Prince of the Tribe of Judah VI. 23. For it is but a fancy of R. Solomon's that he is therefore called the Levite because the Levitical Order should have proceeded from him and the Priesthood been entailed on Moses his Family but because of Moses his backwardness to serve God in this present Imployment he in anger quite changed his Intention and advanced Aaron to the Priesthood I know that he can speak well Is Eloquent and can deliver his Mind in fluent words There are two things which compleat a Commander as Pericles speaks in Theucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom and Eloquence which do not often meet in one Person but God is pleased to distribute these Gifts as he did to these two Brethren So Polydamas in Homer tells Hector God's way is not to give all Accomplishments to one Man but some to one and some to others Iliad IV. v. 730. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which he expresses admirably again Odyss Θ v. 168. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold he cometh forth to meet thee c. By God's direction no doubt who suggested to him that Moses was coming by his order towards Egypt which was such comfortable News to him that when he saw him after such a long Separation it could not but be a very joyful Meeting The fulfilling of this Prediction was a new sign unto Moses that God would be with him Ver. 15. And thou shalt speak unto him and put words in his mouth Tell him from me what he is to speak And I will be with thy mouth and with his mouth Thou shalt have Directions from me what to say to him and I will enable him to speak to the People and to Pharaoh And will teach you what you shall do Instruct you in all your Proceedings Ver. 16. And he shall be thy spokesman to the People Acquaint them with what thou hast to deliver to them And he shall be even he to thee He doubles the words to denote that he should need no other Assistant but Aaron who being his Brother he might the more securely rely on his fidelity Instead of a mouth To speak what thou canst not so well deliver thy self And thou shalt be to him instead of God Deliver my Mind and Will to him The Chaldee translates the Hebrew word Elohim in this place a Prince or a Judge who hath the Power of Life and Death See Grotius in VII Acts 35. and L. de Dieu VII 1. For Moses by God's order and appointment executed all those Judgments upon Pharaoh which Aaron pronounced See Selden L. I. de Synedr cap. ult If Justin Martyr did not misapprehend Diodorus Siculus he saith the Jews called Moses a God For so he reports Diodorus his words Adhort ad Graecos p. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which now are otherways in the Books of Diodorus Edit Steph. p. 59. where mentioning several Lawgivers that pretended to receive their Laws from God or some good Angel names Moses among the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who received his from the God called Jao So they pronounced that Name which we call Jehovah Ver. 17. And thou shalt take this Rod in thy hand The Rod mentioned v. 2. which is v. 20. called The Rod of God because it was an Ensign of Divine Authority and Power by which all the wonders were wrought Wherewith thou shalt do signs By stretching out so mean a thing as this Rod at God's Command great Miracles followed which demonstrated the Power of God and not of Man Ver. 18. And Moses went and returned From Horeb where he had all his Converse with God he returned to the Place where his Father in Law lived See v. 1. To Jethro In the Hebrew his Name is written Jether And the Tradition is in Semoth Rabba that he was once a Gentile and then his Name was Jether but being proselyted to the true Religion there was a Letter added to his Name as there was to Abrahant's and he was called Jethro And Mr. Selden observes he is called a Proselyte in the Gemaru Babylon and the first we sind mentioned in Scripture L. 2. de Jure N. G. c. 2. And said unto him let me go I pray thee He did not think it honest to leave his Service without his consent especially since he entertain'd him and gave him his Daughter when he was a Stranger to him And return unto my Brethren which are in Egypt To his Kindred and Country-men who called one another Brethren whom he had not seen many years And see whether they be yet alive He concealed his main design from Jethro not thinking it safe perhaps to trust him who though a good Man was not an Hebrew with his Commission or fearing he might discourage him from that Undertaking which he had already too much declined but now was fully resolved upon and therefore loth to be again disheartned It may seem strange that Moses in so long a course of time as Forty years should not have heard of the state of his Relations and Friends But it is to be considered that as he was afraid perhaps it should be known where he was so intercourse with Nations and very far distant was not so easie then as it is now adays And Jethro said to Moses go in peace He dismist him kindly and wisht him a prosperous Journey Ver. 19. And the LORD said to Moses in Midian Some translate it the LORD had said c. to show the Reason why he now desired to have leave to visit his Friends in Egypt However that be it is plain this was a distinct Appearance of