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
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
Account of it in the place I named above that Moses by his admirable Wisdom understood what Creatures were lookt upon as Prophetical by the Egyptians and other Nations and these he prohibited to the Jews Among which he expresly names the Eagle and the Hawk Lib. IV. contra Celsum p. 225. For Diadorus Siculus saith Lib. I. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The People of Thebes worship the Eagle looking upon it as a Royal Bird and worthy of Jupiter And Julian in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods Orat V. saith That in the time of their strictest Purifications they were permitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Spanhemius truly reads in the late Edition of Julian's Works to eat Birds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a few which had been commonly held Sacred Which is a plain acknowledgment of the sacredness of some Birds among the Gentles The Ossifrage All Authors in a manner agree that the Hebrew word Peres signifies a kind of Eagle but what kind is not so certain Boobartus thinks it is rightly tranflated by Junius as it is by us the Ossifrage for the Hebrew word Paras in III Micab 3. is used for breaking of bones See Hierozoie P. II. Lib. II. c. 5. The Ospray This is also of the same Species and signifies that sort which the Greeks call Haliaetus the Sea-Eagle But Bochartus in the same Book cap. 6. thinks the Hebrew word Oznija rather signifies that which they call Melaniaetus the black Eagle Which though it be the least yet is the strongest of all other and therefore called Valeria by the Romans and was so noted for many other qualities besides its great strength that it makes it probable Moses did not here omit it Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the Vulture and the Kite after his kind No wonder Interpreters differ in their Translation of the two Hebrew words Daa and Aja the former of which we translate a Vulture the latter a Kite which others translate quite contrary taking Daa or Raa as it is called in Deuteronomy for a Kite because there is no way to find the signification of them unless it be by the roots from whence they may be thought to be derived Which makes Bochart think the first word ought to be translated a Kite called Daa from its very swift flight Most of the ancient and later Interpreters also are of his mind As for the second word in this Verse Aja some take it for a Vulture but Bochart from several observations judges it to be a kind of Hawk or Falcon. See in the same Book cap. 8. After this word there follows in Deuteronomy XIV 13. the name of a Bird which is here omitted called Daja which he takes for the black Vulture as the Reader may find in the next Chapter cap. 9. After his kind Though there be some little difference in shape yet these Birds all belong to one Species See v. 22. Ver. 15. Verse 15 Every Raven after his kind No Body doubts that the Hebrew word Oreb which signifies blackness is rightly translated a Raven of which the Arabian Writers mention four kinds And some think under this name is comprehended not only Crows and Daws and Choughs but Starlings and Pies also See Bochartus cap. 10. p. 202. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Owl The Hebrew word Bath-jaana it appears by many places in the Prophets signifies a Bird which inhabits the Wildernesses and desolate Places See XIII Isa 21. XXXIV 13. L Jer. 39 c. By which the ancient Interpreters of Scripture almost unanimously understand the Ostrich though a very learned Man of our own Nation Nic. Fuller in his Miscellanies Lib. VI. cap. 7. indeavours by a probable Argument to support our Translation But it hath been the constant perswasion of the Jews that God did not permit them to eat the Flesh of an Ostrich which is no where forbidden if not in this word And therefore Bochartus maintains against our Fuller and labours to prove that Bath-jaana signifies the fentale Ostrich P. II. Hierozoiv Lib. II. cap. 14. where he shows the word Bath i. e. daughter is prefixed to the name of many Birds without any respect to their Age and doth not signifie their young ones but only the females And the night Hawk In the next Chapter to that now named the same Bochart proves that the Hebrew word Thacmas which we here translate the Night-Hawk signifies the male Ostrich For there is no general name for this Bird in the Hebrew Language to comprehend both Sexes as there is for an Eagle and a Raven and therefore Moses mentions both Male and Female distinctly that none might think by forbidding one of them only he allowed the other And the Cuckow The LXX St. Hierom and some later Interpreters translate the Hebrew word Sachaph by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sea-gull Which the same great Man before-mentioned thinks most probable c. 18. And the Hawk after his kind There is the greatest consent in the Translation of the Hebrew word New which all agree signifies an Hawk from its strength and swiftness in flight which made it Sacred to Apollo For Eustathius observes upon Iliad X. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Hawk flies as the Sun moves very swiftly And every one knows there are very various kinds of these birds Callimachus mentions Six Aristotle X. and Pliny Sixteen sorts See Bochart in the same Book cap. 19. Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the little Owl Interpreters generally agree that Chos signifies a kind of Owl following the LXX who translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet Bochart hath collected a great many ingenious Arguments to prove that it signifies that Bird which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bittern See there cap. 20. And the Cormorant Though the same learned Person doth not approve of this Translation yet he acknowledges the Hebrew word Salach signifies some Sea-bird which sits upon Rocks and strikes at fishes with great force and draws them out of the Waters And so the Talmudists in the Treatise called Cholut expound it and the Gloss upon it there says it signifies the Crow of the Waters that is a Cormorant And the great Owl There are various Translations of the Hebrew word Jansaph which St. Hierom takes for a Stork and others for a Bustard But Bochart acknowledges the Syriac and Chaldee Translation to be the most probable which is the same with ours Ver. 18. Verse 18 And the Swan In this Translation we follow St. Hierom but Jonathan takes it for a kind of Owl which he calls Otja Whereby he means no doubt that Bird which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he saith is like an Owl having Tufts of Feathers about its ears from whence it hath the name of Oâ—â— L. VIII cap. 12. And so the Chaldee the Syriac and the Samaritan here translate the Hebrew word Thinsemeth which a great many Modern Interpreters follow who take this for that which the Latins
Verse 5 And he shall take of the Congregation of the Children of Israel The former Sacrifices v. 3. were for himself these for all the People Two Kids of the Goats for a Sin-offering These two Goats made but one Sin-offering which is described more largely and particularly v. 8 9 10. The former perhaps which was sacrificed to the LORD was to procure those good things which they had forfeited by their sins and the other the Scape-goat as we translate it to avert those Evils which they had deserved For the name that is commonly given it by the Greeks signifies its power to turn away Punishments Or the simple reason of it might be that the Israelites by this double Sacrifice for both were presented before the LORD might be the more fully satisfied of the Expiation of their Sins There is the like example before of two Birds appointed for the cleansing of a Leper's House one of which only was killed the other let fly away but both of them are said to cleanse the House and to be for atonement XIV 49 52 53. In which some of the ancient Fathers thought they saw a notable Type of our LORD Christ Whose Sacrifice as it was prefigured by all the Legal Sacrifices for the Paschal Lamb it self was a Type of him sacrificed for us 1 Corinth V. 7. so by this more especially on the Day of Expiation Which was of greater and more universal efficacy than all the rest and therefore represented him more fully than the other did Insomuch that these two Goats joyned in one Sacrifice may be thought to represent one Christ consisting of two Natures For since it was not possible as Theodoret expresses it to adumbrate both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which was mortal and that which was immortal in Christ he commanded two to be brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Goat which was offered in Sacrifice might prefigure the passible Nature of his Flesh and that which was let go might show the impassible Nature of his Divinity Quaest XXII in Levit. And St. Cyril Discourses to the same purpose in his ninth Book against Julian And one Ram for a Burnt-offering Which was no more than was appointed for Aaron himself v. 3. who herein is equalled with all the Princes of the People in whose name this Ram seems to have been offered Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Aaron shall offer his Bullock of the Sin-offering which is for himself Not by killing it which was done afterwards v. 11. but only by presenting it before God to be sacrificed which was done with a solemn Prayer wherein he beseeched God to be propitious unto him and his The form of it is set down in Massechet Joma cap. 3. sect 8. He laid his hand upon the head of the Bullock and said I have done amiss and been rebellious and sinned before thee I and my House I beseech thee now O LORD remit my Rebellion and my Sin which I have committed and my House c. And make an atonement for himself and for his house For his Family as I said v. 3. and for all the Priests who are called the House of Aaron CXV Psal 10 12. CXXXV 9. And I do not see why all the House of Levi should not also be understood For they are not comprehended under the name of the Congregation of the Children of Israel mentioned in the Verse before and therefore must be contained here under the name of the House of Aaron See I Numb 49. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he shall take the two Goats Mentioned v. 5. which were to be of equal stature of the same colour and the same price as the Hebrew Doctors say in Joma cap. 6. both designed to the same end the Expiation of their Sins And present them before the LORD at the door of the Tabernacle c. All the Sin-offerings which were made for the Congregation were presented either by the High-Priest or by the Elders IV. 15. and by them devoted to God to be sacrificed on his Altar For this presenting of the Goat is the same with his offering of the Bullock in the Verse foregoing in which was nothing else but his solemn Consecration of them as I said to be sacrificed According to which pattern our blessed LORD and Saviour a little before he suffered upon the Cross and made himself a Sacrifice for us voluntarily offered himself to die for our sins Which is the meaning of those words of his XVII John 19. where praying for his Apostles he saith For their sakes I sanctifie my self that is offer my self to die as an Expiatory Sacrifice for them For that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Owtram hath demonstrated Lib. II. de Sacrificiis cap. 3. And so St. Chrysostom here expounds these words I sanctifie my self by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I offer thee a Sacrifice or consecrate and devote my self to be sanctified And it is not an improbable Conjecture of another very learned Friend of mine now also with God Dr. Spencer that the appointing of two Goats to be both presented to God at the same time and with the same Rites was to preserve the Jews in a belief that there is but one principle of all things who both bestows good things and inflicts evil Contrary to the opinion of the Gentiles who made two Principles one good and the other bad which was the ancient belief of the Chaldaeans and other Eastern People and from them propagated to the Greeks and Romans Most of whose Sacrifices as another very learned Man of our own Country hath observed had respect to these two Principles to one of which they offered in the Morning and to the other at Night See Dr. Windet de Vita Functorum statu sect 3. where he observes that there are plain footsteps of this old Error at this day through all the East as far as China for there was an endeavour to infect Christianity with it by Manes the Persian in the Reign of the Emperor Aurelian nor was there any Heresie that spread so far as this Dotage did Ver. 8. Verse 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two Goats The manner of it is described in the same Treatise Massechet Joma cap. 3. sect 9. The High-Priest went to the East-part of the Court on the North-side of the Altar having the Sagan his Vicar on his right hand and the head of the House of the Fathers on his left There stood two Goats with an Vrn or Box which they call CALPI the very same name which Lucian and the Scholiast upon Aristophanes give to the same thing as our learned Sheringham upon that Book and Bochart in his Hierozoicon have observed Into this Urn the two Lots were cast which were made of Box-wood as the Misna here says and in after times came to be of Gold But Maimonides in his Treatise on this Subject saith they might be made either of Wood or Stone
Neither mixed with Bread nor alone by themselves For Honey was a kind of Leaven and it is certain was used by the Heathen in their Religious Rites As appears not only from Maimonides who tells us in the place forenamed that they chose sweet things for their offerings and anointed their Sacrifices with Honey but from a great number of other Authors who make mention of it Particularly Plato who saith in his VI de Legibus that anciently Men did not Sacrifice living Creatures but only fine Flour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Fruits moistned with Honey And so Phylarchus tells us in Athenaeus his Deipnos L. XV. that the Greeks sacrificed Honey to the Sun which was the great God among the Gentiles but poured no Wine upon his Altars Which Polemon in Suidas calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sober Sacrifice because there was no Wine in it but Honey and Water mixed together Nay there was scarce any God among the Heathen to whom Honey was not offered as Bochartus hath shown at large in his Hierozoicon P. II. L. IV. c. 12. But one Testimony may serve for all which is from Pausanias in his Eliaca where having reckoned up at least fifty Altars in the Temple of Jupiter Olympius unto several Deities and some of them common to them all he saith They sacrificed upon every one of them once a Month after an ancient manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Frankincense and Wheat mingled with Honey Which being so common and ancient a thing among the Gentiles in their Idolatrous Worship was the reason it is likely that God forbad it to be used in his Sacrifices And under the name of Honey the Jews think Figs and Dates and all other sweet Fruits are comprehended For the famous Composition among the Egyptians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was burnt every day Morning and Evening on their Altars consisted of such things as well as of Myrrh Calamus and Cardamum So Plutarch tells us in his Book de Iside Osir and mentions Honey in the first place with Wine and Raisins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ver. 12. Verse 12 As for the oblation of the first-fruits ye shall offer them unto the LORD but they shall not be burnt on the Altar for a sweet savour There were several sorts of First-fruits as I observed XXIII Exod. 19. That which is here spoken of was of the Corn unground only a little parcht at the fire which was to be presented unto God but not burnt on the Altar because they belong'd to the Priests Ver. 13. Verse 13 And every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt All the fore-named Mincha's which were Korbans as they are often here called were to be thus seasoned because Salt was a thing never wanting at any Table and all Meat is unsavoury without it Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offerings It is called the Salt of the Covenant of God as some think because required by this Law which they covenanted with God to observe as much as to offer Sacrifices which were not acceptable without Salt as appears from the Repetition of it three times in this one Verse But there is a plainer reason than this which is That the Sacrifices being God's Feasts and they that did partake of them being his Guests who did in a manner eat and drink with him at his Table the Salt that was cast upon all Sacrifices as appears by the words following is called the Salt of the Covenant to signifie that as Men were wont to make Covenants by eating and drinking together where Salt is never wanting at their Tables but a necessary Appendix at every Feast so God by these Sacrifices and the Feasts upon them did ratifie and confirm his Covenant with those that did partake of them For Salt as is commonly observed being a constant concomitant of all Feasts and Covenants being made by eating and drinking at the same Table where Salt was ever used thence Salt it self was counted by the Ancients to be the Symbol of Friendship and proverbially used among the Greeks to express it By which other places may be explained about which some have bestowed vain labour XVIII Numb 19. 