bear with them but ordered them to be destroyed for this very reason Which was a sufficient Caution to the Israelites who came in their room to keep themselves from such Impurities Ver. 25. Verse 25 And the Land is defiled To make the Israelites the more abominate such doings he represents the very Land in which they dwelt as sensible of the foul wickedness of the Inhabitants who were a loathsome burden to it which it could not digest Therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof upon it I am about to punish them upon that account And the Land it self vomiteth out its inhabitants A most eloquent figure expressing the excessive loathsomness of their wickedness which made their own Country nauseate them and throw them out as our Stomack doth Meat that offends it The same expression is used v. 28. XX. 22. III Rev. 16. Theodoret expounds this word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies their Expulsion as an execrable People And indeed the word vomit in Scripture is used for that which is most detestable and abominable XXVIII Isa 8. XLVIII Jer. 26. II Habakk 10. Ver. 26. Verse 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments These Laws I have given you See v. 4 5. And shall not commit any of these abominations From this word abominations which the Nations God cast out to make room for them are said to have committed v. 27. some conclude that every one of the foregoing Marriages mentioned in this Chapter are in their own nature sinful the Nations who had no positive Law to forbid them being cast out for such Pollutions But the meer force of this word will not warrant such a conclusion because several things are called in this Book an abomination which have no moral turpitude in them but were made so by God's positive Laws as Mr. Selden observes Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 11. p. 598. from XI Lev. 10.20 41 42. where several sorts of Creatures are forbidden to be eaten as abominable And the Sacrifice of a Bullock or a Sheep that had a blemish is said to be an abomination XVII Deut. 1. not from the very nature of the thing but from the Prohibition which God had made against such Offerings It is most reasonable therefore to refer the abominations here spoken of to those foul things mentioned in the latter end of this List v. 20 21 22 23. and to those in the beginning v. 7 8 9 c. For lying with ones Mother or Mother-in-law or Sister was always an abomination But we cannot say the same of every one of the rest the Law it self following or rather requiring in one case the marriage of a brother's wife which were made an abomination by the Law now given to the Israelites Neither any of your own Nation nor any Stranger that sojourneth among you That is any Proselyte who had embraced their Religion See XVII 8. Ver. 27. Verse 27 For all these abominations have the men of the Land done which were before you c. He admonishes them to beware of these Abominations by the example of those who were utterly undone by them For God is no respecter of Persons but would punish them in the same manner if they did the same things Ver. 28. Verse 28 That the Land spue not you out also c. As it did at last IX Jer. 19. XXXVI Ezek. 17. Ver. 29. Verse 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people The multitude of the Offenders shall not keep off the Punishment but they shall suffer by the hand of the Judges or by the Hand of God if they neglect their Duty See XVII Gen. 14. Ver. 30. Verse 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine Ordinances Live by all these Rules which I have now given you That ye commit not any of these abominable Customs which were committed before you By observing every one of these Laws they were kept at a distance from those greater Abominations mentioned in the beginning and in the latter end of these Prohibitions The positive Laws or Ordinances now added being in the nature of an antemurale or an out-work to stop their proceeding to the higher Crimes which were against the Law of Nature I am the LORD your God As their LORD he had Authority to make these Laws and as their God they had particular Obligations to observe them Nay it was a singular token of his Love to them that he prescribed these Laws of Chastity and Modesty that thereby he might preserve them an holy People to him pure and free from those abominable filthinesses and those indecent Conjunctions that were practised in the World For as the ancient Rule was Semper in omnibus conjunctionibus non solum quod liceat considerandum est sed quod honestum est In all Marriages it is always to be considered not meerly what is lawful but what is honest and seemly Which is more true in the Christian Religion than in any other For thereby Marriage is advanced to represent the Unity that is between Christ and his Church And besides in contracting Marriage we are not only to have regard to our own Conscience as Joh. Brentius wisely observes upon the fore-named Rule of the ancient Law but to Succession also and to Inheritances And therefore id agendum quod boni viri honestum judicant a legitimo Magistratu permittitur that is to be done both which good Men judge to be honest and is allowed by lawful
great wickedness to be punished with death if a young Man did not rise up to an old Credebant hoc grande nefas morte piandum Si juvenis vetulo non assurrexerat And such a Law there was established among the Lacedaemonians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That aged Persons should be reverenced no less than if they were their Fathers And so Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let every one reverence him that is elder than himself in deed and in word Lib. IX de Legibus p. 875. Where he requires that a Youth should honour a Stranger that was his ancient and hath this memorable saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That Youth should glory more in obeying well than in ruling well And first of all in obeying the Laws for this is all one with serving God and next in giving honour to old Men and to those especially who have passed their days honourably and with glory See more to this purpose in Henricus Stephanus de juris civilis font rivis And there was the greater reason for this Reverence toward old Men in this Nation there being nothing else among them but Age and Experience that could distinguish them for they were all equally noble and equally rich of the same Profession and brought up in the same manner And honour the face of the old Man Or of the Elder that is of those who were skilful in the Law as the Jews interpret it and I see no reason to contradict it as some have done since he speaks of aged Persons before See Mr. Selden Lib. I. de Synedr cap. 14. where he deduces this at large and another excellent Writer of our own Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State p. 214 c. For if such as taught the Law had not been honoured before Men no body would have minded their words nor received what they propounded about things to be known or to be done as Maimonides words are in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 36. And it made no difference of what Age he was whether an old Man or a young for some Elders it appears by Daniel were not aged but the same honour was given to him even by wise Men as R. Levi Barcelonita shows Praecept CCXXII And fear thy God This is the fountain of all Vertue particularly of the fore-mentioned God having imprinted a venerable Character upon those who are grown aged especially on such as are wise and instruct others in Vertue But some of the Hebrews think that in this Verse there are three Degrees of Honour enjoyned to three Ranks of Men one to the Aged the next to the Wise and Learned and the third to the Judges who they imagine are here meant by Elohim God whom they are commanded to fear or reverence I am the LORD Most high above all and therefore greatly to be feared Ver. 33. Verse 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your Land ye shall not vex him Not so much as by upbraiding him with his being a Stranger or his having worshipped Idols heretofore For of such a Stranger they understand this as was become a Proselyte to their Religion See XVII 8 12 13. and XXII Exod. 21. But common Humanity teaches every Body to be kind to all manner of Stangers and not meerly to refrain from oppressing them or giving them vexation Plato hath most excellent Discourses about this in several places particularly Lib. V. de Legibus where he shows that God is the Avenger of all Wrongs done to Strangers more than of those that are done to our fellow Citizens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For a Stranger being destitute of Friends and Kindred is the greater object of pity both of Men and of God And therefore he that can hurt most should be most ready to help him c. See p. 729 730. Edit Serrani Upon which account he makes it lawful for a Stranger to pluck any of the best Fruit as he is upon his way whether Grapes Figs or Apples c. Lib. VIII p. 845. And the Corn being divided as he would have it into twelve parts and a twelfth part divided into three he orders one of those third parts to be given to Strangers p. 847 848. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Stranger or Sojourner ought to be comforted in a most friendly manner c. See Lib. XII p. 952 953. Ver. 34. Verse 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with thee shall be as one born among you They understand this only of such a Stranger who by Circumcision was become a perfect Proselyte whom they were to be so far from oppressing that they were to treat him as if he had been a Native Jew and love him as a Brother And thou shalt love him as thy self He had commanded them v. 18. to love their Neighbour i. e. an Israelite they expound it as themselves and now he commands them to love a Stranger with the same Affection which demonstrates they think he was become an Israelite and therefore was to have the same Priviledges with themselves both in all Civil and Sacred things And this no doubt was true that they were bound to treat such a Proselyte with a tender Affection and to make no difference between him and an Israelite For he was to be admitted to eat of the Paschal Lamb and of the Peace-offerings and he might marry with an Israelite insomuch that Moses saith One Ordinance shall be for both XV Numb 15. All the difference I can find was That they never admitted any Stranger to be a Member of the great Sanhedrim But notwithstanding all this I cannot think it reasonable to exclude all other Strangers from their Affection but they were bound to love them and to be kind to them though not to embrace them with such a strict Friendship as the other And to confirm this it may be observed That in the fourth Commandment the Stranger within their Gate signifies as they confess not him that was a perfect Proselyte but only one that had renounced Idolatry And so they understand the word Stranger in the XXVth Chapter of this Book v. 47. and I see no reason why such a Stranger should not be admitted here to have a share in their Affection who was become a Worshipper of the true God though he had not taken upon him to observe the whole Law For ye were strangers in the Land of Egypt This Reason is little less than a Demonstration that such Strangers as I now mentioned are comprehended in the foregoing Precept For the remembrance of what their Condition was in Egypt is that whereby they are moved to have pity on those whom they found among themselves in the same and they and the Egyptians were not of the same Religion but found such kind entertainment there a long time as they were to give to those who were of their Religion This Argument indeed became stronger when any Persons were incorporated with them
to be burnt XXI 9. and the Adulterer to be strangled as the Jews understand it If a man lay with a Virgin espoused to another man but not yet married they were both to be stoned by the express words of the Law XXII Deut. 23. But Adultery with a married Woman if we may credit the Jewish Doctors was punished with strangling See Selden Lib. III. Vxor Hebr. cap. 2. For when we meet with this phrase they shall surely die it is always meant of Death by the Sentence of the House of Judgment as they speak and if the Law add no more they resolve it to be by strangling If these words be added their blood shall be upon them then they say they were to be stoned This I observed before and shall add now that strangling as they describe it was not such a punishment as our hanging men by the neck but the Criminal being stuck up to the knees in dung they tied a Napkin about his Neck and drawing it hard at both ends choaked him There was such a thing as hanging men on a Gallows as we speak but it was after they were dead and only such as had been stoned and not all them neither but such alone as had been stoned for Blasphemy or Adultery See Joh. Carpzovius upon Schickard's Jus Regium cap. 4. Theorem XIV The greatest thing that can be objected against this account of the punishment of Adultery is that which St. John tells us the Jews said concerning the Woman taken in the very act of it Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned VIII Joh. 5. But it may be answered that this Woman was espoused only and not yet married and so by the Law as I observed before was to be stoned XXII Deut. 23 24. If this seem absurd that the Adultery of one espoused should be accounted a greater Crime than of one married for stoning was an heavier punishment than strangling it ought to be considered that the love of those who were newly espoused was commonly more fervent than theirs who were married especially among the Jews who for light causes were wont to be divorced from their Wives And therefore no wonder if the Adultery of the former was judged a greater Crime than of the latter Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the man that lieth with his fathers wife c. This was condemned before as an heinous sin XVIII 8. and now the penalty of Death is inflicted upon the Offenders Their blood shall be upon them All the Hebrew Doctors agree that wheresoever we meet with this phrase it is meant of stoning as I before observed Ver. 12. Verse 12 If a man lie with his daughter-in-law both of them shall surely be put to death This was forbidden XVIII 15. and the same penalty is here enacted as against the former Crime They have wrought confusion By perverting the order which God hath appointed and making great disturbance in the Family c. It is the same word that is used for a more foul sin XVIII 23. and therefore shows this to be an abominable mixture Ver. 13. Verse 13 If a man also lie with mankind c. This also was condemned before XVIII 22. but the penalty not declared till now They shall surely be put to death c. By stoning unless one of them was under a force and then that Law took place which we find XXII Deut. 25 26. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother it is wickedness See XVIII 17. They shall be burnt with fire Which was an higher punishment than stoning as that was higher than strangling R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXXIV. describes the manner of it to have been thus They set the Malefactor in dung up to the knees and then tied a Cloath about his Neck which was drawn by the two Witnesses till they made his Mouth gape into which they poured hot melted Lead down his Throat which burnt his bowels And thus the rest of the Talmudists expound it But I see no good Authority they have for it the word for burning being the same that is used when mention is made of burning with Fire and Faggots as we speak And R. Elieser ben Zadock saith he saw a Priest's Daughter thus burnt for Fornication But the Doctors commonly say the Judges were ignorant of the Law or that they were Sadducees who then had got into the Seat of Judgment who followed the very Letter of the Scripture Both he and they That is both the Mother and Daughter if the Mother were consenting to it Otherwise only the Woman that offended From whence the Karaites formed this Rule after the same manner that men were obliged by a Precept in Scripture the Women were obliged also Selden Lib. Uxor Hebr. cap. 5. That there be no wickedness among you That others may be deterred from the commission of such enormous Crimes For the Hebrew word imports more than ordinary wickedness See XVIII 17. Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if a man lie with a beast he shall surely be put to death See XVIII 23. This Death was by stoning as appears from the next Verse And ye shall slay the beast Just as they were to destroy not only the Inhabitants of an Apostate City but their Cattel also c. XIII Deut. 15 16. to terrifie others from committing the like sin And as the Talmudists observe that there might be no Memorial left of so foul a Crime by Mens pointing at the Beast and saying There goes the Beast that such a Man lay with They might have added to prevent monstrous Births See Selden Lib. I. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 4. Maimonides gives a good reason why a Beast that killed a Man should be slain as a punishment to the Owner for looking no better after it but his application of it to this matter seems impertinent More Nevoch P. III. cap. 40. Bochartus his Gloss is far better The Beast was killed as an Instrument in the Crime just as a Forger of Deeds is hanged with his Pen and Counterfeit Seals and a Conjurer with his Magical Books and Characters And this also is useful for an Example though not to other Beasts yet to Men whose concern it is to consider that if Beasts were not spared who were not capable of sinning what would become of them who committed such Crimes against the known Law of God and the impressions of Nature it self Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. 2. cap. 16. Ver. 16. Verse 16 Their blood shall be upon them This relates to the Man and the Woman mentioned in these two Verses who committed this foul Crime for a Beast is not capable of punishment But as the Canon Law speaks Pecora inde credendum est jussa interfici quia tali flagitio contaminata refricant facti memoriam it is to be believed that the Beasts which were polluted with such a flagitious wickedness were therefore commanded to be slain because they rub'd up the memory of
