called having several parts which were all holy Moses may be thought to speak of it here in the Plural Number As Jeremiah represents the Jews saying The Temple of the LORD the Temple of the LORD the Temple of the LORD are these VII 4. That is both these Courts wherein we stand as well as that of the Priests and the most Holy Place are all the LORD's Temple Or the word your is to be applied to such places of Worship as they themselves had consecrated in opposition to God's Sanctuary And I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours This seems to determine the meaning of Sanctuaries to God's own House where sweet odours of Incense made of several sweet Spices were daily offered unto him Which being a representation of their Prayers sent up to him he here declares that he will not be appeased by them nor by any Sacrifices they could offer to him but utterly reject them Ver. 32. Verse 32 And I will bring the Land into desolation The People being carried captive or forced to flee into strange Countries v. 33. And your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it They that possess this Country out of which you are expelled shall be amazed when they reflect upon the Calamities that are fall'n upon you Which Jeremiah describes as very dreadful VII 20. And often mentions the Astonishment wherewith they were struck who beheld them XVIII 16. XIX 8. XXV 9 11. and see 2 Chron. XXIX 8 9. which shows this began before Jeremiah's time Ver. 33. Verse 33 And I will scatter you among the heathen Some fled into one strange Country and others into another according as they could find means and opportunity insomuch that there were no known places where they were not dispersed So Jeremiah threatens XIII 24. XV. 4. And I will draw a sword after you So Jeremiah threatens those that would go into Egypt for safety that the sword which they feared should overtake them there XLII 16 17 18. And your Land shall be desolate and your Cities waste For they that were left there and their Enemies to whom the Country was given were now enow to cultivate the Land and build their Cities By all this as well as by what follows it appears that here is a plain Prediction of the Miseries that came upon Israel by Tiglath-Pileser and Salmanasar and upon Judah by Nebuchadnezzar who laid their Cities waste destroyed the Sanctuaries despoil'd them of their Goods drove them into strange Countries and as it here follows made their Land keep its Sabbaths Ver. 34. Verse 34 Then shall the Land enjoy her Sabbaths as long as it lyeth desolate and ye be in your enemies Land c. This is a most bitter reproach to them for their ingratitude to God and inhumanity to their Brethren in not keeping the Sabbatical year mentioned in the foregoing Chapter Dr. Hammond hath another notion of the word which we translate enjoy See Note g. upon Psal 102. p. 504. Ver. 35. Verse 35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest Lye untilled as it ought to have done every seventh year And it lay thus seventy years because as some think they had neglected to keep so many Sabbatical years Which we cannot think to be true without supposing that they kept none for half the time from their entrance into Canaan till they were expelled out of it by the Captivity of Babylon Because it did not rest in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon it For in these four hundred and ninety years says Procopius Gazaeus when they were under the Government of Kings there were seventy years to be kept as Sabbaths which that the Land might enjoy its Sabbaths were spent in the Captivity of Babylon We do not expresly read indeed of this profane neglect while they dwelt in their Land but Jeremiah complains that they did not in his time give their Servants Liberty in the seventh year XXXIV 17. and he gives this as one reason why God delivered them up to Slavery for so I understand those words I Lament 3. Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction and because of great servitude And from thence we may conclude that the same covetous humour and distrust of God's Providence made them not suffer their Land to rest in that year Especially since the Author of the second Book of Chronicles expresly mentions this as a reason of their Captivity to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah the Prophet until the Land had enjoyed her Sabbaths for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath to fulfil threescore and ten years 2 Chron. XXXVI 21. Now their Punishment in this was made the more remarkable if it be true that both the Kingdom of Samaria and the Kingdom of Judah were destroyed in a Sabbatical year and that immediately after a Jubile the City and Temple were destroyed by Titus according to Scaliger's Computation And so I observed before Maimonides makes account XXV 8. that the year when they were carried captive to Babylon and the first Temple destroyed was in the expiration of a Sabbatical year Schemitta ve Jobel cap. 10. sect 3. Ver. 36. Verse 36 And upon them that are left alive of you This imports that the Body of the People should be destroyed I will send a faintness into your hearts in the Lands of their Enemies Where their Spirits Sunk under their present Miseries And the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them And yet they were condemned to live in continual dread of more Miseries For the Hebrew word we translate faintness signifies softness which could not support the weight of their Affliction And this last Phrase imports such a timourness as should make their Life always uneasie to them and such a cowardise as should render them vile and despicable And so they are noted at this day to be mean spirited and faint hearted it being scarce ever heard that a Jew listed himself for a Soldier or ingaged in the defence of the Country where he lives And they shall flee as flecing from a Sword and fall when none pursueth Fancy they hear the sound of Trumpets or clashing of Arms which made them start and run away any fall into a swoon when there was no danger Such Terrors the Heathen themselves have observed in Men of an evil Conscience who were afraid of their own Shadow as they say of Orestes Ver. 37. Verse 37 And they shall fall one upon another As people are wont to do when they make too much haste and run confusedly or the formost hinder the flight of those that follow XLVI Jerem. 16. As it were before a Sword c. For fear of the Sword as this Hebrew Phrase certainly signifies and is so translated in the Margin of our Bibles XXI Isa 15. XXXI 8. See Bochartus in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 8. And ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies Being so timorous as to
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
contra Julianum condemned these Sacrifices of Beasts as hateful to their Gods who they fancied were pleased only with those that were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Fruits of the Earth and of Frankincense But they might have learnt from Moses if they had pleased Julian and Porphyry being acquainted with his Books that these things were alike acceptable God having respect to the Mind of him that offered not to his Gifts Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the remnant of the meat-offering shall be Aarons and his sons To be eaten by them But that Meat-offering which was offered for the Priests themselves was to be wholly burnt and no part eaten VI. 22 23. It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire Nothing is more known then the distinction which the Jews make between things most holy and the lighter holy things as their phrase is which I took notice of before The most holy were such as none whatsoever might eat of or none but the Priests and the Sons of Priests and that only in the Sanctuary and no where else See VI. 16 26. Such were all whole Burnt-offerings all the Sin-offerings and all the Peace-offerings for the whole Congregation The lighter holy things were such as might be eaten by those who were not Priests in any place within the City of Jerusalem to which their Camp now answered and such were all the Peace-offerings of particular Persons the Paschal Lamb the Tenth and the Firstlings of Cattle Ver. 4. Verse 4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baken in the oven This is the first sort of baked Mincha's for the preparing of which there was an Oven in the Court of the Tabernacle as afterward there was in the Court of the Temple 1 Chron. XXIII 28 29. XLVI Ezek. 20. It shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil or unleavened wafers anointed with oil If the Cakes were thick then the Oil was kneaded together with them But if they were thin like a Wafer then it was only spread upon it before it was baked See XXIX Exod. 2. or as some will have it after it came out of the Oven Concerning its being unleavened see below v. 11. Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in a pan Or in a flat Plate as we translate it in the Margin For Maimonides says this was the difference between Macabath which is the Hebrew word in this place and Marchesheth that the former was a Pan or Plate without any Rim about it and the other had one as our Frying-pans have And so Abarbinel in his Preface to this Book observes out of Jarchi that there was a Vessel in the Temple which was only flat and broad but had no rising on the sides of it So that the Oil being poured upon it when it was set on the fire ran down and increased the Flame and made the Cake hard It shall be of fine flour unleavened mingled with oil This sort of Cake seems to have been both kneaded with Oil and to have had Oil also poured upon it after it was laid upon the Plate Ver. 6. Verse 6 Thou shalt part it in pieces c. This according to Abarbinel was done as it lay baking upon the Plate Or if this Division was made after it was taken off the reason was the same because part of it was to be given to God and the rest to the Priests And pour oil thereon Upon the pieces that they might by this new Addition of fresh Oil be made more savoury It is a meat-offering And therefore to be eaten with Oil v. 1. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in the frying-pan This Vessel was not flat but deep as Abarbinel observes See v. 5. because that which was baked in it was moist and fluid It shall be made of fine flour with oil The Oil was not kneaded with this sort of Mincha but put into the Pan so that it mixed with the Flour which might be shaken and moved up and down as things are which are baken in Liquors So Abarbinels words are in his Preface to this Book Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt bring the meat-offering that is made of these things unto the LORD c. This relates to all the bake Meat-offerings before-mentioned which were to be brought to the LORD at his House and there presented to the Priest who was to bring them to the Altar when they were prepared as before directed See v. 1 2. And this variety of Mincha's was allowed that the Table of the LORD i. e. the Altar might be furnished and his Ministers that waited on him entertained with all sorts of Provisions Ver. 9. Verse 9 And the Priest shall take from the meat-offering a memorial thereof A part of the Cake of whatsoever sort it was was separated from the rest for the LORD's portion to whom it was offered as an acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion over them and in commemoration of his goodness to them And shall burn it upon the Altar Before the other parts were eaten by the Priests as was directed before about the fine Flour v. 2. It is an offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the LORD See v. 2. Ver. 10. Verse 10 And that which is left of the meat-offering shall be Aarons and his sons c. All this Verse hath been explained v. 3. Ver. 11. Verse 11 No meat-offering which ye shall bring unto the LORD shall be made with leaven These words which ye shall bring unto the LORD seem to have a peculiar emphasis in this place importing that no Meat-offering part of which was offered upon God's Altar should be leavened For no part of that leavened Bread which was offered in Eucharistical Sacrifices VII 13. nor the two Loaves offered in the Feast of Pentecost which some mistake for an Exception to this Precept were offered upon the Altar but given intirely to the Priests as their portion Made with leaven There are many Moral Reasons given both by Jewish and Christian Writers why none of the Cakes before-mentioned should have any Leaven in them which I shall not here set down There is some probability in their Opinion who think this was ordered to refresh their Memory by putting them in mind of their Deliverance out of Egypt But Maimonides seems to me to have given the best account of this in his More Nevochim P. III. cap. 46. where he saith God prohibited this to root out the Idolatrous Customs in those days as he found in the Books of the Zabij who offered to their Gods no Bread but leavened Next to this the Account which Abarbanel gives of it is not to be disregarded who thinks it was forbidden because it would have made delay if they had waited at the Tabernacle till the fermentation was perfected For ye shall burn no leaven nor any honey in any offering of the LORD made by fire
Bond-woman betrothed to another XIX 20 21. Which are all the Cases belonging to this matter excepting that of the Nazarite defiled by the dead VI Numb 12. and of the Leper XIV 12. who were to be purged with a Sin-offering as well as with a Trespass-offering and therefore not to be considered in this matter See Dr. Owtram L. I. de Sacrificiis cap. 13. n. 8. and Samuel Petitus his Variae Lectiones cap. 22. who hath said the same but not so fully and distinctly If this do not satisfie yet it is plain the Sacrifices which go by this Name of Trespass-offerings and the Rites also about them were so different that they are sufficient to distinguish them from the other For none but Rams and Male-Lambs were admitted for Trespass-offerings which were not used at all in any Sin-offerings And the Blood of the Sin-offerings was put upon the Horns of the Altar as was noted in the foregoing Chapter v. 7 18 25. but that of the Trespass-offerings was sprinkled round about upon the Altar VII 2. Sin-offerings also were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel IV. 13. but Trespass-offerings only for private Persons which made Bonsrerius I suppose after a long discussion of this matter to conclude That the difference betwen Sin and Trespass consisted only in the Sacrifices which were offered for them See him upon the IVth Chapter of this Book v. 1. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he shall make amends for the harm he hath done in holy things and shall add a fifth part thereunto c. Besides the Compensation mentioned in the foregoing Verse for the damage that was done according to the valuation made by the Priest there was a fifth part more to be added thereunto and given to the Priest who had suffered the damage And the Priest shall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the trespass-offering and it shall be forgiven him The Atonement was not made nor Forgiveness obtained till full Satisfaction for the wrong had been made Ver. 17. Verse 17 And if a soul sin and commit any of these things c. i. e. did eat any of the holy things before-mentioned which God forbad any but the Priests to eat Though he wist it not i. e. Be not certain whether they were holy or no. For the Hebrews generally call this Ascham Talui a dubious Trespass-offering being in a matter about which a Man was in Suspense whether he had offended or not Yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity He shall be obliged to offer this sort of Sacrifice Which was ordained saith R. Levi Barcelon Praecept CXXIII to make Men cautious and fear to sin and to attend diligently in all their Actions that they transgressed not the Laws of God Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he shall bring a Ram without blemish out of the flock with thy estimation c. The Offering before appointed v. 15 c. with this difference only that no fifth part was in this Case to be added because it was not certain whether he had transgressed or no. The Priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not Did not know whether he had offended or not which distinguishes this from the Sin of Ignorance mentioned v. 15. And it shall be forgiven him But if he afterwards came to have a certain knowledge of his Offence he was not excused by this dubious Offering as Rasi observes but was bound also to offer a Sin-offering Ver. 19. Verse 19 It is a trespass-offering In this case a Sacrifice must be offered as well as in a certain Trespass He hath certainly trespassed against the LORD The words in the Hebrew are Ascham ascham lajhova which I think should be translated A Trespass-offering certainly unto the LORD That is in this doubtful case let him take a sure course by offering the Sacrifice here prescribed For though neither this sort of Sacrifices nor Sin-offerings were to be voluntarily which was proper only to whole Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings yet the very suspicion of a Guilt required a Sacrifice As for all those Offences which might be committed by Men who had no sense nor suspition of them they were expiated by the Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation at certain stated times but no particular Person was to offer either Sin-offering or Trespass-offering of his own accord unless he knew or feared he had contracted some Guilt I cannot think fit to conclude this Chapter without taking notice how Jonathan paraphrases these last words of it who instead of saying he hath trespassed as it is commonly translated against the LORD saith against the Name of the Word of the LORD Which is an observation that might have been made in my Notes upon the two foregoing Books of Moses where many such passages occur which I did not mention And I should not have done it now being unwilling to swell this Commentary with any thing that doth not tend to the explaining the sense of the Text did not the impious Pamphlets that have lately been spread abroad against the Doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity made it necessary