2 Chron. XIII 5. where the same words are used but inverted it being called a Covenant of Salt instead of the Salt of the Covenant because Covenants as I said were established by eating together where Salt is never wanting With all thine Offerings thou shalt offer salt Not only with the Minchas or Meat-offerings mentioned in this Chapter but with all other Sacrifices whatsoever Which is so solemnly enjoyned as Maimonides says in the place before-named because the Heathen did not use any Salt in their Sacrifices Which is not unreasonable to think since Honey with which Salt doth not well agree was in such constant use among them And therefore saith he God prohibited us to offer Leaven or Honey and commanded us with great seriousness to use Salt in all our Sacrifices That is as R. Levi of Barcelona explains it Praecept CXVI the Flesh of all Sacrifices was to be salted and the Meal of all Minchas For which he gives these two Reasons because nothing is grateful to the Palate without Salt which also preserves things from Corruption as the Sacrifices did their Souls from perishing Abarbanel saith the same And therefore whatsoever the Custom might be in ancient time among the Heathen in after Ages they learnt from Moses to use it in all their Sacrifices As appears from Pliny and Ovid and many other Authors the first of which says That Salt was so necessary that no Sacrifices were offered sine mola Salsa which every one knows the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And among the Jews this Salt was not brought by him that offered the Sacrifice but was provided at the Publick Charge there being a Chamber in the Court of the Temple as we read in Middoth cap. 5. sect 2. called The Chamber of Salt Which was one of the three Rooms on the North-side of the Court as there were three other on the South-side for other uses where the Flesh of the Sacrifices were powdered as the Mincha's were seasoned at the very Altar And this was so necessary that though a Sacrifice was not lookt upon as null if the Priest neglected to salt it yet the want of it in the Mincha's as the Hebrew Doctors say made them void because it is here so expresly required in this Verse Thou shalt not suffer the Salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking in thy Meat-offering And whosoever offered any Sacrifice without Salt or with Honey or Leaven was beaten as Mr. Selden observes L. II. de Synedr cap. 13. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if thou offer a Meat-offering of thy first-fruits unto the LORD thou shalt offer for thy Meat-offering c. This is very
different from the Oblation of First-fruits mentioned v. 12. For there they are called Resith which signifies the First-fruits at Harvest time but here Bichurim which properly imports the first ripe fruits before the rest were ready And therefore the manner of their Oblation was different from the former which follows in the Conclusion of this Verse And first he describes what he means by the First-fruits which he calls Abib i. e. full Ears of Corn but as yet green and moist which he saith therefore in the next place must be dried by the fire and then bruised and beaten in a Mortar or with a Mill and they were to be brought out of the richest or fattest of their Fields for so the last words seem to signifie Geresh Carmel which we translate Corn beaten out of full Ears for Carmel sometimes signifies a fruitful Field XXXII Isa 15. and therefore may very well be thought in this place to import the largest Ears of tender Corn. And the intention of its Contusion seems to have been that it might be reduced into Flour as it might easily be after it had been dried by the fire And therefore differed from that Meat-offering mentioned v. 1. only in this that the former was Flour of old Corn this of new and that was fine Flour sifted from the Bran this had nothing taken out of it but remained as it came from the Mortar or the Mill. And so the LXX seem to have understood it There are those indeed who think it was only thrashed out of the Husk and so offered and fancy also that from this word Geresh the Goddess called Ceres had her Name among the Gentiles Which last Conceit is the stranger since they endeavour to have it thought that the Jews derived this Custom of offering First-fruits from the Gentiles and not the Gentiles from the Jews Whereas the Gentiles had no such Custom that I can find as this to offer the First-fruits of Green Corn but only the First-fruits of their Harvest which they called Novas fruges of which the Romans thought it unlawful to taste antequam Sacerdotes primitias libassent before the Priests had offered the First-fruits as Pliny tells us Lib. XVIII cap. 2. and Censorinus saith the same cap. 1. de Die Natali Or if they did offer any First-fruits before Corn was ripe they boiled them in a Pot but did not rost them in the fire as is here directed For so Hesychius seems to say that in the Feast called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in the Month that Answers to our April they offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First-fruits that appeared out of the Ground which they carried about i. e. in Pots as other Authors tell us And Hesychius himself saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Pot full of Sacred Decoction Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt put oil upon it c. See v. 1. And the Priest shall burn the memorial of it part of the beaten corn thereof and part of the oil and all the frankincense All the rest that was not burnt was the Priests portion except the Frankincense which is here ordered to be intirely offered to God See v. 2. and made this and such like Offerings be called an Offering of a sweet savour unto the LORD v. 2.9 12. It is an offering made by fire unto the LORD See upon v. 9. CHAP. III. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering Having given orders about whole Burnt-offerings in the first Chapter and Meat-offerings which had something of that Nature in them in the second he proceeds to Peace-offerings which in the Hebrew are called Schelamim from the word Schalam either as it signifies Retribution or Peace and Concord They that take it in the first sence think the reason of the name to be from this That God the Offerer and the Priest had each of them their portion assigned to them of this Sacrifice And they that follow the second sence do not much differ when they say That these Sacrifices were Symbols of Friendship between God and the Priests and those that brought them for all these feasted at a Common Table as R. Levi ben Gersom expresses it For part being offered on the Altar and the Priest having taken his share the rest was given to him that offered the Sacrifice So that it was called a Peace-offering saith Abarbanel in his Preface to this Book because it made Peace or rather declared Peace between the Altar the Priest and the Owner But they seem to me to have given the best account of this who because Peace in their Language signifies Prosperity and Happiness think these were called Peace-offerings because they were principally thankful Acknowledgments of Mercies received from God's Bounty For there being three sorts of them mentioned VII 15 16. that of Thanksgiving is the first called Totheh Acknowledgment of some Benefit received The Gentiles called such Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears from many places of Dionys Halicarn L. VI. L. VIII where there are these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plutarch calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly in the Life of Agesilaus where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a perfect Description of such Sacrifices as are here appointed with part of which they entertain'd their Friends They are also called by those Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially when they had respect to any great Danger they had escaped for which they offered these thankful Acknowledgments The LXX calls such Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he offer it of the herd whether it be a male or female A whole Burnt-offering was to be only of a Male for being wholly Gods and offered purely for his Honour it was to be of the very best I. 3. But Peace-offerings being also for the profit of him that offered them who had the greatest share of them it was at his liberty whether he would offer a Male or a Female Directly contrary to the Egyptian Customs if they were the same now that they were in the time of Herodotus who saith expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was not lawful among them to sacrifice Females L. II. cap. 41. He shall offer it without blemish c. See I. 3. Ver. 2. Verse 2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering The Man who brought the Offering was to lay his hand upon the Head of it as was ordered in the whole Burnt-offering and Sin-offering See Ch. I. v. 4. It might not be done by a Deputy unless he was Heir to one that had vowed this Sacrifice and died before he had performed it in which case the Heir was to do what the Man himself should have done if he had been alive as Maimonides observes In this Sacrifice laying on of hands seems to have been done not only with Prayer to God that he would accept the Oblation which the Jews say always accompanied this
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