by doing such things as were not perhaps directly against the Law yet made him lose all his Authority See Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. juxta Disc Hebr. cap. 10. But I will be hallowed among the Children of Israel Either by the observation of his Laws or by punishing those who transgressed them For so this phrase is used X. 3. I am the LORD which hallow you Have separated you to my self as a special People from all others by Laws different from theirs and more excellent Ver. 33. Verse 33 That brought you out of the Land of Egypt to be your God And moreover distinguished you from all others by singular Benefits particularly by delivering you from the most grievous Slavery that I might make you a happy People I am the LORD When you remember my benefits remember I am your Soveraign who expect your Obedience CHAP. XXIII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying All the Laws in this Chapter were delivered at one time not long after the former Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel Who were highly concerned to observe all the Solemnities enjoyned in this Chapter in such a manner as God required And say unto them concerning the Feasts of the LORD It hath been anciently observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syrians were great lovers of Feasts Which made it the more reasonable if they were so in Moses his days that the Israelites who were to be their Neighbours in the Land of Canaan should have so many Feasts appointed them weekly monthly and yearly all in honour of their God From whence they are called Feasts of the LORD But this word MOED which we translate a Feast properly signifies an Assembly And so Mr. Thorndike would have it here translated because the name of Feasts is proper to those Solemnities which are to be celebrated with joy and chearfulness whereas under this general word Moed is comprehended the Day of Atonement which is one of the Assemblies here named v. 27. but was no Feast being to be observed with the greatest Humiliation and Affliction that could be expressed He therefore exactly translates these words in this manner The Assemblies of the LORD for the word concerning is not in the Hebrew which ye shall proclaim for holy Convocations these are my Assemblies See Religious Assemblies Chap. II. All that can be said for our Translation is That the Day of Atonement being a Day of Rest from all Labour it may go under the Name of a Feast in opposition to working days Which ye shall proclaim Or call by the sound of the Trumpet which the Priests were to blow upon these days X Numb 10. To be holy Convocations The same Hebrew Mikra which here signifies a Convocation signifies also reading VIII Nehem. 8. For on these days they were called to Assemble together to hear the Law read to them as well as to offer Sacrifice and make their Prayers to God with Thanksgivings for his Benefits Even these are my Feasts Or my Assemblies as I said before the first of which was the Sabbath then the Passover Pentecost the beginning of the New Year the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles which are all contained under the general word Moed and none besides Ver. 3. Verse 3 Six days shall work be done They were allowed all these for any sort of business wherein they pleased to employ themselves But the seventh day is the sabbath of rest See XX Exod. 9 10. XXXI 15. This was the greatest of all Solemnities appointed for Assemblies returning once every week and therefore is set in the head of all the rest from which it seems to be distinguished v. 37 38. And accordingly in the next Verse having here mentioned this as a day by it self he begins to reckon the Feasts or Assemblies of the LORD And the reason why this day was made a Sabbath of Rest was because God himself then rested from his Works In memory of which they were to keep this Day free from all Labour that the belief of the Creation of the World might be fixed in their Minds or as Maimonides phrases it More Nevoch P. II. cap. 113. A belief that nothing is coevous with God Whence that saying of theirs mentioned by Aben-Ezra whosoever doth any work upon the Sabbath-day denies the work of the Creation Ye shall do no work therein They were commanded so to rest on this day from all bodily labour as not to kindle a fire to dress the meat they eat upon it which is not required upon any other day but only this and the great Day of Expiation v. 28 30. Concerning these two days alone it is said Thou shalt do no work upon it but of the days of other Assemblies no more is said but this Thou shalt do no servile work therein v. 7 8 c. that is only such work as they were wont to put their Slaves to do was prohibited For though they might not bake nor boil their Meat on the Sabbath-day XVI Exod. 23. nor on the day of Expiation v. 28. of this Chapter yet on other Solemn days they might make provision for their Tables XII Exod. 16. where Aben-Ezra notes of none of the solemn Assemblies besides the Sabbath and the day of Atonement it is said NO MANNER OF WORK only of the Passover he saith it and addeth an exception of the Meat of the Soul that is what was requisite for the Sustenance of Nature As our Mr. Thorndike observes in the place before quoted It is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwelings To be kept holy in honour of the LORD by every man wheresoever he dwelt For they had Synagogues for Worship in all their Towns though most of the other Assemblies could be held only in the place where the Sanctuary and afterwards the Temple was whither all their Males went up thrice a year at the great Festivals Aben-Ezra therefore thus glosses upon these words IN ALL YOUR DWELLINGS in your Land and out of your Land at home and upon the way To show that the Command XXXV Exod. 3. You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitation upon the Sabbath-day was to be observed not only whilst they lived upon Manna in the Wilderness when God gave them a double portion on the sixth day that they might prepare it against the Sabbath XVI Exod. 5.29 but in all places wheresoever they dwelt afterwards Ver. 4. Verse 4 These are Feasts of the LORD Now follow the Solemn Assemblies which are to be kept by this Ordinance of mine besides that of the Seventh day which was celebrated from the beginning This looks like a Title to all that insues Even for holy Convocations Solemn Mettings of the People who were called together to celebrate the Mercies of God with Sacrifices of Thanksgiving and Publick Rejoycings Such there were in all Nations who had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greeks called them general Assemblies of all
the Country to do honour to their Gods As in Egypt we are told by Herodotus Lib. II. cap. 59. they did once a year 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in honour of Isis Mars and Diana The like was in other Nations as every body knows Dr. Hammond hath observed something concerning this phrase holy Convocations upon XX S. Matth. not c. Which ye shall proclaim in their seasons Or in their appointed times which here follow Ver. 5. Verse 5 On the fourteenth day of the first month See XII Exod. 18. At even See XII Exod. 6. Is the LORDs Passover See XII Exod. 27. Ver. 6. Verse 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD c. That is then the seven days of eating unleavened Bread were to begin XII Exod. 15. Seven days ye must eat unleavened bread See XII Exod. 19 20. Ver. 7. Verse 7 On the first day ye shall have an holy Convocation XII Exod. 16. Ye shall do no servile work therein Such days as these were not observed so scrupulously as the seventh day of every week on which as I observed before they might not coil nor bake i. e. prepare their Meat which on this day was allowed as appears from the place last named in Exodus Nor might they stir out of their place i. e. take a Journey on the Sabbath XVI Exod. 29. but on this day they might As appears from XVI Deut. 7. where having sacrificed the Passover and eaten it on the fourteenth day at Even they have leave given them to go home the next Morning which was the first day of unleavened Bread For on this very day betimes in the morning they came out of Egypt and travelled from Rameses to Succoth By servile work therefore we are to understand their ordinary Labours on other days from which both they and their Servants were to abstain on this day Which it was the custom of all Nations to forbear upon such great Solemnities as Strabo informs us Lib. X. where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is common both to Greeks and Barbarians to keep their holy days with a festival remission of their labours Ver. 8. Verse 8 And ye shall offer an offering made by fire seven days unto the LORD These were not meerly idle times but days for Divine Service about which there is a particular direction given afterwards XXVIII Numb from the 19th Verse to the 25th where the Sacrifices for every one of the seven days are prescribed And though there is no mention of any particular work of the Moral Service of God upon these days no more than there is of that Sanctification of the Sabbath-day yet the Jews were not so blind but that they were able to perceive the Spiritual Service of God by Prayers and Praises and hearing the Law and meditating upon God's works was required on these days especially on the Sabbath which appears from Josephus and Philo and divers others of their later Writers In the seventh day is an holy Convocation XII Exod 16. Ye shall do no servile work therein It was to be observed as the first day of the seven that the Feast might conclude as it began Ver. 9. Verse 9 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying Though the following Command could not be yet practised yet he would have them take a particular notice of it as no less solemnly enjoyned than the foregoing Ver. 10. Verse 10 Speak unto the Children of Israel They being all concerned in this Precept And say unto them when ye be come into the Land which I give unto you In the Wilderness they sowed no Corn and therefore could not be obliged by this Precept till they came to Canaan nay till they had driven out the old Inhabitants and God had given them rest in the Land of Promise as Moses himself seems to expound it XII Deut. 10 11. And shall reap the harvest thereof Begin to reap it as it is explained XVI Deut. 9. Then ye shall bring a Sheaf Or an handful as it is translated in the Margin of our Bibles And there was the very same custom among the Heathen to bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an handful of the new Corn to be offered to their Gods as Diodorus Siculus saith the practice was among the Egyptians Of the First-sruits There were several things comprehended under the name of First-fruits which are commanded to be offered unto God XXIII Exod. 19. The Greeks have accurately distinguished them by proper and peculiar Names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the First-born of Men or of Cattle mentioned XIII Exod. Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the first Corn that was ripe or the first fruit of Trees which they brought from the Field or from their Plantations before they eat any themselves And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Hebrews call Terumoth or Trumoth were the First-fruits of their Wine and Oil XVIII Numb 12. and the first Loaves or Cakes made of their Wheat mentioned below v. 17. See there Of your harvest Of Barley-harvest which began at the Passover when they offered the First-fruits here mentioned as Wheat-harvest began at Pentecost when they offered the First-fruits mentioned v. 17 as at the Feast of Tabernacles those of the Vine and other Fruit-trees were brought and offered And so much weight was laid on this and there were so many of them and such care taken of their payment because this was held by all Mankind as a principal part of Religion to make this early Acknowledgment to God for his Goodness Insomuch that they who offered no First-fruits were lookt upon as Atheists So Porphyry Lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sect 78. And indeed this was a practice derived from the beginning of the World IV Gen. 3 4. Aristotle himself testifies as much when he saith Lib. VIII ad Nichomachum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The ancient Sacrifices and Assemblies were after the carrying in the Harvest when they offered the First-fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they chiefly relaxed themselves at those Seasons Vnto the Priest Who offered part of it to God and had the rest himself For thus the Jews describe the gathering and offering of them On the Evening of the first day of the Passover-week some were ordered by the Sanhedrim to take Sickles and Baskets c. and go out when it was dark having a great Company with them and cut a Sheaf of Corn which they brought into the Court of God's House and parcht it as may be gathered from the second Chapter of this Book 14 15 16. and having ground it they sifted it often no less than thirteen times till it was very fine flour After which they took out a Tenth-deal an Omer which was the tenth part of an Ephah and brought it to the Priest who took out an handful and put it on the Altar with Oil and Frankincense and the remainder he had for himself See Dr. Lightfoot in
to preserve the memory of all the Miracles which God did in Egypt out of which he brought them at that time as the Feast of Tabernacles did to preserve the memory of the Signs and Wonders he did in the Wilderness where he afforded them his Divine Protection under a glorious Cloud and preserved them without any Houses both in the cold of Winter and heat of Summer In short there are two ends mentioned in this Chapter of the Institution of this Festival one to give thanks for the Fruits of the Earth which were then gathered v. 39. another and the principal in a grateful remembrance that they dwelt in Booths forty years and were brought into better Habitations when they came to Canaan v. 42 43. Ver. 35. Verse 35 And on the first day shall be an holy Convocation c. It was to be observed as the day of Pentecost v. 21. And they every one carried in their hands the Bough of some goodly Tree as the Hebrews understand the first words of v. 40. Josephus describing this Festivity Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. mentions in the first place Boughs of Myrtle Ver. 36. Verse 36 Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD The peculiar Sacrifices with their Meat-offerings which were to be offered on these seven days are distinctly set down in XXIX Numb from the thirteenth Verse to the end Where it will be most proper to consider them On the eighth day shall be an holy Convocation unto you See v. 4. And ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD A Burnt-offering with a Meat-offering attending upon it according to the appointment in XXIX Numb 36 37. It is a solemn Assembly This is a new word which is not used hitherto concerning any of the Feasts here mentioned signifying as we translate it in the Margin a day of restraint or rather a closing or concluding day for then the Solemnity ended And so Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Conclusion of the Feasts Whence the last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is also called by this Name of Atzereth XVI Deut. 8. And so is the Feast of Pentecost which was kept in the end of seven Weeks called by Josephus by the same name of Asartha Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. This therefore as it was the last so it was the great day of the Feast as St. John calls it VII 37. On which day they read the last Section of the Law and so concluded the reading of the whole five Books of Moses And thence any great Solemnity is called by this name of Atzereth 2 Kings X. 20. I Joel 14. This seems to me to be a far better account of this word then that which the Jews commonly give who render it a day of detention because saith Abarbanel they were bound to detain the Feast to this day whereas no other Feast continued more then seven days staying at Jerusalem till it was over Whence this day seems to him to be to the Feast of Tabernacles as the Day of Pentecost was to the Passover For as they were bound to count seven Weeks from that time and then make this fiftieth day a Feast so they are here commanded after the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles to stay and feast one day more Others of them as R. Solomon Jarchi say this was as if a Man having been entertained by his Friend seven days should to express greater kindness to him be detained one day more And ye shall do no servile work therein But spend their time in Feasting Mirth and Rejoycing with thankful Acknowledgments of God's Benefits to them See v. 7 8. Ver. 37. Verse 37 These are the feasts or Assemblies of the LORD which ye shall proclaim to be holy Convocations This was the Preface to them v. 4. and now is the Conclusion to make them the more observed To offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD a Burnt-offering and a Meat-offering and a Sacrifice c. These Offerings are particularly set down as hath been noted all along in the XXVIII and XXIXth of Numbers And by a Sacrifice seems here to be meant a Sin-offering which is ordered throughout those two Chapters together with Burnt-offerings upon all these Festivals Ver. 38. Verse 38 Besides the Sabbaths of the LORD i. e. Beside the Sacrifices appointed upon all the Sabbaths in the year which were not to be omitted if any of the Feasts here mentioned fell upon the seventh day of the Week And beside your gifts Most understand by Gifts such Presents as Men made to God beyond their First-fruits and Tenths But it may be thought only a general word including the two particulars which follow Vows and Free-will-offerings Ver. 39. Verse 39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month when ye have gathered in the fruit of the Land c. Here is no new injunction in this Verse but only an inforcement of what was said before the very same days being appointed to be observed with those named v. 24. Therefore the Hebrew Particle Ak should not have been translated also but surely or certainly or truly as we translate it in other places particularly XXIX Gen. 14. Surely thou art my bone and my flesh LXXIII Psal 1. Truly God is good to Israel II Lament 16. Certainly this is the day that we looked for When ye have gathered in the fruit of the Land These words give a reason of the repetition of the Command because there was something more designed in this Festival than meerly the remembrance of their Condition in the Wilderness which was to express their Thankfulness to God for their desired Harvest which they had now gathered For which cause besides the seven days which were in Commemoration of their dwelling in Tents in the Wilderness there was an eighth added to acknowledge his Mercy of receiving the Fruits of the Earth Ye shall keep a Feast unto the LORD seven days These were the Feasts of Tabernacles which lasted all these seven days On the first day shall be a Sabbath See v. 35. And on the eighth day shall be a Sabbath In the institution of the Feast of Unleavened Bread it is said in the seventh day is an holy Convocation ye shall do no servile work therein i. e. it shall be a Sabbath v. 8. but here the eighth day hath that honour put upon it not the seventh being added to the Festival for a peculiar reason and therefore to be observed in a very solemn manner For the Feast of Tabernacles fell in the time of Vintage when the Fruits of the Earth were in a manner all gathered XVI Deut. 13. From whence it is called by the name of the Feast of Ingatherings XXIII Exod. 16. not because the whole Feast was celebrated on this account but because a principal part of it was kept on this score viz. the eighth day as the other seven days were in memory of their dwelling in Tents But that the eighth