for me to take this occasion to assert That this Doctrine was not unknown to the ancient Jews as appears even from the frequent mention of the Word of the LORD in the Chaldee Paraphrasts where the Hebrew hath only JEHOVAH or the LORD For which I can see no reason at all if there had not been a Notion among them of more Persons than One who were JEHOVAH It doth not always indeed carry this signification in it but there are very many places where by the WORD of the LORD cannot be meant a word spoken by the LORD or any thing else but a person speaking or acting c. who is the LORD There is a famous instance of it in XXVIII Gen. 20 21. where Jacob's Vow is thus translated by Onkelos Jacob vowed a vow saying if the WORD of the LORD will be with me and keep me c. then shall the WORD of the LORD be my God Where the WORD of the LORD is so plainly made the Object of his Adoration that it evidently shows they had a Notion in those days when Onkelos lived which was about our Saviour's time of more Persons than One who was the LORD The Hierusalem Targum also speaks this so clearly that one cannot but be something amazed to meet with such Expressions in it as those upon III Gen. 22. The WORD of the LORD said Behold Adam whom I have created is my only begotten in this World as I am the only begotten in the Heavens above Which may fairly induce a belief that St. John used the known Language of those times when he declared our blessed Saviour's Godhead under the Name of the WORD who was in the beginning with God and was God I Joh. 1. CHAP. VI. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying What here follows belonging unto the same
others by making Expiation for them when they deserved to perish For so I am commanded These Orders as hath been already observed he received in the holy Mount So Aaron and his sons did all things which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses This was necessary to be added that all Generations might be assured whatsoever was performed by their Ministry would be effectual to the end for which it was appointed they being exactly Consecrated to God's Service without the least omission of any thing that he had required In like manner our great High-Priest was Consecrated to his Eternal Priesthood by fulfilling all the Will of God and that in a far more Solemn and Publick way than Aaron's was it being performed by Suffering such things as nothing but a perfect Filial Obedience to his heavenly Father could have moved him to admit because it was accomplished by shedding his own Blood in a lingring Death CHAP. IX Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND it came to pass on the eighth day He doth not mean on the eighth day of the Month but on the next day after their Consecration which was seven days in doing VIII 33 35. Then it was that the Fire fell down from Heaven and consumed the Sacrifice which Aaron offered and this seems also to have been the first day of unleavened Bread which fell upon the fifteenth day of this Month for on the fourteenth in the Even which was the last day of the Consecration of the Priests the Passover was kept IX Numb 2 5. That Moses called Aaron and his sons and the Elders of Israel Just as he had done before VIII 2 3. that the Rulers and as many of the People as could meet together to behold what was done might see the Glory of the LORD which appeared at this time v. 6. Ver. 2. Verse 2 And he said unto Aaron take thee a young Calf This is the first Sacrifice that was offered to God by the Priests of the Order of Aaron It differed from that which was offered by Moses for Aaron and his Sons as Egel a young Calf doth from Par a young Bullock by which his Sin was expiated at his Consecration And Maimonides saith that the former signifies a Calf of one year old the latter one of two Others say a Calf was called Egel till his Horns budded and then it was called Par. For a sin-offering For his sins in general not for any determinate Offence like that IV. 3. which therefore was something different from this The Jews fancy that a young Calf was appointed for the first Sin-offering to put Aaron and the People in mind of the Golden Calf which they worshipped So Maimonides reports the Opinion of their Wise men in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. Where he also hath this conceit that it was to expiate that Sin And a Ram for a burnt-offering For none but Males were accepted for Burnt-offerings I. 10. There is no Peace-offering ordered for him as there is afterward for the People v. 4. because it was not fit he should have all the Sacrifice as he must have had according to the Law of such Sacrifices being both the Priest and the Offerer between whom and the Priest after the Fat was burnt all was to be shared Ver. 3. Verse 3 And unto the Children of Israel thou shalt speak saying Unto all the Elders v. 1. who were to bring the following Offerings in the Name of all the People of Israel and that by Aaron's direction who was now to act as God's High-Priest and gave out this Order Take ye a Kid of the Goats for a sin-offering The Hebrew word Seir signifies a He-goat Concerning which Maimonides in his Book concerning Sacrifices delivers this opinion That all Sacrifices for sin whether of private Persons or the whole Congregation at their three principal Feasts New Moons and the Day of Expiation were He-goats For this reason because the greatest Sin and Rebellion of those times was that they sacrificed to Daemons who were wont to appear in that form For which he quotes XVII 7. They shall no more offer their Sacrifices lasseirim which we translate unto Devils but the word Seirim is but the Plural Number of the word Seir which signifies a Goat And further he adds That their Wise men think the Sin of the whole Congregation was therefore expiated by this Kid of a Goat because all the Family of Israel sinned about a Goat when they fold Joseph into Egypt XXXVII Gen. 31. And such reasons saith he as these should not seem trifles for the end and scope of all these Actions was to imprint and ingrave on the Mind of Sinners the Offences they had committed that they might never forget them According to that of David LI Psal 5. My sin is ever before me This Sin-offering was different from that IV. 14. being not for any particular Sin as that was but in general for all the Offences that the High-Priest might have committed A Calf and a Lamb both of the first year c. When they were in their prime Ver. 4. Verse 4 Also a Bullock and a Ram. These also were no doubt to be without blemish as is prescribed in the two foregoing Offerings And the Hebrew word Sor which we translate a Bullock often signifies a well grown Ox as in XXI Exod. 28. XXV Deut. 8. As Ajil a Ram the Hebrews say signifies a Sheep of above a year old These made very large Peace-offerings and consequently a liberal Feast upon them For peace-offerings The very same order is here observed that was at Aaron's Consecration First Sin-offerings then a Burnt-offering and then a Peace-offering was offered to the LORD VIII 14 18 22. And a meat-offering mingled with oil Which was to compleat the Peace-offerings on which they were to feast that Meat might not be without Bread to it For to day the LORD will appear to you Give you an illustrious Token of his Presence by sending Fire from Heaven or from the Brightness of his GLORY to consume the Sacrifice v. 23 24. Whereby they were all assured that both the Institution of this Priesthood and the Sacrifices offered by it were acceptable to the Divine Majesty Ver. 5. Verse 5 And they brought that which Moses commanded Both Aaron v. 2. and all the Congregation v. 3. brought all the Offerings which Moses required Before the Tabernacle of the Congregation Where these Sacrifices were to be offered And all the Congregation drew near and stood before the LORD Approached to the door of the Tabernacle and stood there by their Sacrifices looking towards the Holy Place and worshipped the LORD Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses said Unto the Congregation This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye should do I require this of you by the commandment of God who will demonstrate by a visible Token his Presence among you And the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you That Glory which filled the Tabernacle when it was erected