Marriages And after a Repetion of several Laws Chapt. XIX of some greater Uncleannesses and Chapt. XXI of Priests that were unclean and lastly of Sacrifices not fit to be offered Chap. XXII Ver. 1. Verse 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron saying unto them The Consecration of Aaron being now compleatly finished God spake to him as well as unto Moses he being also highly concerned to teach the People the difference that is here made between several sorts of Meats X. 11. which Moses assures them was enacted by Divine Authority Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel saying They were all to take special notice of what follows because by the Diet here prescribed they were discriminated from all other People in the World These are the beasts that ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth God having bestowed upon Mankind after the Flood every living thing to be their Food IX Gen. 3. it hath raised a question among learned Men why God should limit and restrain his own People from the benefit of this general Grant And some have thought this so unaccountable that they have said it is in vain to enquire into the reason of the difference that is made here of Meats concerning which P. Cunaeus declares as Plutarch doth of the Laws of Solon and Lycurgus that no doubt they were enacted with wise Counsel but the reason of the Authors cannot be known Lib. II. de Republ. Hebraeorum cap. 24. But others think the reason is plain enough and the Jews are of opinion that the Creatures here called unclean were forbidden to be eaten because they were unwholsome Food So Maimonides discourses at large in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 48. where he saith there can be no doubt that every thing here prohibited yields a bad Nourishment except it be Swines-flesh and fat and yet he endeavours to show that there is no reason to think otherwise of those two R. Levi of Barcelona is of the same mind but pretends not to be able to demonstrate it as Maimonides doth For the Sum of a long and pious Discourse which he hath upon this Subject Praecept LXXIX where he treats of that Flesh which was torn by wild Beasts amounts to this That the Body being the Seat of the Soul where it doth its business God would have it fitted to the Desires and Imployments of the Soul And therefore the Law saith he removes from us all those things which may hinder the Soul in its operations For which reason such and such Meats are forbidden as breed ill Blood among which if there be some whose hurtfulness is neither visible to us nor to Physicians do not wonder at it for the faithful Physician who forbids them is wiser than any of us This opinion I cannot think to be wholly groundless for though there be some Creatures here prohibited which seem to us of as good Nourishment as those which are allowed yet considering that Climate wherein the Jews lived and the temper of their Blood which was very hot and apt to be extreamly corrupted as appears by the unusual Leprosie to which they were obnoxious more than other Nations it is reasonable to conclude that God had some respect to this in the ordering of their Diet. See J. Wagenseil Confut. Carminis R. Lipmanni p. 556. Yet I cannot think this to have been the chief reason of this Law though it be very agreeable to the peculiar care God had of this People that he should not only give them Civil and Sacred Laws but direct them in the smallest Matters as he did in their Apparel Building c. but the main drift and scope of it was that the Israelites might be separated from all other Nations in the World by a Diet peculiar to themselves which kept them from such a familiar Conversation as otherwise they might have had with the Gentiles and consequently from learning their idolatrous Customs And I do not see why I should not add most of the Creatures which are reckoned unclean were such as were in high esteem and sacred among the Heathen As a Swine was to Venus the Owl to Minerva the Hawk to Apollo the Eagle to Jupiter and even the Dog to Hecate c. Whence Origen justly falls into an high admiration of Moses his wisdom who so perfectly understood all Animals and what relation they had to Daemons that he pronounced all those to be unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which were esteemed by the Egyptians and other Nations to be the Instruments of Divination and those to be clean which were not so Lib. IV. contra Celsum p. 225. And if in Moses his time such Creatures were not sacred to Daemons it is a greater wonder that he should mark those out for impure which proved to be so sacred in after Ages As a great number of Birds mentioned by Porphyry Lib. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who saith the Gods used them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare their mind to Men and several other Creatures mentioned by other Authors as peculiarly appropriated to other Deities Many have discoursed largely of the Moral Reasons of these Precepts particularly a very learned Man now living Joh. Wagenseil in his Annotations on that Title in the Misna called Sota fol. 1171 c. Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed There are some Creatures which Porphyry in the Book fore-mentioned Lib. IV. calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Hoofs are solid and not at all divided such as Horses Asses and Mules Others that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into several parts like Toes as Lions Wolves and Dogs But a third sort that are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle calls them divided into two parts as Oxen Deer Sheep Goats c. And these are of two kinds for some divide the Hoof into two parts but it is not cloven quite through as the Camel whose Hoof is parted above but joyned by a thick Skin below and therefore reckoned among the unclean Beasts Others both divided and cloven which are those allowed by this Law to be clean Creatures And cheweth the end among beasts c. As all those Beasts do which are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle calls them Lib. X. cap. 50. that is have not a Set of Teeth both above and below Such are Oxen Sheep and Goats which want upper Teeth and therefore bring their Meat up again into their Mouths after it hath been some time in the Stomach that it may by a new chewing of it be better prepared for digestion So the Author of Porta Coeli who explains this very exactly when he saith For want of upper Teeth they cannot chew their Food perfectly at one time nor can the Stomach make a perfect digestion till it be ground a second time And therefore such Creatures are provided with a a double Stomach an upper into which the Meat goes down
call noctua as the former for that Owl which they call bubo The Pelican That the Hebrew word Kaath signifies a Pelican is not disputed But that it also signifies the Bird we call an Hern is not improbable being joyned with Chos in the CII Psalm 6. which is a Bird that makes an unpleasant noise especially that kind of them that cries like a Bittern and is called by later Writers Butorius And the Gier-Eagle There are many various Opinions about this Bird which the Hebrews call Racham But Bochart hath shown out of the Arabian Writers that it signifies a kind of Eagle or Vulture for sometimes they call it by one of these names sometimes by the other It being of a dubious kind between an Eagle and a Vulture and therefore happily by us translated a Gier-Eagle that is a Vulture Eagle which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Hierozoic P. II. L. II. cap. 25 26 27. where Bochart shows it is such a harmless and good natur'd Bird that thence it had the name of Racham and in Arabick of Rachama and was made the Hieroglyphick of Mercy and Tenderness among the Egyptians if Horus Apollo may be believed Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the Stork There are vastly different Interpretations of the word Chasida which imports kindness no less than the foregoing Racham But there is no Reason to depart from the Opinion of the later Hebrews who take it as we do to signifie a Stork The Piety as the Latins call it of which BIrd is celebrated by all Authors and is the very import of the Hebrew word Chasida But it feeds upon Serpents and therefore as Bochart imagines was prohibited to be eaten by the Jews though upon this account it was had in honour by the People of Thessaly and by the Egyptians as he observes in the fore-mentioned Book cap. 29. The Heron after his kind There are at least ten different Interpretations of the Hebrew word Anapha among which ours is one But it being derived from a word which signifies anger Bochartus rather takes it for a Mountain Falcon which is a fierce Bird and very prone to anger And the Lap-wing The Hebrew Doctors take Dukiphath for a Mountain Cock which hath a double Crest and thence hath its name according to R. Solomon Or rather it may be so called from the place where it resorts for Dik in Arabick is a Cock and Kepha a Rock from whence Bochart probably conjectures this Bird had its name because it lives in mountainous places And he thinks the LXX and the Vulgar have rightly translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Vpupam which is the sense also of four Arabian Interpreters It is a portentous kind of Bird which hath a Crest from its Bill to the hindermost part of its head and one of the principal Birds used in the ancient Superstitions of the Magicians and Augurs as he observes cap. 31. And the Bat. As Moses begins the Catalogue of Birds with the noblest which is the Eagle so he ends it with the vilest which is a Bat being of a dubious kind as Aristotle observes between a Bird and a Mouse Lib. 4. cap. 13. where he saith