God to him from that in Horeb for this was in Midian Where God who had set him no precise time before enjoyns him to be gone presently and assures him that there were none left in Egypt who designed to be revenged of him for the slaughter of the Egyptian So it follows For all the men are dead which sought thy life This is an incouragement which God reserved as a Reward of his Obedience having said nothing of it during the time of his Hesitancy and Reluctance Ver. 20. And Moses took his Wife and his Sons We read hitherto but of one Son born to him but it is plain he had another from XVIII 4. He carried his whole Family with him to let his Brethren see he was so confident of their Deliverance that he ventured not only himself but his dearest Relations in their Society And set them upon an Ass One Ass could not carry them all with every thing necessary for their removal therefore the singular number as is very usual is put for the plural Though one Ass might perhaps carry her and two Children one of which if not the other was very small See Drusius Quaestiones per Epistol 86. and Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra Asses are vile Creatures here with us but they were
Moses as they seem to me to be And said surely a bloody Husband art thou to me If the foregoing Interpretation be true these are not the words of an angry Woman but spoken with great affection signifying that she had espoused him again having saved his Life by the Blood of her Son Our famous Mr. Mede indeed Discourse XIV carries the Sense quite another way because an Husband he saith is never called Chatan after the Marriage Solemnity was over Which if it be true makes nothing against what I have said because she lookt upon her self as a second time espoused or married to him by this act which had restored him to her when his Life was in danger It must be granted that the word Chatan doth not signifie only a Spouse but sometime a Son in Law but why Zipporah should call her own Child by this Name I do not see Yet so Mr. Mede understands it and adds that the Rabbins tell us it was the custom of the Hebrew Women to call their Children when they were Circumcised by the Name of Chatan i. e. Spouse as if they were now espoused unto God And indeed Aben-Ezra saith so but I cannot find that this was an ancient Notion among them If it were his Interpretation might be the more easily embraced which is this That these were a solemn form of words used at Circumcision signifying as much as I pronounce thee to be a Member of the Church by Circumcision Thus Val. Schindler also expounds it in his Lexic Pentaglot p. 677. a Child was called Chatan upon the Day of his Circumcision because then he was first joyned to the People of God and as it were espoused unto God And he thinks the Targum countenances this Sense when it thus expounds these words by this Blood of Circumcision a Spouse is given to us Which may as well be understood of Moses being given to her as of the Child for he was as I said restored to her and to his Family upon the Circumcision of the Child So it follows in the next Verse They that have a mind to see the Sense of an eminent Writer of our Church concerning this Passage may consult Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity Book V. in the latter end of the LXII Section where he thus far agrees with me that these words were spoken out of the flowing of abundance of Commiseration and Love with her hands laid under his feet For so he thinks these words She cast it at his feet import Ver. 26. So he let him go i. e. The Angel no longer threatned Moses with death but his Wife to her great joy saw him restored to her in safety From which in after times sprang the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were so famous among the Greeks and Egyptians in the Feasts of Bacchus and Osiris whose Stories Huetius hath lately shown were framed out of this of Moses From whence also as he probably conjectures they used Remedies for Diseases in forma fascini which they hung as Amulets about their Childrens Necks Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. Cap. IV. n. 3. Then she said or when she said a bloody Husband thou art c. i. e. As soon as Zipporah had Circumcised the Child and thrown the Foreskin at her Husband's feet and said these words Moses was delivered from his danger Or according to our Translation as soon as her Husband was safe she repeated the foregoing words saying I have redeemed thy life by circumcising thy Son They that make these words to have been spoken in a rage because she was forced to do what she did suppose her to have had little kindness for her Husband and as little regard to Circumcision I should rather Translate the words So she let him go i. e. let Moses go to Egypt and went back her self to her Father only repeating these words before she went Remember me how I have saved thy Life and made thee my Husband again when Death was at hand by the Blood of thy Son whom I have Circumcised There is only this Exception to it that the Hebrew word for let him go is of the Masculine Gender which is of no great weight because it is usual in this Language when they speak of Females as I observed on I. 21. and it is certain she returned to her Father but