here by devoured them took away their Breath in a moment From which Expression the Hebrew Doctors conclude that when any body was condemned to be burnt it was not to be consumed to Ashes but only exanimated by the Fire because this is called devouring or burning here in this place See Gamera Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 1. And they died before the LORD Fell down dead in the House of God Which may seem too great a Severity till it be considered how reasonable and necessary it was to inflict a heavy Punishment upon the first Transgressors of a Law concerning a Matter of great moment to deter others from the like Offence Many instances of which there are in Scripture Some observed by St. Chrysostom upon VI Psal 2. where he gives this account why the Man who gathered a few sticks upon the Sabbath-day was adjudged to be stoned as Blasphemers were because it was a very heinous thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as soon as a Law was enacted immediately to break it which made it necessary it should be thus severely punished to strike such a Terror into others that they might not dare to do the like Which was the reason he observes of the sudden Death of Ananias and Sapphira mentioned Acts V. Isidore of Peleusium hath made the same observation Lib. I. Epist. 181 and goes so far back as to our first Parents who were dreadfully punished for a seemingly small Offence because they were the first Transgressors The same others have observed of the punishment of Cain who committed the first Murder of the filthiness of Sodom of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf the Covetousness and Sacriledge of Achan the Disobedience of Saul the first King of Israel the sudden Death of Vzzah who was the first that presumed to touch the Ark of God Ver. 3. Verse 3 And Moses said unto Aaron To satisfie him in the Justice and Wisdom of this dreadful stroke at which he could not but be extreamly afflicted This is that the LORD spake saying I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me To come nigh unto God is in the holy Language to perform the Office of a Priest XIX Exod. 22. XVI Numb 5. who having the honour of attending upon the Service of the Divine Majesty were bound to approach into his Presence with the greatest Reverence We do not read indeed those very words which Moses here recites in the foregoing Books But as many things were spoken to them which are not recorded so the sense of these words are in the place forenamed XIX Exod. 22. and the reason of them in XXIX Exod. 43 44. where the Tabernacle being said to be sanctified by the Divine Glory and the Priests being sanctified to minister unto him therein which was seven days a doing as we read here VIII 35. they were plainly taught to draw nigh to God with a holy Fear and to do nothing rashly nor without order from him For God being peculiarly known by the Name of the Holy One i. e. who hath incomparable Perfections such as no other Being hath he justly required to be accordingly worshipped sutable to his most surpassing Greatness by peculiar Rites of his own prescribing in a different manner from all other Beings It was for instance below his Emenency or rather Supereminent Majesty to have common Fire such as they imployed in their Kitchins used for the burning Sacrifice upon his Altar And in like manner all other parts of his Service were in reason to be performed after such a fashion as might signifie their sense of the peculiar Excellencies of the Divine Nature who therefore sent Fire from Heaven as only fit to burn perpetually upon his Altar And before all the people will I be glorified This may be thought to be but a solemn Repetition of what was spoken before as the manner is in these Books to deliver the same thing twice in different words Or the meaning is if they who draw nigh to me will not sanctifie me I will vindicate my own honour by such Punishments as shall openly declare to all that I am the Holy One. Thus God is said to be honoured upon Pharaoh by drowning him in the Red-sea XIV Exod. 4. And Aaron held his peace Silently adored the Justice of the Holy One and did not complain of his Severity For this doth not seem to be the effect meerly of great Grief but of great Reverence to the Divine Majesty Ver. 4. Verse 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron It appears from VI Exod. 18. that Vzziel the Father of Mishael and Elzaphan v. 22. was the younger Brother of Amram the Father of Aaron and consequently Aaron's Uncle And said unto them Come near and carry your brethren All near Kindred are called Brethren in Scripture And these Cosin Germans of theirs are appointed to carry them out because Aaron's other Sons were now attending upon God in their Ministration upon the Day of their Consecration But without this special order these two Persons could not have been admitted to come near into the very Sanctuary being not of the Family of Priests though of Kin to him From before the Sanctuary See v. 2. Out of the Camp For anciently they buried not in their Cities but in the Fields adjacent to them XXIII Gen. 9 17. and so they did in after times XXVII Matth. 7. and VIII Luke 27. where the Tombs are plainly intimated to be without the City Ver. 5. Verse 5 So they went near There being two Accents upon the Hebrew word for draw near the Cabbalists from thence observe I know not upon what grounds that these Men did not come into the very Sanctuary where the dead Bodies lay but drew them out with long Poles and those of Iron being afraid of the Fire wherewith Nadab and Abihu had been killed or rather fearing to go into the Sanctuary or too near it See Hackspan's Cabala Judaica n. 58. And carried them out in their Coats c. Their Linen Vestments wherein they ministred which having touched dead Bodies were no more fit to be used in the Divine Service As Moses had said As he had directed in his order which he gave them Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses said unto Aaron and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar his sons These two were all the Sons that Aaron had now remaining from whom came two great Families of the Priests which in the days of David we find very numerous though more of the House of Eleazar than of the other when they were by him divided into XXIV Classes and had their Courses of waiting appointed them 1 Chron. XXIV 4 c. Vncover not your heads The Hebrew Doctors interpret it quite contrary Let not the head of your hair grow so long that is as to cover their Faces which was the custom of Mourners 2 Sam. XV. 30. XIX 4. and many other places And thus Onkelos and the Arabick Version set forth by
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
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
as a Man very learned in these things hath observed Job Ludolphus in his Dissertation de Locustis P. I. cap. 23. that Chargol hath both a bunch on its back and a Tail also Arbeh hath neither Solam only a Bunch and not a Tail and Chagab a Tail but no Bunch Which whether it be true or false it doth not much concern us to know But it is evident that before our Saviour's time they knew very well and certainly what kind of Locusts are here meant and accordingly perfectly understood what they might eat and what not For otherwise John the Baptist would have been hard put to it who had no other Diet but this and Honey And indeed in desert places there was little other Food but this by which whole Armies of Men have been relieved when they were in danger to perish in Libya For that Locusts were a common Food in the Eastern and Southern Countries is so known that I need not produce any Authorities for it Nay among the Greeks also as Bochartus hath shown in his Hierozoic P. II. L. IV. cap. 7. And Vossius L. IV. de Orig. Progr Idol c. 78. But no Body hath given such satisfaction in this matter as the fore-named Ludolphus who hath shown at large how many Nations live upon them in his Commentary upon his Aethiopick History and more lately in his most excellent Dissertation concerning Locusts Wherein he relates what Clouds of them came into Germany not long ago in the Month of August in the Year One thousand six hundred ninety and three of which he seeing Hogs and Hens and other Creatures feeding greedily he and his Family adventured to eat freely of them also and found the taste of them like that of a Crab. And a Jew of Hierusalem who was then in their Country assured him that the Locusts in Judea were much of the same shape with these in Germany which he demonstrated to him by a draught he had made of them After his kind Here it may be fit to note in the conclusion of all that this phrase after his kind which is so often repeated in this Discourse of Fowls and flying things doth not necessarily signifie that there are different kinds of every Bird or flying thing to which it is applied but only imports every one of that kind For he doth not speak in the Plural Number according to their kinds but in the Singular after his kind which only denotes that the whole Species is prohibited And what he saith of some Fowls is in reason to be applied to all though to avoid repetition he doth not add these words after his kind to every one of them Ver. 23. Verse 23 But all other flying creeping things which have four feet shall be an abomination to you Whether they were Locusts or any other kind of Creature who came under this Character they were to avoid them carefully Ver. 24. Verse 24 And for these ye shall be unclean whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean If they did either eat of them or so much as touch the carcase of them they might not be admitted to come into the Tabernacle nor eat of any holy thing nor converse with their Neighbours Vntil the even He doth not say they were to wash themselves or their Clothes as in the following Verse which would incline one to think that their meer Separation for all the day from Communion with God and