your wickedness nor suffer theirs to go unpunished but do equal Justice unto all Yet the Jews by a Stranger here will understand only a Proselyte of Righteousness as they call him that is one who had intirely embraced their Religion for such alone they imagine were equalled with them See Selden Lib. IV. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 1. pag. 468. Ver. 23. Verse 23 And Moses spake unto the Children of Israel that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of their Camp c. It appears by this that all the foregoing Admonitions were repeated to Moses upon the occasion of the Law against Blasphemy before he proceeded to put it in execution And the Children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses Executed the whole Sentence pronounced by God against the blasphemous Person v. 14. CHAP. XXV Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai saying That is in the Wilderness of Sinai I Numb 1. For they stayed almost a whole year not far from this Mountain from whence they did not remove till the twentieth day of the second Month of the second year after their coming out of Egypt See X Numb 11 12. And thus the Hebrew Particle Beth is often used for by or near as in XXXVII Gen. 13. V Josh 13. and we find this expression again in the end of the next Chapter and in the conclusion of this Book Which shows that all here related was delivered to Moses in the first month of the second year after their coming out of Egypt immediately after the Tabernacle was set up XL Exod 17. Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them For what follows was of universal concernment When ye come into the land which I give you This Law though delivered before they left Mount Sinai could not take place till they came into Canaan Then shall the land keep a Sabbath Rest from being tilled or sowen c. See XXIII Exod. 11. Vnto the LORD In obedience to him and in honour of him Some have understood the foregoing words When ye shall come into the Land which I give you as if they were to begin the Sabbatical year as soon as they entred into Canaan which is very absurd for so not the seventh but the first would have been the year of Rest And that had been very inconvenient if not destructive the War making such great waste no doubt that Provision would have been very scarce if no care had been taken for the ensuing year It is to be considered also that the old store upon which they lived when they entred into the Land of Promise was the fruit of the labour of the Canaanites and not of the Children of Israel The meaning therefore is that the seventh year after their entrance into Canaan or rather after they were settled and had rest in it they should let the Land rest The only question is When this year was to begin whether in the month of Tisri which answers to our September which was the ancient beginning of the year or in Nisan answering to our March which was made a new beginning of it by an express Law XII Exod. 2. the former still continuing the beginning of the year for Civil things as this for Sacred Now there is great reason to think that this Sabbatical year was to commence from September when all their Harvest was over which began in March Then they were not to sow as they were wont to do in October and the following Months but to stay till the return of this Season the next year For if this year had been to begin in March they could not have reaped the Harvest of the sixth year Ver. 3. Verse 3 Six years shalt thou sow thy fields and prune thy Vineyard and gather in the fruit thereof XXIII Exod. 10. But what was allowed in other years is forbidden in this Ver. 4. Verse 4 But in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of rest unto the Land a Sabbath for the LORD Or unto the LORD as we translate it before v. 2. who though he gave this Land to them continued the Proprietor of it as he declares v. 23. and the LORD in chief himself Of whom they held it by this Tenure that they should till it c. only six years together for their own use and in the seventh let it lye in common for such uses as he appointed And it was for the honour of the LORD that they observed this Law for as the weekly Sabbath was an acknowledgment that they were his so this Sabbatical year was an acknowledgment that their Land was his Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard By this he explains what he means by letting it rest And these two words sow and prune comprehend all other things that were usually done about their Fields or Trees as plowing digging dunging c. And though a Vineyard be only mentioned yet it is plain by XXIII Exod. 10. that Olive-yards are comprehended under the same Law and these are mentioned only as examples of all other Fruit-trees which were to be left in common as these were Maimonides seems to be something too curious in what he saith upon this Subject for inquiring why Moses mentions only these two things sowing and pruning his resolution is That for these two if Men offended in them this year they were punished with that scourging called Malkut but if they offended in any other sort of Labours belonging to the Culture of the Fields or of Trees they were not punished with the scourging of Malkut which was by a certain measure not exceeding thirty nine stripes but with the scourging called Mardut i. e. of Contumacy and Rebellion which was without number or measure As if a Man digged or ploughed his ground if he gathered out the stones or dunged it c. if he planted Trees or grafted c. he suffered the scourging of Rebellion And more than this he saith it was not lawful in the seventh year to plant any Tree though it was not a Fruit-tree nor to cut off the dead Branches nor to make a smoak under them to kill the Worms nor to anoint young Plants to preserve them from the bitings of Birds c. If they did they were liable to the scourging of Murdut Nay he is so nice as to say it was unlawful to sell to any Man any Instrument of Husbandry in this year as a Plough a Yoke a Sieve c. yet he allows them when they were under the oppression of the Gentiles and bound to find Provision for their Armies to sow so much as would maintain them Of which things he discourses at large in his Treatise called Schemitta ve Jobel cap. 1. and cap. 7. Ver. 5. Verse 5 That which groweth of it self Either from Seed which fell casually the year before or from the old Root which sprouted out again as Maimonides expounds it in the same Treatise
example Maimonides puts this Case If there be ten years to the Jubile and a Man buy anothers Field for an Hundred pence after which the Buyer having enjoyed it three years the Seller hath a mind to redeem it he must then give to him that bought it of him Seventy pence In like manner if the Buyer have enjoyed it six years the Seller must give him Forty pence For according to the number of the years of the Fruits doth he sell unto thee Therefore if a Man saith the same Maimonides cap. 11. num 6. sell another a Field full of Fruit and after two years would redeem it he must not demand him to restore the Field as he sold it full of fuit because it is said here according to the multitude of years or fewness of years and in the foregoing Verse according to the number of years after the Jubile which show the years only were to be considered in the Redemption and not the Fruits Ver. 17. Verse 17 Ye shall not therefore oppress one another The Seller by demanding too much nor the Buyer by giving too little But thou shalt fear thy God For nothing could be so powerful as the Fear of God to restrain them from Oppression and to preserve an equality between the Land to be sold and the price to be paid For I am the LORD your God Whose Land this is and by whose Favour you enjoy it Ver. 18. Verse 18 Wherefore ye shall do my statutes and keep my judgments Which are the Tenure whereby you hold this Land of me And ye shall dwell in the Land in safety And if you obey them you shall not be disturbed in it by your Enemies Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the Land shall yield her increase and ye shall eat your fill and dwell therein in safety He incourages them in their Obedience by a promise of Plenty and Abundance as well as of Safety and Security in their Possessions Ver. 20. Verse 20 And if ye shall say what shall we eat the seventh year c. To take away all distrust of his Promise he removes an obvious Objection which might arise in their Minds that they might want food if they neither sowed nor gathered in their increase in the seventh year as he required Ver. 21. Verse 21 Then will I command my blessing upon you in the sixth year and it shall bring forth fruit for three years This is the Answer to the doubt they might have of wanting Sustenance that he would bless them with such a plentiful Crop in the sixth year as should be sufficient for that and for the two following years From which Petrus Cunsus thinks the Argument very strong that there were not two Sabbatical years together one in the forty ninth and another in the fiftieth year for then the Earth in the sixth year should have brought forth not for three years but for four which was never heard of in any Country Palestine indeed was a Country to which God afforded an extraordinary blessing beyond the common Laws of Nature yet since there are no Testimonies of so great and frequent a Miracle in the Book of God we ought not easily to believe this Thus he Lib. I. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 6. To which it may be replyed that this was not so frequent as he makes it but only once in fifty years and the reason why Moses here saith the Land should bring forth fruit for three years and not for four is because he speaks only with respect to the common Sabbatical years every seventh year not to the great Sabbatical year as they call the XLIXth Before which God may very well be supposed to have blessed the Earth with a larger Crop than in any other preceding sixth year Besides though it is said they should not sow in the Jubile v. 11. yet it is not said they might not prune their Trees as it is of other Sabbatical years v. 4. so that they might be dressed as in other common years to yield a plentiful Increase for their support in the succeeding year Ver. 22. Verse 22 And ye shall sow the eighth year and eat yet of old fruit until the ninth year Some have interpreted these words as if they were to eat the old store till the Fruits of the ninth year came in and bring it as an Argument that the Sabbatical year began in March whereas the plain sense is that the Fruits of the eighth could not be thrashed out for food till the ninth year And then the next words Vntil her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old store Are not to be understood of the Fruits of the ninth year but of the Fruits of the eighth which were to be eaten in the ninth Till then they were to live upon the old store which served for two years beside the sixth Ver. 23. Verse 23 The Land shall not be sold for ever Having mentioned the selling of their Land v. 14 15 16. he here again enacts it should not be sold for ever Which may be called the Lex agraria of the Jews whereby Estates were preserved in the Family to which they belonged at the division of the Land by Joshua For they could not be quite cut off as the words are in the Hebrew which we translate for ever or as it is in the Margin for cutting off so that the Seller and his Heirs should be cut off from it as Mr. Selden interprets it Or as the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an alienation never to be rescinded but all Estates were at the Jubile to return to their first Owners or their Heirs though they had changed Possessors an hundred times by being sold so oft And the same Law held in Donations as much as in Sales as Maimonides observes Yet this is to be understood only of absolute Alienations without any mention of time for if any Man sold without fraud an Estate to his Neighbour for sixty years it was not to return to him or his Heirs in the year of Jubile which came before the expiration of that term for in the Jubile saith he nothing returns but that which was sold for ever Halicoth Schemitta ve Jobel cap. 11. sect 2. And see Selden de Successionibus ad Leges Hebr. cap. 24. For the Land is mine I reserve to my self the Supream Dominion in it and propriety of it and have disposed it to you on such terms as I thought fit For ye are strangers and sojourners with me These words suggest another sense of the foregoing that their Land was God's as he dwelt in a special manner there in the Sanctuary which was his Royal Palace And they were all his Tenants who held the Land of him as long as he pleased but were no more to him than the Proselytes were to them The Land was his and not theirs and they did but enjoy the use and the fuits of it but had not the property See Mr. Mede pag. 157. Ver. 24. Verse 24
are no greater Blessings in this World than those which God's Promises gave them hope to enjoy nor greater Evils than those of which his Threatnings put them in fear But such is the Divine Goodness he always offers Mercy before he proceeds to Judgment and mingles Judgment with Mercy before he proceeds in rigour of Justice Which will appear in the following Threatnings Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if ye despise my Statutes or if your soul abhor my Judgments They were not thus wicked at the first but disobedience to God's Commands mentioned in the foregoing Verse proceeded to a contemptuous neglect of them and that in time to an abhorrence of them So that ye will not do all my Commandments Though often admonished by his Prophets whose Messages they not only rejected but slighted and despised But that ye break my Covenant By forsaking him and falling to Idolatry For that was the principal thing in the Covenant That they should have no oter God but him alone Ver. 16. Verse 16 I also will do this unto you I will alter the method of my Providence towards you I will even appoint over you Or as it is in the Hebrew upon you causing the following Diseases to seize upon them as the Phrase signifies and arrest them That they might feel the heavy displeasure of him whose Laws they set at naught Terrour Consumption and the burning Ague It is not certain what Diseases are comprehended under these words especially the first Behalah which we translate terrour But coming from a word importing haste and precipitancy I take it to signifie the falling sickness whereby People are so suddenly surprized that they sometimes fall into the fire by which they sit The other two words probably are rightly translated For the next Sachepheth is by Kimchi and a great many others understood to signifie a Consumption or an Hectick Fever though R. Solomon and some others seem to take it for a Dropsie for he says it is a Disease that puffs up the flesh or as David de Pomis makes it to break out in Blotches See Bochart in his Hierozoic P. II. Lib. II. cap. 18. As for the last word Chaddachat it coming from a word denoting great heat may well be translated a burning Fever That shall consume the eyes Make you look ghastly And cause sorrow of heart Take away all the comfort of Life And ye shall sow your seed but your Enemies shall eat it Next to Bodily Sickness he threatens them with the Incursions of their Enemies which was an higher punishment than the former according to that of David it is better to fall into the hands of the LORD then into the hands of Men. Here also it is observable he doth not threaten the worst that their Enemies might do to them but first that they should carry away their Harvest and make a Scarcity among them and in the next Verse speaks of delivering them to be slain by them Ver. 17. Verse 17 And I will set my face against you Be extreamly angry with you See XVII 10. And ye shall be slain before your Enemies The neighbouring Nations oftimes made great slaughter of them and conquered them as we find in the Book of Judges and in the beginning of the first Book of Samuel They that hate you shall reign over you And grievously oppressed them IV Judges 3. VI. 2 c. This made them very contemptible and was a just punishment of their contempt of God's Laws And ye shall flee when none pursueth you Lose all your Courage directly opposite to the promise v. 7 8. Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me If by these sore punishments they were not reclaimed from their Idolatrous Practises he threatens to send greater Then will I punish you seven times more for your sins The number seven is used for any indefinite multitude and therefore here signifies a great increase of their Plagues which by their continued Provocations became more and more grievous then in former Ages Ver. 19. Verse 19 And I will break the pride of your power That Power wherein you glory Which some understand of the Sanctuary which in the days of Eli was forsaken of the Ark of God's strength as the Psalmist calls it 1 Sam. IV. 10 11. But it seems rather to relate to their numerous Forces which at the first were every where victorious but after sundry Defeats in foregoing times were in the days of Saul reduced to such straits they hid themselves in Caves and Pits and Thickets c. and there was not a Sword or a Spear to be found in any of their hands save Saul's and Jonathan's when they should have fought with their Enemies 1 Sam. XIII 6 7. 22. And I will make your Heaven as iron and your Earth as brass The one he means should afford no Rain and the other for want of moisture bring forth no Fruit which must needs make a sore Famine among them Ver. 20. Verse 20 And your strength shall be spent in vain c This is a further description of that Calamity when after all their labour in ploughing and sowing their Land or digging and dunging their Trees they brought forth nothing for their Sustenance We read in Scripture of such Famines wherein Man and Beast were ready to perish particularly 1 Kings XVII 1 12. XVIII 15. 2 Kings VIII 1. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And if ye walk contrary unto me Go on in your Idolatrous Courses directly contrary to my Commands v. 1. And will not hearken unto me Be obedient to the Admonitions of his Prophets whom he sent to call them to Repentance I will bring seven times mo plagues upon you according to your sins As their Sins increased so did their Plagues for these that follow are more dreadful than the foregoing And it was a high aggravation of their sins that they would take no warning by the severe Punishments which God inflicted upon their Forefathers This augmented his Plagues upon succeeding Generations which as Dr. Jackson speaks usually run by the scale of sevens So that if we call the litteral meaning to a strict Arithmetical Account these later Plagues were Nine and forty times heavier than the former But it is most likely a certain number is put for an uncertain yet denoting a very great increase of their Punishments beyond what had been in preceding times It ought to be observed that there is in the Margin another rendring of the first words of this Verse If ye walk contrary to me which some follow If ye walk at all adventures with me That is live carelesly as if you had no regard at all to me I will have as little regard to you or concern for you But the ancient Translations go the other way Ver. 22. Verse 22 I will also send wild Beasts among you which shall rob you of your Children c. If the terrible famine would not work upon their stubborn hearts no more than the