whether in this manner no Body can certainly determine For we are not told any where upon what occasion she went back to Jethro unless it be here insinuated as we find she did XVIII 2. together with her Children But it is very probable that she fearing some other danger into which she and her Children might fall by the way or in Egypt might desire Moses to send her home again till he had finished the work he went about unto which he consented Ver. 27. And the LORD said unto Aaron In Egypt I suppose he received this order from God but we do not know how whether by an Apparition of the Divine Majesty to him or in a Dream or otherways Go into the Wilderness to meet Moses The Wilderness was a wide place therefore he directed him no doubt into what part he should go And he went and met him in the Mount of God He went almost to Midian that he might have the more time to hear what Moses's Commission was before they came to Egypt Ver. 28. And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD c. Mentioned III. 6 7 8 c. and in this Chapter 14 15 16 c. And all the signs c. See v. 2 3 c. which he told him to confirm his belief that God had spoken those words to him Ver. 29. And Moses and Aaron went Came into Egypt And gathered together all the Elders of the Children of Israel The chief Persons in every Tribe who bore a great sway among them See III. 16. Ver. 30. And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses According to what God had promised v. 15 16. And did the signs The Signs are done by Moses as the Words were spoken by Aaron v. 17. In the sight of all the People Who came along with the Elders Ver. 31. And the People believed All the rest of the People also to whom the Elders reported what they had heard and seen believed that God had sent Moses to be their Deliverer And when they heard that the LORD had visited c. See III. 7 16 17. Then they bowed their heads and worshipped Most humbly acknowledged the Goodness of God and his Faithfulness to his Word CHAP. V. Verse 1. AND afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh When they had convinced the Elders of Israel of their Commission they desired Audience of Pharaoh Which having obtained they went to Court taking some of the Elders along with them to attend them Which is not a meer Conjecture from the decency of the thing that they should go alone on such a Solemn Embassy but so they were commanded
was ordered upon the tenth of the Month Abib On which day they begun to prepare for the Passover by taking up the Lamb which was to be then slain four days after And God appointed this to be the first Month of the Year which hitherto had been the seventh XII 2 3 4. Ver. 23. They saw not one another We may well look upon this as an Emblem of the Blindness of their Minds which was so great that they had not the least discerning of their approaching Destruction Some of the Romans mention such Darkness for a short time as was counted prodigious by Livy and Julius Obsequens Particularly at the Death of the Emperour Carus there was such a Mist that one man could not know another See more Examples in Huetius L. II. Alnet Quaest c. 12. p. 203 c. But of such a Darkness as this which continued to obscure all things three days together there is no Record but in this Sacred Story Which no Man hath the least reason to disbelieve it being as easie for God to continue it for three days as for one hour there being also a very great reason for it both to punish the Egyptians and relieve the Israelites Neither rose any from his place None stir'd out of their Houses for they could not see one another within Doors no not by the help of a Candle or a Fire as the Author of the Book of Wisdom understood it XVII 5. where he also supposes that they were affrighted with Apparitions and their own evil Consciences were also a great Terrour to them while they remained Prisoners so long in dismal Darkness And the Psalmist justifies him in part when instead of mentioning this Plague of Darkness as he doth the rest which were inflicted on the Egyptians he saith God sent evil Angels among them LXXVIII Psal 49. But all the Children of Israel had light in their dwellings Whereby they were inabled to go about their business and get all things ready for their departure without any notice of the Egyptians much less any hindrance from them who were in a Mist and could not see what they were a doing Ver. 24. And Pharaoh called unto Moses He was so terrified by the horrible Apparitions he had seen that at the end of the three days of Darkness he sent a Messenger to call Moses for before that time none could find their way to him Or perhaps the meaning may be that in his ravening sit he called for Moses as if he had been near him And said When Moses came he made his former Confession a little larger but had not the heart to comply intirely Go ye serve the LORD only let the Flocks and the Herds be stayed c. It was a perfect infatuation to higgle as we speak with Moses and still drive his Bargain as low as he could when he was reduced to such Distress that he was upon the brink of Destruction But this was the effect of his Covetousness which was incurable and would not suffer him to part with them but still to keep a Pawn for their Return to his