with one another was their Cleansing without any other Purification But there are so many Commands for washing themselves and their Clothes in other Defilements no greater than this that it hath perswaded some to think such Cleansing was necessary in this case also See XV. 5 6 7 8 10. and several other Verses in that Chapter Ver. 25. And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them Though it were only to carry them out of the Camp or City or remove them out of the way that they might not infect the Air. Shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the even His Body also in all likelyhood was to be washed as was required in other Purifications No time is appointed for this which perhaps a Man might think fit to do presently but notwithstanding he was to remain unclean till the Setting of the Sun Ver. 26. Verse 26 The carcase of every beast which divideth the hoof and is not cloven-footed c. He takes occasion from hence to inform them that it was as unlawful to touch the carcases of Beasts before prohibited to be eaten v. 3 c. as of the Fowl and flying things now mentioned But while they were alive it was not unlawful to touch them for they used Camels and Horses and Asses for their necessary Service and therefore it is so expressed in other things v. 31. when they are dead Ver. 27. Verse 27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws c. Hath feet with fingers like unto a hand for so it is in the Hebrew Whatsoever goeth upon his hands Such as the Ape the Lion the Bear Dogs and Cats c. whose fore-feet resemble hands These might neither be eaten nor their carcases touched without incurring uncleanness till Sun-set Ver. 28. Verse 28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes c. See v. 25. Ver. 29. Verse 29 These also shall be unclean unto you So that they might not so much as touch them as it is explained v. 31. when they were dead much less eat them Among the creeping things that creep upon the earth Among things that have such short feet that some of their bellies seem to touch the ground The weasel Though most Interpreters follow this Translation of the Hebrew word Choled yet Bochartus hath alledged a great many probable reasons that it signifies a Mole And one is because it is joyned here with the Mouse See Hierozoicon P. I. L. III. cap. 35. where he treats of this very largely The Mouse All acknowledge the Hebrew word Achbar signifies a Mouse and more especially a field Mouse which doth great mischief there and thence hath its name as the same Bochartus shows in the foregoing Chapter of that Book But all sorts of Mice are here to be understood as Jonathan observes who thus paraphrases this word The black Mouse the red and the white for they are of so many colours The Tortoise after its kind The same Author hath taken a great deal of pains to prove that Tzab doth not signifie a Tortoise but as the LXX and St. Hierom take it a land Crocodile Which is a large sort of Lizzard a Cubit long with which Arabia abounds out of which Language he indeavours at large to prove the truth of this Interpretation Lib. IV. cap. 1. Ver. 30. Verse 30 And the Ferret Out of the same Language and the Syriac and Samaritan Paraphrase the same judicious Writer proves that Anaka signifies another sort of Lizzard which the Latines call Stellio and in those Countries hath
or any Metal provided one of them was not bigger than the other nor one of Gold the other of Silver c. but both every way equal as the Goats were to be Upon one of these Lots was written the name of the Goat which was for the LORD and on the other that which was for Azazel And then the Priest shaking the Urn and putting in both his hands as it there follows in Joma cap. 4. took up a Lot in each And if he brought up God's Lot in his right hand the Sagan who stood there said My Lord lift up thy right hand If in his left hand the Head of the Fathers said Lift up thy left hand And so the Priest let the right hand Lot fall upon the Goat that stood on the right hand and his left hand lot upon the other One lot for the LORD To be offered unto the LORD at the Altar The other lot for the scape-goat Or as it is in the Hebrew for Azazel as some have anciently translated it Now why a Goat was offered in Sacrifice and another Goat let go free laden with their sins rather than any other Creature may be understood perhaps from the inclination of the Heathen World in those days when they worshipped Daemons in the form of a Goat The Egyptians were famous for this and the Israelites themselves it appears from the XVIIth Chapter of this Book v. 7. were prone to offer Sacrifices le Seirim which signifies Daemons in that form And therefore to take them off from such Idolatrous Practises God ordained these Creatures themselves to be sacrificed and slain to whom they had offered Sacrifice And the young ones he appointed for this purpose for so Seirim signifies which the Egyptians most of all honoured and abhorred to offer or kill So Juvenal Nefas illic foetum jugulare Capellae Satyr XV. V. II. Now from hence perhaps it was that some fancied Azazel signified the Devil as R. Menachem and R. Eliezer among the Jews Julian among the Heathen and some great Men lately among us Who conceive that as the other Goat was offered to God at the Altar so this was sent among the Daemons which delight to frequent desert places and there appeared often in the shape of this Creature But this will not agree with the Hebrew Text which says this Goat was for Azazel as the other was for the LORD Now none sure will be so prophane as to imagine that both these Goats being set before the LORD and presented to him as equally Consecrated to him he would then order one of them to be for himself and the other for the Devil We must therefore be content with our own Translation which derives the word Azazel from Ez a Goat and azal to go away and fitly calls it the Scape-goat So Paulus Fagius and a great many others against which I see nothing objected but that Ez signifies a she Goat not a he Which made Bochartus fetch this word from the Arabick in which Language Azala signifies to remove or to separate And this agrees well enough with the name of this Goat according as the ancient Translators understood it some of which as Symmachus render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Goat going away others as Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Goat let loose and the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which they had no thought of the notion of this word among the Greeks who called those Daemons by this name who were esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as J. Pollux speaks averters of evil things from them But simply meant as Theodoret interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Goat sent away into the Wilderness And so St. Hierom expounds it Hircus emissarius which agrees with the notion which Bochartus puts upon the word out of the Arabick Tongue This Goat being sent away into remote places there to remain separate from the Flock to which he belong'd and that upon a Mountain as the Jews fancy in the Wilderness of Sinai which from this Goat was called Azazel But I see no ground for this Ver. 9. Verse 9 And Aaron shall bring the Goat upon which the LORDS lot fell In the Hebrew the word is went up For he first took it up out of the Urn and then let it fall upon the Goat And offer him for a sin-offering Devote him to God to be a Sacrifice for their Sins beseeching him to accept of this Sacrifice for that end So the word offer I observe signifies v. 6. order being given afterwards for the killing of the Goat v. 15. Ver. 10. Verse 10 But the Goat on which the lot fell to be the Scape-goat shall be presented alive before the LORD This shows that the Scape-goat was equally consecrated and devoted to God as the other was though not to be killed but sent away alive after the other had been offered in Sacrifice To make an atonement with him For this was a Sin-offering though not slain no less than the other as appears from v. 5. which shows these two Goats made but one Sin-offering Which was partly slain at the Altar and partly let go as it here follows to run whether he would the more perfectly to represent the taking away of their Sins and removing their iniquity as the Prophet speaks III Zach. 9. by vertue of this Offering for them Some indeed have thought that this Goat was not sacrificed but only presented alive before God and so let go lest it should be thought God could not forgive their Sins unless he was appeased by some slain Beast which imagination was destroyed by letting this Sin-offering be left alive at full liberty to run quite away But I can see no ground for such a Construction because these were not two but one Sin-offering as I said before which being slain in part established that opinion in them of the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation without a bloody Sacrifice Certain it is that the whole Law supposes this that without shedding of blood is no remission as the Apostle observes IX Hebr. 22. And therefore it will be more agreeable to the Holy Scriptures if we think as some do That the first Goat represented our LORD in his Sufferings and this other in his Resurrection whereby he was freed from the Bands of Death both his Death and his Resurrection being for our Deliverance as the Apostle shows IV Rom. ult And let him go free Whether he pleased For so the Hebrew word Schalac send him away or dismiss him signifies in Scripture intire liberty such as God demanded for the Israelites from Pharaoh IV Exod. 23. V. 1. For a Scape-goat Into remote places Into the Wilderness In token their sins were quite carried away to be found no more for the Goat was not meerly sent into the Wilderness but into the most desert places of it as appears from v. 22. Ver. 11. Verse 11 And Aaron shall bring the Bullock of the sin-offering