of whom it was bought c. Not unto him who bought the Field and then vowed it to God but unto the Hereditary Owner which is the meaning of the next words Even unto him to whom the possession of the Land did belong Ver. 25. Verse 25 All thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary c. Full weight according to the Standard kept in the Sanctuary See XXX Exod 13. and XIX of this Book v. 36. Ver. 26. Verse 26 Only the firstling of the Beasts which shall be the LORD's firstling no man shall sanctifie it By vowing it to be a whole Burnt-offering or a Peace-offering unto the LORD as Maimonides expounds it The reason was because no Man could lawfully vow that which was not his own as the Firstlings were not they being the LORD 's already as it follows in the end of this Verse The same Reason held as Maimonides likewise observes in all things belonging to God as Tenths Yet they devised ingeniously enough as he speaks a way to give these Firstlings to God by a new Obligation and yet not offend as they imagined against this Law For they interpret these words of Firstlings already brought forth No Man might sanctifie such but while they were in the Womb they might saying I vow that Lamb suppose which my Ewe goes with to be a whole Burnt-offering to God if it be a male But they could not vow it for a Peace-offering because no Man could alter any thing for his own profit Whether it be ox or sheep Under these two are comprehended all other kind of Creatures whose Firstlings belonged to God It is the LORD's III Numb 13. VIII 17. For this reason no Man was to presume to vow such things it being a kind of mockery to make a present of that to another which was his own before See Mr. Mede concerning this Verse p. 512. Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if it be of an unclean beast Most understand this of the Firstling of an unclean Beast Against which there is this Objection That such things were before ordered to be redeemed not with Money but with a Lamb XIII Exod. 13. Therefore it seems more reasonable to understand this of the Firstling of such an unclean Beast which a Man had redeemed v. 13. but afterward devoted to God which he might do for after the Redemption it was become his own again Then he shall redeem it according to thy estimation At the rate thou shalt set upon it And shall add a fifth part of it thereto As was ordained before in the like case v. 11. Or if it be not redeemed then it shall be sold according to thy estimation Any other Man might buy it at that rate the Priest had set upon it and the Money was applyed to holy uses Ver. 28. Verse 28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the LORD Nothing that was devoted by that sort of Vow which was called Cherem as the word is here in the Hebrew with a Curse as the word implyes upon themselves and others if the thing was not imployed according to their Vow Of all that he hath both of man and beast c. All manner of things which might be sanctified to the LORD by the fore-mentioned simple Vow might be thus devoted and consecrated to him by a Cherem i. e. Beasts and Houses and Lands and even Men themselves as far as they had power over them For that is meant by those words all that a man hath See next Verse Shall be sold or redeemed For this was the peculiar nature of this sort of Vow that the things devoted by it should remain irreversibly and unalterably to the use unto which it was devoted for the Person was accursed that applyed it to any other use than that to which it was consecrated Every devoted thing Of this kind Is most holy to the LORD Other things devoted by a simple Vow were holy v. 9 10 c. but these were most holy so that none might touch them but the Priests and they were so strictly applyed to the Divine Service that they could not be alienated either by Sale or Redemption or Commutation or Donation or any other way See Mede p. 160. Ver. 29. Verse 29 None devoted which shall be devoted of men shall be redeemed but shall surely be put to death Some learned Men have from these words asserted That Parents and Masters among the Jews had such a power over their Children and Servants that they might devote them to Death and so kill them only the Sentence of the Priest was to concur to whom every devoted thing fell as his portion This is maintained by Ludov. Capellus and confuted by Mr. Selden Lib. IV. de Jure Nat. Gent. juxta Disciplin Hebr. cap. 6. where he judiciously observes That this Power would have too much intrenched upon the sixth Commandment if private Men might have at their pleasure thus disposed of their Children and Slaves And in the next Chapter he explains the sense of this Verse and proves indeed that there may be a Cherem minhaadam of men or from among men as well as of beasts but this word hath four several senses among the Hebrews First It signifies the Sacred Gift it self which was devoted to God or to holy Uses and so it signifies in the foregoing v. 28. Secondly It signifies that which was devoted to Perdition and utter Destruction either by the right of War or upon the account of Capital Enmities an Example of which we have in Jericho VI Josh 17. where the whole City was a Cherem devoted to Destruction as a Punishment to their Enemies yet so that the Metals were made a Cherem of the first sort that is Sacred to the LORD and his Holy Uses And thus the great Sanhedrim called in Scripture the whole Congregation might devote those to be a Cherem who going to the Wars did not obey orders and perform the Charge laid upon them An Example of which we have XXI Judg. 5. 1 Sam. XIV 24. I omit the other two for brevities sake of which there are Examples VI. Josh 26. X Ezra 8. XXIII Acts 12 14 21. See Selden Ib. cap. 7. 8. because the Cherem here mentioned by Moses is of this second sort For it is evident that the Cherem of the first sort mentioned v. 28. was of such things over which they had an intire power to dispose of them as they pleased And therefore those words both of Man and Beast the Hebrews understand of their Slaves whether Men or Women who were Canaanites or Gentiles not others who were in their power as much as their Beasts to give away or to sell But to take away their Life or to give them to be slain was not in their power but all the effect of this Cherem was that the whole right which they had to the Service of such Slaves was transferred by him that devoted them to the Service of the
clothes i. e. The Man upon whom the Spittle fell Ver. 9. Verse 9 And what saddle soever he rideth upon c. By the same reason that the Seat he sat upon was defiled v. 4. Ver. 10. Verse 10 And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him c. Either the Saddle or any thing else that was under him when he rode And he that beareth any of those things c. Removeth them from one place to another though it be to carry them out of the way that others may not be defiled by them unawares Ver. 11. Verse 11 And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue and hath not rinsed his hands in water he shall wash c. It is somewhat doubtful whether these words hath not washed his hands in water belong to him that had the Issue or to him that his hands touched Most understand it of the former That if the Man who had an Issue touched any other Man and had not first washt his hands that Man whom he touched should be defiled But the Syriack takes it to refer to the Man that was touched by him who if he did not immediately wash his hands with water was to be cleansed after a more laborious manner by washing his Clothes and bathing himself in Water But I do not see how washing of his hands could cleanse him when the Man that had the Issue touched perhaps some other part of his Body Ver. 12. Verse 12 And the vessel of earth that he toucheth which hath the issue shall be broken c. That it might not be imployed hereafter to any use See XI 33. VI. 28. And every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water Such Vessels were not broken but only well washed because they were not so easily made as the other and were of more value There are so many washings prescribed here and on other occasions that it is reasonable to believe there were not only at Jerusalem and in all other Cities but in every Village several bathing places contrived for these Legal Purifications that Men might without much labour be capable to fulfil these Precepts And one cannot but think that such frequent washings were enjoyned to admonish them how carefully they ought to preserve Purity of Heart and Life Ver. 13. Verse 13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue It having ceased for some time Then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing That there might be sufficient proof made whether the Issue was stopt that is he was really cured And wash his clothes and bathe his flesh In the conclusion of the seventh day In running water i. e. Spring-water as we speak which was most pure River-water was the same which comes from Springs And shall be clean So that he might keep Company with his Neighbours but not have Communion with God at the Sanctuary till after the following Sacrifices were offered For if in the end of the seventh day after his washing the Flux returned again all this labour was lost and he was to stay seven days more as Maimonides observes in his Treatise on this Subject cap. 3. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And on the eighth day If he continued free from the Flux after his washing on the seventh day in the Evening He shall take to him two turtle doves or two young pigeons These were the Sacrifices appointed for the meaner sort of People who were not able to be at the charge of a Lamb or other Sacrifices of the Flock or Herd V. 7. XII 8. And perhaps the great trouble the Man had endured and given others while he laboured under this Disease might be considered so far as to put him to as little charge as might be for his Purification And come before the LORD unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation But not into the Court of the Israelites till his Sacrifices were offered Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Priest shall offer them the one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering As in the Case of a poor Leper XIV 31. who was bound also to offer a Trespass-offering of greater value And the Priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD for his issue Perfectly restore him to partake of holy things of which he was debarred while he had his Issue And here it may be fit to observe That the greater part of all the Legal Defilements depended upon the Seat or Place of the Divine Majesty as the Author of Sepher Cosri speaks Pars III. sect 49. whose Presence there made their Country be called the Holy Land and was the ground of all these Injunctions about Cleanliness To which he thinks they have no Obligations at this day now that they live in an unclean Land i. e. among us Gentiles and want the Presence of the Divine Majesty among them Ver. 16. Verse 16 And if any mans seed of copulation Though the holy Writers speak very plainly of some things that we think it not so modest to name in that manner yet it is observable on the other hand that in things of the same nature they use Circumlocutions to express them which we stick not to speak of in blunter words As when they say The water of the feet meaning Urin and call going to Stool Vncovering of the feet which shows that it is nothing but the vast difference of Times and Places which makes that Language seem uncivil to us that was not so to them and on the contrary made them very cautious in their Expressions where we think it unnecessary Go out from him Involuntarily in his sleep or otherwise which the Hebrews call keri i. e. accidental Then he shall wash all his flesh with water and be unclean until the even This was one of the smallest Legal Pollutions from which they were soon cleansed without any Sacrifice And which some of them think did not oblige them to wash unless they intended to go to the Sanctuary But though that Opinion be true yet this Rite had such a respect to the Sanctuary that now they have none they do not think themselves bound to use it on such occasions Ver. 17. Verse 17 And every garment and every skin c. These things were made so unclean by such Accidents that they might not be used the next day nor till they were washed Ver. 18. Verse 18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation It is no wonder the holy Writers speak so plainly of these Matters being Men of great simplicity free from all wantonness commonly far advanced in years among whom Marriage and a numerous Issue were accounted the greatest Blessings and therefore coveted by all and renounced by none They shall both bathe themselves in water c. There is no sort of Pollution in the act of Marriage which is of God's own Institution but what this Law made and the Law made it as Theodoret thinks that the trouble of such constant
Purification after it might preserve them from the immoderate use of it So those words of his signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest XX. in Levit. Ver. 19. Verse 19 And if a woman have an issue and her issue in her flesh be blood In the Hebrew the words run much clearer And a woman when she shall have an issue of blood and her issue be in her flesh The latter part of which are added to distinguish this from bleeding at the Nose or from the Haemorroids which did not pollute any body For the word Flesh here signifies as it doth v. 2. She shall be put apart seven days From her Husband and from the Sanctuary to which these sorts of Uncleanness have a peculiar respect as I before noted And Maimonides here not unfitly observes That whereas the Zabij accounted a Man polluted if he did but speak with a menstruous Woman or if the Wind which came from the quarter where she was blew upon him God only required her not to meddle with Holy Things nor to approach to the Sanctuary Otherwise she might eat all manner of common Meat and perform all Domestick Offices for her Husband as formerly only not lie with him while she remained in this condition So he explains this More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. And whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even If they were grown Persons as Menochius well observes for Infants were excepted from this Pollution by their Age and the Necessities of Nature The same is observed by Maimonides in the Chapter fore-named That the more frequent any of these Uncleannesses were the greater and longer Purifications were required As touching of a dead Body especially of Friends and Neighbours being the most usual it could not be cleansed but by the Ashes of the red Heifer which were not easily had and not till seven days were passed In like manner Fluxes and menstruous Pollutions because they oftner hapned and were more grievous than touching the unclean those therefore that laboured under them had need of seven days Purification but they that touched them of one day only before they became clean Ver. 20. Verse 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean c. The very same sort of Uncleanness was contracted in this Case as in the foregoing v. 4 c. For if we believe some Authors it might not only be properly called her sickness but such an one as had some infection in it at least something offensive in those hot Countries See Pliny Lib. VII 5. and L. XXVIII 2. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed c. This and the two following Verses contain the very same Prohibitions in this Case which were given in the other See v. 5 6 c. Ver. 24. Verse 24 If a man lie with her at all i. e. Unwittingly not knowing in what condition she was for if he did it knowingly both of them were liable to be cut off XX. 18. He shall be unclean seven days As having contracted one of the greatest sorts of Uncleanness v. 19. For though this Flux was natural and beneficial and therefore could have no sort of Uncleanness in it but what was made by this Law yet there was a great reason for the keeping Men from the Company of Women in this condition if Leprosies and such like Diseases were thereby propagated as Theodoret says some think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Especially since they were so libidinous a People as he describes them in words of a very bad signification that it was highly necessary to lay such restraints upon them and to make even involuntary Pollutions very penal that they might learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all wilful Uncleannesses were far more detestable Ver. 25. Verse 25 And if a woman have an issue of blood many days out of the time of her separation c. As before he spoke of the natural Course of the Blood so here of a Disease which Procopius Gazaeus calls malum immedicabile an incurable Evil. So it sometimes proved as appears by the story of the Woman in the Gospel whose case this was IX Matth. 20. All the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation She was to be in the same condition with the Woman mentioned v. 19. who was put apart seven days i. e. as long as her Uncleanness lasted Which made the case of those that laboured under this Infirmity very lamentable because it continued in some many years Ver. 26. Verse 26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation c. Like the Bed and the Seat of her mentioned v. 20. Ver. 27. Verse 27 And whosoever toucheth these things shall be unclean c. As in the case fore-mentioned v. 21. Ver. 28. Verse 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue Cured of her Disease Then shall she number to her self seven days For a trial whether it was a perfect Cure or no. After that If there were no return of the Flux She shall be clean So as to be restored to common Conversation but not to the Sanctuary till the following Oblations were made Ver. 29. Verse 29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles or two young pigeons c. The same Sacrifices which were prescribed in the case of a Man who was cured of an Issue v. 14. And this relates only to the extraordinary Flux out of or beyond the usual Course of Nature v. 25. for it would have been too burdensom unto some Persons if they had been bound to offer thus once a Month. Ver. 30. Verse 30 And the Priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD c. See v. 15. Ver. 31. Verse 31 Thus shall ye separate the Children of Israel from their uncleanness Take care that they separate themselves by instructing them when they are under any of the fore-named Impurities to observe the Directions now given Thus the LXX and the Vulgar Latin understand these words That they die not in their uncleanness Lest I punish them with death if they approach unto my Sanctuary having any of the fore-mentioned Uncleannesses upon them When they defile my Tabernacle that is among them This shows what is meant by Separation and Putting apart in the foregoing Verses which was principally from the Tabernacle where God dwelt Out of respect to which and to preserve their due regard to it that is to God himself all these Cautions were given as I observed before v. 15. of this Chapter And see Chapt. XII v. 4. what I noted out of Maimonides who discourses excellently on this Subject in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. where he observes That there could not well be a more notable means contrived to maintain an holy fear and reverence of the Divine Majesty upon their Minds than to forbid every Person that was any way