it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See the famous Bochartus who shows that its name in Hebrew which is Attaleph imports it to be a Bird of Darkness Whence that phrase in the Prophet II Isaiah 20. In that day a man shall cast his Idols of Silver and Gold to the Bats and the Moles i. e. they shall no more appear to delude Men with their glittering brightness but be utterly destroyed Ver. 20. Verse 20 All Fowls that creep The Hebrew word Oph is not well translated Fowls but signifies rather all flying things going upon all four All flying things that go upon four feet are here forbidden such as all kinds of Flies and Wasps and Bees as Jonathan here explains it A Fly indeed is observed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but though it have six feet yet it goes only upon four as not only Lucian but Aristotle notes the two fore-feet serving for other uses See Bochart in his Hierozoic P. II. L. IV. cap. 9. Shall be an abomination to you It is observed by some that the Birds here forbidden are either rapacious and live on Flesh as Eagles and Hawks c. or are Night-Birds as Owls c. or haunt Lakes and Marshes as the Bittern c. or are heavy and not easily raised from the Earth as the Ostrich or live in Graves or in Dung as the Vpupa and some of those flying things mentioned in this Verse and upon these accounts are forbidden by Moses who allows all those that live upon a cleaner Food as those that follow do Ver. 21. Verse 21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing c. In this Verse he excepts such flying Insects as besides their four feet wherewith they go have two legs or thighs which inable them to leap upon the Earth as well as to go Such are all the Locusts mentioned in the next Verse unto which Aristotle ascribes six feet whereas Moses mentions but four In which they do not disagree for Aristotle plainly saith they have six feet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we take into the number the parts with which they leap L. IV. cap. 6. Which two hinder leaping legs Moses distinguishes from the other four wherewith they go Ver. 22. Verse 22 Even these of them ye may eat There are nine kinds of Locusts mentioned in the holy Books four of which are here permitted to be eaten The Locust after its kind The Hebrew word Arboh is sometimes a common Name for all Locusts but here signifies a peculiar sort of that kind before-mentioned which leapt as well as went The bald Locust after its kind The Hebrew word is Solam so called as Aben-Ezra thinks because it climbs up Roots in which it delights The Beetle after its kind This sort of Locust called Chargol seems to have its name from the vast company wherein they fly together But it is not fitly translated a Beetle for none ever eat Beetles nor are they four-footed with legs to leap withal Therefore Chargol is another sort of Locusts unknown to us in these Countries and so is that which follows for a Grashopper is not a sort of Meat But there were Locusts of that shape which were large and fleshy in the Eastern Countries and very good Food The Grashopper after its kind The Hebrew word Chagab signifies as I said a sort of Locusts the original of whose Name Aben-Ezra intimates may be found in the Arabick Tongue In which Chahageba signifies to cover as with a Vail And in such Troops these Locusts fly that sometimes they seem to darken the Sun it self But by what marks these were distinguished from one another the Hebrews differ so much that it plainly snows they are wholly ignorant in this matter The most that can be made of what they say is
holy things but otherwise leaving them at liberty to perform all manner of Offices in their Family during the time of their Purification More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. It is apparent also that other Gentiles kept their Women from their Temples a long time after their Child-birth and that Superstitious People would not so much as go within their doors See Dilherrus in the fore-named Book and Chapter Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if she bear a Maid-child then shall she be unclean two weeks as in her separation The time of strict Separation when they brought forth a Female was double to that which was prescribed v. 2. when they brought forth a Male. And so also was the time of their Purification which lasted threescore and six days as they in the other Case by thirty and three The reason of which difference not only the Jews but others also derive from the greater redundancy as R. Levi Barcelonita calls it Praecept CLXVI of Blood in the latter Case than in the former and from the flowness of Nature in its operation which made the Purgation longer before it was effected Hippocrates himself treats of this difference in his Book de Natura Puerp where he saith Women are sooner purged after the Birth of Males than of Females See Joh. Meursius in his Syntagma de Puerperio cap. 6 7. The natural weaknesses of Women also during this time required quiet and little Company from which the very temper of their Blood in those Climates made a longer Separation more necessary than in these colder Regions But if there were no such apparent reason to be given of these things yet vel ex ipsa veneranda antiquitate simplicitate suscipienda forent minimè contemnenda as Conrad Pellicanus speaks upon the foregoing Chapter v. 35. they ought for the sake of their venerable antiquity and simplicity to be duly regarded and not to be despised Ver. 6. Verse 6 And when the days of her Purification are fulfilled for a son or for a daughter Which was not till the end of the fortieth day for a Son and the eightieth day for a Daughter And therefore the Offerings here mentioned were not offered till the day after viz. the LXI day for the one and the LXXXI day for the other because till then her Purification was not perfected as Maimonides observes in his Book de Sacrificiis Tract V. sect 5. where he observes also that they might not eat of holy things till these Sacrifices had been offered for them And she shall bring a Lamb of the first year Which then was in its greatest Perfection as hath been often noted For a burnt-offering In gratitude to God for giving her a safe Deliverance and bestowing a Child upon her and raising her up to her former strength and bringing her again to his Sanctuary Where by this Offering she also commended her self and Child to his continued Care and Blessing and implored his Divine Guidance and Assistance in its Education For these Offerings as I observed before were a kind of Supplication which they that brought them made to God and there was nothing that pious People could more earnestly desire on such occasions than that God would take their little ones into his tuition Who are continually liable to so many Dangers that without the special Favour of God and the Custody of his Angels they could never grow to be able to take any care of themselves They are the words of Conradus Pellicanus upon this place who thence infers how necessary it is that the People of the Church should be admonished frequently to commend their Children unto God both by private and by publick Prayers and take care of their Instruction lest they become like the Horse and the Mule that have no Vnderstanding And a young Pigeon or a turtle Dove for a sin-offering To compleat her Purification from her Uncleanness For that is here meant by Sin the impurity which the Law made by Separating such Persons from others and from the Sanctuary for a time And thus a Sin-offering is commanded to be brought by a Leper when he was cleansed who was charged only with a Legal Uncleanness not a Moral And it is more plain from what is ordained concerning menstruous Women whose Courses were purely natural and yet they were to offer a Sin-offering when they were gone XV. 30. because the Law accounted that a state of Uncleanness And from the case of a Nazaarite who had unwillingly touched a dead Body V Numb 11. where it is said he had sinned by the dead i.e. was legally polluted And this may be the reason perhaps why a Burnt-offering is here mentioned before the Sin-offering which is wont to precede the other v. 7 8. It may be conceived indeed that in all the forementioned Cases those Persons especially Lepers had some way offended God before or in their state of Separation and therefore were to have their sin properly so called expiated by a Sin-offering And R. Bechai also gives another probable account of it that this Sacrifice was offered not for her own Sin but the Sin of her first Parent the Mother of all Living who brought Sin and Sorrow into the World for from a bad Stock there cannot sprout good Branches and therefore God appointed this Offering for the Expiation of that primary Sin Vnto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation unto the Priest It was a most wise Constitution as a Person of excellent Learning Dr. Alix observes which bound this People from their first coming into the World to their going out of it to have a dependence upon the Priests and the Levites who for that purpose were dispersed through all the Tribes of Israel that People might be instructed by them how to govern themselves in all the passages of Human Life For there are Laws not only about Marriages and Successions but about their lying in whether of a Son or Daughter and about all they were to do while that time lasted and when it ended and indeed all the time they lived and when they went out of the World in their Funerals and Mourning for the Dead Ver. 7. Verse 7 Who shall offer it before the LORD and make an atonement for her By this Offering she was restored to the liberty of God's House and to partake of holy things For so it follows And she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood No longer separated from holy Society This is the Law for her that hath born a male or a female All this principally respected the Women yet not excluding her Child who it appears by S. Luke II. 22. was on this day of his Mothers Purification presented unto the LORD That indeed had respect to the Law about the First-born but a very ancient MS. and the Syriac and Origen taking this for the day of their Purification and not meerly of hers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it plainly shows the Child could not be admitted into the