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
which forbids them to covet their neighbours wife which did not give them leave sure to covet the Wife of a Gentile provided they did not covet the Wife of an Israelite A Neighbour therefore is every other Man as in XXII Deut. 26. and more plainly in XI Exod. 2. where the Egyptians are called their Neighbour And therefore D. Kimchi saith very honestly upon the XVth Psal 3. A Neighbour is every one with whom we have any dealing or conversation Which justifies our blessed Saviour in making this Command of Loving their Neighbours as themselves to reach all Men with whom they had to do X Luke 27 28 c. I am the LORD Unto whom you are all equally subject and upon that account ought to love one another See v. 34. Ver. 19. Verse 19 Ye shall keep my statutes This may be thought to be premised to what follows lest such Commands as are contained in this Verse seeming small should be neglected by them Thou shalt not let thy Cattel or rather make them gender with a divers kind As Horses with Asses Goats with Sheep c. whose mixture one with another they were by no means to procure But if they did of themselves come together it was lawful to use such Heterogeneous Creatures as were so produced For they did not abhor the use of Mules which were either begot by accident among them or brought from other Countries to them The reason the Jews commonly give for this Precept is because God having made all things perfect in their kind it was a presumptuous attempt to go about to mend his Creation and add to his Works By this means also Men were deterred from unnatural Mixtures which they saw to be abominable in Brutes So R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXLIX and Philo whose words are very ingenious Lib. de Creatione Princip Things of the sâ—me kind were made for Society one with another but things heterogeneous as we call them were not intended to be mixed and associated and therefore he who attempts to mingle them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wickedly destroys the Law of Nature To the same purpose Josephus See Selden Lib. VII de Jure N. G. sec Hebr. cap. 3. p. 798. Maimonides also himself gives this reason of this Precept More Nevoch P. III. cap. 49. where he saith No Creature hath a desire commonly to mix with a Creature of another kind and therefore Men ought not to promote such a desire But after all there might possibly be a respect in this Precept to some Idolatrous Customs which Moses intended to prevent or abolish for there is good ground to think the following Precepts in this Verse were so intended and in after times some Gentiles did procure such Mixture of Creatures as are here forbidden Mules for instance in honour of their Gods See our learned Dr. Spencer Lib. II. de Leg. Hebr. Ritualibus cap. 20. where he indeavours to prove that by Cattel in this place are peculiarly meant Oxen and Asses which were used in Husbandry and are of such different Natures that none would ever have thought to procure their Conjunction unless he had been moved to it by the Devil Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed The reasons of this according to the Jews are the same with the former and R. Levi extends it to Trees which he saith they were not to ingraft of different kinds one upon another But it concerns they say only such Seeds and Plants as are for Mens food not those which are for Medecine Praecept CCL But Maimonides found a particular reason for this Precept from the Idolatrous Customs of the old Zabij Who not only sowed different Seeds and grafted Trees of a divers kind upon one another in such or such Aspect of the Planets and with a certain form of words and fumigations but also with abominable filthiness at the very moment of the Incision Which he proves out of a Book concerning the incision of an Olive into a Citron and doubts not that God forbad his People to sow with mingled seed that he might root out that detestable Idolatry and those preternatural Lusts which abounded in those days More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. Neither shall a Garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee In the Hebrew the words are A Garment of mixtures of Schaatnez shall not come upon thee But that they might certainly know what Schaatnez was it is explained in XXII Deut. 11. to signifie as we translate it a Garment of Woollen and Linen mixed together The Jews have taken abundance of pains to find out the original of this word which Bochartus derives from the Arabick word Saat which signifies to mingle and nez which signifies to weave Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 45. But Joh. Braunius I think hath demonstrated that it doth not import the weaving of any different things together but only of Linen and Woollen and that by Woollen is to be understood only what is made of the Wooll of Sheep not of Camels or Goats which they called by the same name Lib. I. de Vestitu Sacerd. Hebr. cap. 4. n. 2 3 6. Where he observes out of Maimonides in his Halach Kelaim that if a Man saw an Israelite wear such a Garment it was lawful for him to fall upon him openly and tear his Garment in pieces although he were his Master who taught him Wisdom And the reasons for this abhorrence are commonly such as are given of the former Precepts to preserve them from the horrid Confusion which was among the Gentiles by incestuous and unnatural Mixtures But Maimonides takes it to have been principally intended as a Preservative against Idolatry The Priests of the Gentiles in those times wearing such mixed Garments of the product of Plants and Animals with a Ring on their finger made of some Metal as he says he found in their Books More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. By which mixture it is likely they hoped to have the beneficial influence of some lucky Conjunction of the Planets or Stars to bring a Blessing upon their Sheep and their Flax. Ver. 20. Verse 20 Whosoever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a bondmaid betrothed to an husband The Jews had some Servants that were Gentiles who if they embraced the Jewish Religion were baptized sometimes with the reservation of their Servitude and sometimes with the full grant of Liberty But some there were in a middle Condition partly free and partly servile viz. when part of their Redemption-money had been paid and part was still behind Now as while a Woman was a perfect Slave no Israelite might marry her so when she was partly free though he might Espouse her and the Espousals were valid yet they could not be of full force till her liberty was perfected And of such a Maiden the Hebrew Doctors understand Moses to speak in this place that was in part free but not wholly as the next words interpret it And not at all redeemed nor
great wickedness to be punished with death if a young Man did not rise up to an old Credebant hoc grande nefas morte piandum Si juvenis vetulo non assurrexerat And such a Law there was established among the Lacedaemonians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That aged Persons should be reverenced no less than if they were their Fathers And so Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let every one reverence him that is elder than himself in deed and in word Lib. IX de Legibus p. 875. Where he requires that a Youth should honour a Stranger that was his ancient and hath this memorable saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That Youth should glory more in obeying well than in ruling well And first of all in obeying the Laws for this is all one with serving God and next in giving honour to old Men and to those especially who have passed their days honourably and with glory See more to this purpose in Henricus Stephanus de juris civilis font rivis And there was the greater reason for this Reverence toward old Men in this Nation there being nothing else among them but Age and Experience that could distinguish them for they were all equally noble and equally rich of the same Profession and brought up in the same manner And honour the face of the old Man Or of the Elder that is of those who were skilful in the Law as the Jews interpret it and I see no reason to contradict it as some have done since he speaks of aged Persons before See Mr. Selden Lib. I. de Synedr cap. 14. where he deduces this at large and another excellent Writer of our own Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State p. 214 c. For if such as taught the Law had not been honoured before Men no body would have minded their words nor received what they propounded about things to be known or to be done as Maimonides words are in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 36. And it made no difference of what Age he was whether an old Man or a young for some Elders it appears by Daniel were not aged but the same honour was given to him even by wise Men as R. Levi Barcelonita shows Praecept CCXXII And fear thy God This is the fountain of all Vertue particularly of the fore-mentioned God having imprinted a venerable Character upon those who are grown aged especially on such as are wise and instruct others in Vertue But some of the Hebrews think that in this Verse there are three Degrees of Honour enjoyned to three Ranks of Men one to the Aged the next to the Wise and Learned and the third to the Judges who they imagine are here meant by Elohim God whom they are commanded to fear or reverence I am the LORD Most high above all and therefore greatly to be feared Ver. 33. Verse 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your Land ye shall not vex him Not so much as by upbraiding him with his being a Stranger or his having worshipped Idols heretofore For of such a Stranger they understand this as was become a Proselyte to their Religion See XVII 8 12 13. and XXII Exod. 21. But common Humanity teaches every Body to be kind to all manner of Stangers and not meerly to refrain from oppressing them or giving them vexation Plato hath most excellent Discourses about this in several places particularly Lib. V. de Legibus where he shows that God is the Avenger of all Wrongs done to Strangers more than of those that are done to our fellow Citizens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For a Stranger being destitute of Friends and Kindred is the greater object of pity both of Men and of God And therefore he that can hurt most should be most ready to help him c. See p. 729 730. Edit Serrani Upon which account he makes it lawful for a Stranger to pluck any of the best Fruit as he is upon his way whether Grapes Figs or Apples c. Lib. VIII p. 845. And the Corn being divided as he would have it into twelve parts and a twelfth part divided into three he orders one of those third parts to be given to Strangers p. 847 848. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Stranger or Sojourner ought to be comforted in a most friendly manner c. See Lib. XII p. 952 953. Ver. 34. Verse 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with thee shall be as one born among you They understand this only of such a Stranger who by Circumcision was become a perfect Proselyte whom they were to be so far from oppressing that they were to treat him as if he had been a Native Jew and love him as a Brother And thou shalt love him as thy self He had commanded them v. 18. to love their Neighbour i. e. an Israelite they expound it as themselves and now he commands them to love a Stranger with the same Affection which demonstrates they think he was become an Israelite and therefore was to have the same Priviledges with themselves both in all Civil and Sacred things And this no doubt was true that they were bound to treat such a Proselyte with a tender Affection and to make no difference between him and an Israelite For he was to be admitted to eat of the Paschal Lamb and of the Peace-offerings and he might marry with an Israelite insomuch that Moses saith One Ordinance shall be for both XV Numb 15. All the difference I can find was That they never admitted any Stranger to be a Member of the great Sanhedrim But notwithstanding all this I cannot think it reasonable to exclude all other Strangers from their Affection but they were bound to love them and to be kind to them though not to embrace them with such a strict Friendship as the other And to confirm this it may be observed That in the fourth Commandment the Stranger within their Gate signifies as they confess not him that was a perfect Proselyte but only one that had renounced Idolatry And so they understand the word Stranger in the XXVth Chapter of this Book v. 47. and I see no reason why such a Stranger should not be admitted here to have a share in their Affection who was become a Worshipper of the true God though he had not taken upon him to observe the whole Law For ye were strangers in the Land of Egypt This Reason is little less than a Demonstration that such Strangers as I now mentioned are comprehended in the foregoing Precept For the remembrance of what their Condition was in Egypt is that whereby they are moved to have pity on those whom they found among themselves in the same and they and the Egyptians were not of the same Religion but found such kind entertainment there a long time as they were to give to those who were of their Religion This Argument indeed became stronger when any Persons were incorporated with them
the Father before the Mother with such like things he may consult Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra p. 356 c. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And for his sister a virgin I see no reason why it should be restrained to his whole Sister both by Fathers and Mothers side as some of the Hebrew Doctors would have it for that his half Sister by either of them was nigh unto him as it here follows it appears by the Law about incestuous Marriages XVIII 9. Which hath had no husband To take care of her Funeral which her Brother therefore though a Priest might It is commonly observed that there is no mention here of his Wife But Maimonides with great reason thinks it was lawful for him to mourn for her but it was needless to mention her who by the Law of God was dearer to him than Father or Mother And there is this Argument for it that Ezekiel who was a Priest is forbidden by a special command to mourn for his Wife which otherwise he would have done XXIV 16 c. Ver. 4. Verse 4 But he shall not defile himself being a chief man among his people But though he might defile himself for such very near Relations yet he might not for the greatest Man in the Nation who was not so near of kin to him This seems to me to be the easiest and the most natural sense of this Verse by adding the particle lamed which in the two foregoing Verses is put before Mother Father Son Daughter Brother and Sister to Baal i. e. chief man as we translate it nothing being more usual than to omit such a particle which yet must be understood when it hath been often before-mentioned And thus the Vulgar Latin understands it And the sense is the same if we take it as our Translation seems to intend it But he shall not desile himself for any other being a chief man c. As for the Marginal Translation I can see no ground for it and there must be a greater Supplement by adding for his wife which one cannot well think is here forbidden as I observed on the foregoing Verse They also who translate it A chief Ruler shall not defile himself c. have still less reason the whole Discourse in this place being concerning the Priests To profane himself He himself in Sacred Offices being the greatest Person would have been prophaned i. e. rendred a common Man if he had mourned for any but those whom Nature had very closely linkt him unto Ver. 5. Verse 5 They shall not make baldness upon their head neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh Though they were allowed to mourn for some persons yet for none after this manner that is according to the Custom of certain Places in Chaldaea as Aben-Ezra glosses upon these words And he might have added also of the Egyptians among whose Ceremonies we find this in after times and it 's likely had been very ancient For Jul. Firmicus tells us in the beginning of his Book That in their Annual Lamentations of Osiris they were wont to shave their heads that they might bewail the miserable misfortune of their King by depriving themselves of the ornament of hair c. And he adds that they did tear their flesh and cut open the scars of their old wounds c. where Johan Wouver observes the same out of several other Authors And Plutarch in his Book of Superstition saith they generally used in mourning to be shaven whereas the Hebrews let their hair grow See X. 6. XIX 27. Ver. 6. Verse 6 They shall be holy unto their God Attend to their Office unto which they are peculiarly consecrated and not without great necessity be at any time unfitted for it And not profane the name of their God By doing as the common People did or rendring themselves uncapable to Minister unto the LORD as they were when they were any way defiled For the Offering of the LORD made by fire They attend upon his Altar where the Burnt-offerings Peace-offerings and all the rest were offered And the bread of their God do they offer The word And is not in the Hebrew and the sense will be clearer if it be left out The offering of the LORD made by fire being called The bread of their God i. e. his Meat or Food For the Altar was his Table and what was burnt thereon was in the Nature of his Provision which in the Scripture Language is comprehended under the name of Bread So Solomon Jarchi saith whatsoever may be eaten is called bread See III. 11. Thus Fruit is called Bread XI Jer. 19. and Milk XXVII Prov. 27. and Honey 1 Sam. XIV 28. And therefore no wonder the Sacrifices are here called by that name and by Malachi his Meat or Food III. 12. Which phrase is used as the Author of Sepher Cosri well observes to keep up the Notion that God dwelt gloriously and kept House among them Pars II. cap. 26. Ver. 7. Verse 7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore All incestuous Marriages were as much forbidden Priests as any other Men. But besides here are three sorts of Persons whom it was unlawful for a common Priest to marry though there was no Kindred between them The first is a Whore whereby the Hebrew Doctors understand not only one that was a common Prostitute but one that was not an Israelite or an Israelitish Woman with whom a Man had lain whom it was unlawful for her to marry Which comprehends not only all such as are forbidden in the XVIIIth Chapter of this Book but those also in XXIII Deut. 2 3. See Selden de Successionibus Lib. II. cap. 2. 