day For which reason the greatest care was to be used to see it rightly observed because all their happiness depended upon it For the Land of Canaan was promised them upon condition that they kept the Law offering all the Sacrifices therein prescribed especially this great Sacrifice which was to cleanse them from the guilt of all their Neglects or Breaches of this Law Which should teach us Christians to conclude That as the Inheritance of that good Land was assigned the Jews in consideration of their Sacrifices as the condition of that Covenant by which they were prescribed so the Inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven is made over to us by the Covenant of Grace in consideration of the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ Jesus of which they were a Figure For it is his Blood that cleanseth us from all unrighteousness as St. John speaks and secures our Claim to the heavenly Inheritance That ye may be clean from all your sins If a Man was bound to offer Sacrifice for any sin that was certain he was not excused from it by this Sacrifice on the Day of Expiation but was bound to make that other Sacrifice also But the Day of Expiation freed those who were bound to offer Sacrifices for dubious Offences So Maimonides saith in his Treatise of Offences committed through Error cap. 3. sect 9. that those sins which were known to none but God were taken away by this solemn Day of Expiation without any other Sacrifice But the Misna in the last Section of Joma acknowledges very honestly that the Day of Expiation did not purge Men from the guilt of the Offences they had committed against their Neighbour unless they first gave him Satisfaction Before the LORD Who dwelt among them and would continue to do so if they observed his Laws and took care to be thus cleansed from all their sins But least any Man should mistake this matter it may be here fit to observe that there were no Sacrifices at all appointed by the Law of Moses for Capital Offences and therefore when he speaks here of making them clean from all their sins upon this day such as these for instance Murder Adultery Idolatry c. are not included for this great Sacrifice could not obtain a Pardon for them but only for Offences committed against the Ritual Laws contained in this Book and that also when they were committed through Error or Ignorance for if they were done presumptuously cutting off was threatned to them See XV Numb from v. 22. to v. 32. And this appears plainly from the Sacrifices themselves that are here appointed which had no vertue in them from their own worth and value but only from God's Institution to make Expiation for any Sin For the death of a Bullock or a Goat was not of such account with God that it could prevail for the taking away of guilt unless he had given it such a power And that power which he was pleased to allow unto them was neither infinite nor could it be so For the guilt that they were principally designed to abolish was not of such a nature as to require such an Expiation It arising from things which were neither good nor evil in themselves and therefore could not create such a guilt Such were all the uncleannesses from certain natural Fluxes from touching a dead Body and innumerable other such like Impurities which depending wholly upon the will of God who by a positive Law made such things to bring Men under a guilt by the same Will he appointed a proportionable Expiation of it by these Sacrifices whose power to cleanse depended also purely upon his pleasure And if they had any vertue to purge Men from the real guilt of sins committed against the Eternal Laws of God this they had not of themselves but from the most gracious Will of God who was pleased to apply to this purpose the future Satisfaction of the immaculate Lamb of God of which these Sacrifices were a Shadow and Type For a Body being prepared for the Son of God and he offering himself for us that was a Sacrifice of such infinite value in its own nature that it expiated all manner of sins of all Men. To this effect that excellent Person Joh. Wagenseil discourses in his Confutation of R. Lipman's Carmen Memoriale p. 488. Ver. 31. Verse 31 It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you In the Hebrew the words are a Sabbath of Sabbaths i. e. a great or perfect Sabbath like that of the Seventh day in every Week on which they might do no manner of Work And so the Seventh day is called just as this is a Sabbath of Rest or Sabbath of Sabbaths See XXXI Exod. 15. XXXV 2. which gave occasion to those jeers we meet withal in Martial and others at the Jews fasting on their Sabbath days For reading Moses his Books carelesly they fancied the Jews observed as strict a Fast upon every Sabbath day as they did on this which was but once a year And ye shall afflict your Souls by a statute for ever See v. 29. Ver. 32. Verse 32 And the Priest whom he shall anoint c. The High-Priest who should be anointed and consecrated in his Father's stead when he was dead is here ordered to make this Atonement yearly That is what was now done by Aaron was to be done by every High-Priest successively when he was legally put into his Office by vesting him with the Priestly Garments anointing him and offering the Sacrifices of Consecration VIII 7 10 22. This Statute confined the sacred work of this day to the High-Priest who alone could perform it But it shows withal as the Apostle observes the great imperfection of this Legal Priesthood which could not by reason of death continue always in one Person but there were many Priests succeeding one another in the Office which became often vacant Whereas our great High-Priest because he continueth for ever i. e. never dies hath an unchangeable Priesthood and therefore is able to save to the uttermost or evermore those that come to God by him VII Hebr. 23 24 25. And shall put on the linen clothes even the holy garments He was to take a special care not to officiate on this day in any other Garments but those mentioned v. 4. which were peculiarly appropriated to this Service and called the white Garments which were a Figure perhaps of the perfect Purity of our great High-Priest who as it there immediately follows VII Hebr. 26. is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners Ver. 33. Verse 33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy Sanctuary c. In this Verse he only sums up the whole duty of the day in which a general Atonement was made for all Things and for all Persons The only thing to be observed is That the Expiation of the Sanctuary the Tabernacle and the Altar preceded the Expiation of the Priests and of the People who were to be expiated by the Sacrifices offered
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