3. and Vxor Hebraica Lib. I. cap. 7. Lib. III. cap. 23. Or profane A Woman was accounted so as he shows in the same place who was either descended from such a Person as is before-mentioned or who was born of such a Conjunction as is here forbidden to a Priest And there are those who think it may be understood of one that had been consecrated to a false Deity whom she served with the use of her Body which she exposed to the Worshippers of that Deity Who though she afterwards repented and became good yet a Priest was not to marry her no more than an ordinary Whore But the simplest meaning of these three seems to be that they should not marry one that had prostituted her Body or that had been any way vitiated though against her will or was of suspected Chastity or as it follows was devorced from her Husband Neither shall they take a Woman put away from her Husband For commonly Women were put away for some fault as Abarbanel notes and were presumed not to be such as a Priest should desire To the same purpose Procopius Gazaeus A Priest saith he should not only fly from manifest Evils as Fornication but decline whatsoever may blemish his Fame now
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
â—hen they were all carried Captive they only numbred the rest of every seventh year without any Jubile It shall be a Jubile unto you Whence this year hath the name of Jobel there are so many Opinions that Bochartus himself scarce knew which to follow Josephus saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty and the LXX and Aquila translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remission having a regard to the thing rather than to the import of the word Jobel which never signifies any thing of that nature D. Kimchi tell us that R. Akiba when he was in Arabia heard them call a Ram by this name of Jobel and thence some fancy this year was so called because it was proclaimed with Trumpets of Rams-horns But what if there were no such Trumpets as Bochart thinks there were not these Horns being not hollow See Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 43. p. 425 c. where several other Opinions are confuted The most probable that I meet withal is that it was called Jobel from the peculiar sound which was made with the Trumpet when this year was proclaimed For the Trumpet blowing for several purposes viz. to call their Assemblies together to give notice of the moving of their Camps to excite Souldiers to fight and to proclaim this year there was a distinct sound for all these ends that People might not be confounded but have a certain notice what the Trumpet sounded for And this sound mentioned before v. 9. was peculiarly called Jobel as Hottinger thinks who considers a great many other Opinions in his Analecta Dissert III. wherein he follows Joh. Forsterus who near an hundred years before observed that Jobel which we commonly translate Trumpet XIX Exod. 13. and other places doth not signifie the Instrument it self but the sound that it made And when it is used absolutely alone it signifies this year which was called Jobel from that sound which was then made as the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called Pesach from the Angel passing over them when he slew the Egyptians The Opinions of the Hebrew Writers about it are collected and largely represented by Josephus de Voisin Lib. I. de Jubilaeo cap. 1. And ye shall return every man unto his possession Unto his Field or his House which his Poverty had forced him to sell but now was restored to him without any price because they were not sold absolutely but only till this year By which means the Estates of the Israelites were so fixed that no Family could ruin it self or grow too rich For this Law provided against such Changes revoking once in fifty years all Alienations and setting every one in the same Condition wherein they were at the first By which means Ambition was retrenched and every Man applied himself with affection to the improvement of his Inheritance knowing it could never go out of his Family And this application was the more diligent because it was a religious duty founded upon this Law of God And ye shall return every man unto his family From which he had been estranged by being sold to another Family either by himself or by his Father or by the Court of Judgment So here are two parts of the liberty fore-named more expresly declared Their Land which was alienated returned to the first Owner and such as were sold for Servants into another Family came home again to their own Family being freed from their Servitude Which was a figure of that acceptable year of the LORD as St. Luke calls it IV. 19. in the Prophet Isaiah's Language wherein our blessed Saviour preached Deliverance to all Mankind The Jews themselves are not so stupid as to thinâ— nothing further was intended but only freedom from bodily Servitude in this year of Jubile for Abarbanel himself in this very Verse indeavours to discover something of a Spiritual Happiness For the former part of the words now mentioned Ye shall return every man to his possession he saith belong to the Body but the latter part And every man unto his family belongs to the Soul and its return to God So several others whom J. de Voisin produces in the forenamed Book cap. 2. And if our Dr. Lightfoot hath made a right Computation the last year of the Life of our Saviour who by his Death wrought an Eternal Redemption and restored us to our heavenly Inheritance fell in the year of Jubile the very last that was ever kept For if we count from the end of the Wars of Canaan which was seven years after they came into it and I do not know why we should not think they began to number then and not seven years after as Maimonides would have it there were just fourteen hundred years to the thirty third of Jesus Christ that is just XXVIII Jubiles And it is the Confession of the old Book called Zohar as he observes That the Divine Glory should be freedom and redemption in a year of Jubile See Harmony of the New Testament sect 59. And Vsserij Chronologia Sacra cap. 13. Ver. 11. Verse 11 A Jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you It is a question whether the year of Jubile was the year following the forty ninth year or the forty ninth year was the Jubile which reckoning the foregoing Jubile for one was the fiftieth year Josephus Scaliger in his fifth Book de Emend Temporum and several other great Men are of this last opinion to avoid a great inconvenience which otherwise would ensue viz. That the forty ninth year being the Sabbatical year in which the Land was to rest if the next year to that had been the Jubile two Sabbatical years would have come immediately one after another for the Land was to rest in the year of Jubile as it here follows One would have expected therefore that in the forty eighth year there should have been a special Promise that the Land should bring forth Fruit for four years and not for three only as the Blessing is promised every sixth year v. 21. Thus Jacobus Capellus reasons in his Historia Sacra Exotica ad A. M. 2549. But others think this Objection not to be so great as to make them depart from the letter of this Law which saith v. 10. Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year and here in this Verse A Jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you Though a very learned Man P. Cunaeus thinks this is of no great moment either way for it is usual in common speech Septimanam octidum appellare and Hospinian in like manner we call a Week octiduum eight days because we reckon utramque Dominicam both the LORD's days And the greatest Writers anciently called an Olympiad which contained but the space of four compleat years by the name of Quinquennium See Lib. I. de Republ. Judaeorum cap. 6. Yet besides the express words of the Law the Consent of the Jews sways very much the other way for they accurately distinguish between the Schemitta or Year of
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