that the Poor might know where to come for it as R. Levi Barcelonita explains it Praecept CCXIII. And this whether they were in the Land of Israel or out of it as Mr. Selden observes out of the Talmudists Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. p. 692. where he shows it was the custom to add something to the sixtieth part proportionable to the largeness of the Field or the multitude of the Poor or the greatness of the Crop Neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest That is if an ear or two of Corn fell as they cut it or bound it up out of the Sheaves or from under their Sickle they were not to gather them up from the ground but leave them for the Poor as oft as they fell But not if there fell three ears at a time as the Talmudists determine See Mr. Selden in the place above-named and the same R. Levi Praecept CCXIV. Ver. 10. Verse 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard When they had cut off the great Bunches they were not to examine the Vine over again for the scattered Grapes or small Clusters Neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy Vineyard If any fell to the ground as they gathered them they were not to take them up That is if one or two Clusters fell but not if three much less if more for they construe this as they do the Precept about Ears of Corn v. 9. They also say they were bound to leave the Corners of the Vineyard uncut as well as the Corners of the Field R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXXX and CCXXXI and Mr. Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. in the place before-named And these Precepts obliged such Strangers as sojourned among them mentioned XVII 8. XVIII 26. who before they were admitted to embrace the Jewish Religion were examined whether they understood that they must observe such and such Precepts particularly these here mentioned which were propounded to them plainly and distinctly and after they had promised to keep them they were Circumcised c. As G. Schickard observes out of the Talmud the custom was after the destruction of Jerusalem in Mishpal Hamelek cap. 5. Theorem XVII Thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger Though by Stranger the Jews think is understood a Proselyte of Righteousness as they call him who had embraced their Religion by receiving Circumcision yet they did not hinder any poor Gentile from partaking of this Charity as the same R. Levi says And if any one transgressed any of the Precepts contained in these two Verses he was beaten as Mr. Selden shows Lib. II. de Synedr Cap. 13. n. 8. I am the LORD your God I give you the Country to which you go with these reserves for the Poor and have been so bountful to you that I require you to be so them Ver. 11. Verse 11 Ye shall not steal Here are several Moral Precepts put briefly together for the maintaining Justice and Truth without which Societies cannot be preserved And first he forbids Theft the coveting of other Mens Goods being the Source of the other Sins that follow And whether they were the Goods of an Israelite or of a Gentile Idolater that any Man stole he was bound to make Restitution as R. Levi observes Praecept CCXXXII See XXII Exod. 1. Neither deal falsly This is a Divine Caution as the Hebrew Doctors observe against denying a thing that was deposited with them or which they had found c. which they would never pretend they had not if they were disposed to be sincere and upright in their Dealing Neither lie one to another Words being intended to declare the Mind and for no other end he that hears us speak hath a right in Justice to be done him that what we speak be true For otherwise he doth not know our mind by our words and then we had better be dumb But though all kind of lying be contrary to the intention of God in giving us Speech yet this relates particularly to such lies whereby a Man's Neighbour was injured defrauded for instance of his Goods which he had deposited with another or of the just Debts which were owing him c. But though the simple denying of such things was not punished with beating as Mr. Selden represents the opinion of the Talmudists Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 11. yet he that denied a thing deposited with him was not admitted to be a Witness in any case though he had not forsworn himself unto which this lying disposed him So R. Levi Praecept CCXXXIII Ver. 12. Verse 12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsly Much less was it lawful for them to confirm the lies fore-mentioned with an Oath So the Jewish Doctors interpret it as Mr. Selden observes in the same place If any Man did and was found guilty he was adjudged to restore the principal and a fifth part more VI. 5. And whether he forswore himself knowingly or ignorantly he was to expiate his Crime with a Sacrifice But if he was ignorant of that Command concerning a Sacrifice or if though he had the thing which he denied in his keeping yet he had really forgot it when he swore he had it not he was freed both from the fifth part and from the Sacrifice See V. 4. Neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God By calling God to witness unto a frivolous thing or to a rash Resolution As if a Man swore in his anger he would not speak to such a Person but afterwards did or he would not eat of such Meat c. In such cases the Jews say when a Man's heart was touched with Repentance for his rashness and incogitancy he was to go to some wise Man or to three Neighbours and desire them to absolve him from his Oath of which he truly repented Which they did when they found him truly penitent saying Be thou loosed or It is remitted to thee or the like So Selden observes out of Maimonides Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 11. n. 9. Plato hath said some remarkable thing concerning Forswearing and also of Lying and Deceit For which I refer the learned Reader to his eleventh Book of Laws p. 916 917. Edit Serrani I am the LORD And therefore expect the greatest Reverence to my Name and that you should deal honestly one with another Ver. 13. Verse 13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour neither rob him c. Here are several Precepts almost coincident in their sense but have some peculiar Negations belonging to them For as R. Levi Barcelonita observes in all things from which God would have them carefully abstain he multiplies admonitions Praecept CXXXVI Accordingly here to defraud is to keep in ones hand that which belongs to another and such a Person he saith is called an Oppressor in Scripture The Vulgar Latine refers it to that which Men get from others by Calumny as the next words relate to that which is wrested
day had no relation to this is apparent for they did not dwell in Tabernacles on the eighth day of this Feast but only on the seven preceding Which being ended they returned to their Houses and kept this day there to another purpose here named for so it is expresly said v. 42. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days Which being over a great Solemnity continued to another purpose and was kept after another manner not in Booths but in their Houses So Maimonides in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 43. That we go from the Feast of Tabernacles to another Solemnity on the eighth day it tends to make our joys perfect which could not be done in Tabernacles but in large and spacious Houses and Palaces Where they made still greater Feasts as well as sung the Praises of God at the Temple with Trumpets and Instruments of Musick In which Service some say those three Psalms were used which have the Title of Al-hagittith viz. VIII LXXXI and LXXXV For Gath signifies a Wine-press and therefore they think these Psalms were sung in the time of the Vintage Certain it is that the two last named were sung at some great Solemnity wherein they celebrated God's wonderful Providence over them And that they used to sing and shout at their Vintage is clear from IX Judg. 27. XVI Isa 9 10. XLVIII Jer. 33. II Hosea 15. Which the Gentiles imitated who when they pressed their Grapes sung a Song to Bacchus which was thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Song of the Wine-press See Scaliger Lib. I. Poet. cap. 55. Now this being a time of such great Rejoycing in both respects it led Plutarch into a fancy that the Jews celebrated two Feasts unto Bacchus at this time For he writes in his Symposiaes Lib. IV. Probl. 3. That in the midst of Vintage the Jews spread Tables furnished with all manner of Fruit and lived in Tabernacles made especially of Palms and Ivy wreathed together and call the day which goes before the Feast The Day of Tabernacles And then a few days after saith he they keep another Festivity which openly shows it was dedicated to Bacchus for they carried Boughs of Palms in their hands c. with which they went into the Temple the Levites who he fancies were called so from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the name of Bacchus going before with Instruments of Musick c. All which may very well incline us to think that the Gentiles corrupted this holy Festivity as they did other Sacred Institutions and turned it into the prophane Bacchanalia which is no improbable conjecture of Jo. Mich. Dilherrus in his Dissert de Cacozel Gentil cap. 3. Ver. 40. Verse 40 And ye shall take you on the first day Then they began to build their Booths that they might dwell in them the rest of the Feast Boughs of goodly Trees c. Some fancy that this is not a direction for the building of Booths with these Branches but for the carrying them in their hands as Josephus tells us Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. And they say these Branches were called Hosanna's because they sung those words of the Psalmist as they marcht along with these Boughs in their hands Save now in the Hebrew the word is Hosan-na O LORD O LORD send now prosperity CXVIII 25. And this is so riveted in the Minds of the Jews that Aben-Ezra makes it the Opinion of the Sadducees to hold that they were for any other use But it is evident from VIII Nehem 15. that they cut these Branches to make Booths and not to carry in their hands though it is likely that this might also be thought a fitting Expression of Joy in after times especially after they were expelled out of their own Land It is not unlikely also that they celebrated this Festival by singing of Hosanna's among other tokens of Rejoycing praying for a happy new year whose Feast went a little before on the first of this Month. Whence the Rabbins call this Feast of Tabernacles by the name of Hosanna and the last day of it they call Hosanna Rabba And they repeat this often in their Prayers at that time as they tell us in their Minhagim or Books of Rituals saying For thy sake O our Creator Hosanna For thy sake O our Redeemer Hosanna For thy sake O our seeker Hosanna As if they beseeched the blessed Trinity to save them and send help to them In short they call the Prayers they say at this Feast by the name of Hosanna's as Joh. Michael Dilherrus hath observed Lib. II. Electorum cap. 20. Boughs The Hebrew word Pri signifies Fruit as is noted in the Margin of our Bibles From whence some have gathered that they were to be the Boughs of Fruit-bearing-trees nay the Jews fancy they were to be Boughs with their Fruit as well as Leaves on them But Buxtorf made no doubt in his XVIth Chapter of Synag Judaica that the word is rightly translated a Bough whether without Fruit or with it though in later Editions of that Book this passage be lest out Goodly Trees The Hebrew word hadar doth not meerly signifie that which is beautiful and goodly but that which is large and well spread as is observed by Hottinger in his Smegma Orientale Lib. I. cap. 7. where he thinks these words may be thus exactly translated Take to you the Boughs of Trees with broad Leaves such as the Branches of Palm-trees So that hadar is a general word and Branches of Palm-trees a special instance of a Tree with spacious Leaves which were the fittest to be used because they were best able to defend them either from heat or cold or rain Maimonides takes this word to signifie the Boughs of a particular Tree which he will have to be a Citron And the Jews are so possessed with this opinion that at this day they fancy the Feast cannot be celebrated without such Branches And therefore the Jews now in Germany send into Spain and endeavour to get one every year with the Pome-citrons on it And after the Feast they offer the Citrons to their Friends as a great present Hottinger saith he had one presented to him at Heidelberg that very year he wrote his Book now mentioned See Dr. Lightfoot in his Temple Service chap. 6. sect 3. and Buxturf Synag Jud. cap. 21. Branches of Palm-trees With which Judea abounded and was so noted for them that in the ancient Coins a Palm-tree represented that Country And the boughs of thick Trees Which were shady and afforded a good shelter The Jews take these for Myrtles which have very thick Leaves and Boughs close one to another though the Leaves be small And Willows of the Brook If this Translation be right it 's likely they served only to twine about the rest and bind them together And therefore in Nehemiah VIII 15. no mention is made of them their Tabernacles not consisting of such Boughs which were used only for the compacting and tying
might have been killed Round about thee He doth not say in the midst of thee for they were bound to destroy the People of Canaan Of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids If they had need of their Service But it does not appear that they had any great number of them nor had they any great occasion for them being themselves so laborious and breeding their Children to look after their Land and their Cattle in which their Estates chiefly consisted and being also so very numerous in a small Country Ver. 45. Verse 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you of them shall ye buy Whether they were perfect Proselytes by Circumcision or only Proselytes of the Gate as Mr. Selden observes Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 8. their Children were not exempted from being made Slaves if they sold them to the Hebrews And of their families that are with you which they begat in your Land If any of their Family or Kindred as the LXX translate it had begat Children in Judea and would sell them the Jews might make a purchase of them They shall be your possession Become your proper Goods and continue with you as your Lands do unless they have their Liberty granted to them And the first sort of Proselytes obtained it three ways either by purchasing it themselves or by their Friends or by being dismissed by their Master by a writing under his Hand or in the Case mentioned XXI Exod. 26. where the loss of an Eye or a Tooth by the Master's Severity serve only for Examples of other maims which procured such a Servant his Liberty But the second sort of Proselytes did not obtain their Liberty if we may believe the Hebrew Doctors by this last means but only by the two first And the year of Jubile gave no Servants of either sort their Liberty Ver. 46. Verse 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your Children after you To whom they might bequeath the very Bodies of them and their Children To inherit them for a possession That they might have the same power and dominion over them that they had over their Lands Goods or Cattle They shall be your bond-men for ever Not have the benefit of the year of Jubile but be your Slaves as long as they live unless they by any of the means before-mentioned obtained their Liberty But over your brethren the Children of Israel ye shall not rule over one another with rigour As they did over the Slaves before-named whose Masters as the Hebrew Doctors say were not bound to find them Food and Raiment and besides might treat them with the greatest Severity provided they did not strike out an eye c. Ver. 47. Verse 47 If a sojourner or stranger The Chaldee interprets these words an uncircumcised Proselyte And so Maimonides says they signifie one who hath undertaken the Precepts of the Sons of Noah whom they also call in their Books the pious among the Gentiles See Selden Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 3. p. 153. Wax rich by thee As many of them did by Trading though they could not purchase Land And thy brother that dwelleth by him waxeth poor Which was a Case Moses supposes before v. 35. might happen And sell himself unto the stranger and sojourner by thee So I observed before v. 39. they might do though they were admonished not to do it And the Bargain held good though they sold themselves to a Gentile So Onkelos here translates it if thy brother sell himself to an Aramite i. e. to an Idolater For Idolatry was thought to have sprung first from them Terah and Nahor being Aramites who were the first Idolaters mentioned in the holy Scripture Or to the stock of the strangers family To one that sprung out of the Family of a Profelyte who though now incorporated into the Jewish Nation yet being originally of a Strangers stock was not to have the priviledge to keep a Hebrew sold to him from the benefit of Redemption Ver. 48. Verse 48 After that he is sold And actually in the possession of a Stranger He may be redeemed c. The Hebrews understand this as if some of his Kindred were bound to redeem him or if they did not he was to be redeemed at the Charge of the Country And that though he sold himself a second time after he had been redeemed But if he sold himself a third time they lookt upon him as unworthy of Redemption unless it were meerly to save his Life See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 7. But the 54th Verse seems to suggest that they were not bound to redeem him though they might if they pleased and his Master could not refuse it One of his brethren may redeem him This Redeemer saith R. Bechai is the MESSIAH the Son of David of the Tribe of Judah Which I mention to show that the Jews thought there was something more Divine couched under this Law of the Jubile as I observed v. 10. then the very Letter of it imported Though the truth is they wretchedly mistook the business of the MESSIAH for the same R. Bechai speaking of this Section of the Law saith It contains a sign and a hope to Israel of Redemption from the Captivity of the four Monarchies as if the Messiah should have nothing to do but to put them in possession of their own Country and to make them Lords of the World Ver. 49. Verse 49 Either his uncle or his uncles son may redeem him c. Here the Persons are named by whom his Redemption might be made which in short was by any Man of his Family Or if he be able he may redeem himself If after his sale an Estate fell to him whereby he became able to redeem his Liberty Ver. 50. Verse 50 And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of Jubile c. That no Injury might be done to his Master they were to compute how long he had served him and how long he had still to serve and what price was paid for him and then according to the number of years gone and to come he was to make his Demands Which is the meaning of the following words And the price of his sale shall be according to the number of years According to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him The labour and service that he had done him was to be valued as they would do that of an Hireling who wrought for so much by the day or the year and deducting that from the price which was given for him the remainder was the price of his Redemption Ver. 51. Verse 51 If there be yet many years behind according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption If he had served but a few years and there were many to come before the Jubile then there was