Servitude Let your little ones go with you His Blindness made him think this a great Condescention because he had denied it before v. 10. Ver. 25. And Moses said Thou must give us also Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings that me may Sacrifice c. The difference between Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings See XVIII 12. As they were to Sacrifice to the LORD their God which was the Service he required so they were to hold a Feast unto him at which both Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings were necessary Ver. 26. Our Cattle also shall go with us i. e. Therefore we cannot leave our Cattle here because we must use them in Sacrifices c. There shall not an Hoof he left behind i. e. The smallest thing For this was a Proverbial Speech in the Eastern Countries as appears by the like saying among the Arabians which was first used about Horses and afterwards translated to other things Present Money even to an Hoof That is they would not part with an Horse or any other Commodity till the Buyer had laid down the price of it to a Farthing as we now speak Or according to the present German Language the Hoof may be put for the whole Beast and the meaning be we will not leave so much as one behind us So Conr. Pellicanus For thereof must we take to serve the LORD our God To offer Sacrifice to him And we know not with what we must serve the LORD c. Who was to appoint his own Sacrifices as he afterwards did when they came into the Wilderness Ver. 27. But the LORD hardned Pharaoh's heart c. He did not incline Pharaoh to comply with this motion but suffered him to persist in his Obstinate Resolution not quite to part with them See v. 20. Ver. 28. And Pharaoh said unto him Get thee from me This sounds as if he intended again to have him driven from his Presence as v. 11. so soon did he forget his own humble Confessions and Supplications to him v. 16 17. and returned to his frantick Rage and Fury against him Take heed to thy self see my face no more for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die A Speech more foolish than proud as Dr. Jackson observes to come from a Man whom the LORD had so much impoverished and so often humbled and given sufficient Proofs of his Power not only to bring greater Plagues immediately upon him but to cut him off Ver. 29. And Moses said Thou hast spoken well I will see thy face again no more That is unless I be called for as one would think he was because Moses did deliver one Message more to him XI 4 8. Though we may suppose he delivered it now or that he did not deliver it himself but by some other Person But that doth not agree with the last words of v. 8. of the next Chapter And we read also XII 31. that Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night who perhaps did not go but only receive his Message CHAP. XI Verse 1. AND the LORD said unto Moses It is uncertain when the LORD spake this I suppose it was as soon as he came out from Pharaoh at the end of the three days Darkness which continued the eleventh twelfth and thirteenth of the Month Abib and on the fourteenth in the Morning Moses received this new Revelation Yet I will bring one Plague more upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt The killing of their First-born which was the last Plague inflicted on them in Egypt Afterwards he will let you go hence c. Not only consent to dismiss you intirely but be earnest with you and urge you to depart So we find it came to pass XII 31 33. Thrust you out altogether Perfectly and compleatly with some kind of compulsion Ver. 2. Speak now in the ears of the Children of Israel Give order therefore to the Israelites as I
Sabbath therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days You have no reason to seek it on the Sabbath being provided before-hand with as much as is sufficient for that day Let no man go out of his place The Jews say that a Man went out of his place if he went above Two thousand paces from his dwelling That is if he went beyond the Suburbs of his City XXXV Numb 5. Ver. 30. So the people rested on the seventh day The Reprehension which God gave them by Moses v. 28. and the solemn renewal of the Precept v. 29. wrought so much upon them that for the present they rested upon this day And they not having been used to this rest God did not immediately punish their Disobedience in going abroad to gather Manna though afterward he ordered a Man to be stoned for gathering Sticks on this day for he had often repeated this Law to them before that time Ver. 31. And the House of Israel called the name thereof Manna This is repeated again to show that the name which they gave it at first v. 15. continued to it afterward being so apt and proper to signifie God's Providence over them that they could find no better And it was like Coriander Seed Of a round sigure like that Seed v. 14. White Being like Bedolach as Moses saith XI Numb 7. which signifies Pearl as Bochartus shows in his Hierozoic P. II. p. 678. where he observes the Talmudick Doctors in the Title Joma expresly say it was like Margalith or Margarith i.e. Pearl The taste of it was like Wafers made with honey All things of a pleasant relish are compared in Scripture to Honey Whence those words of David XIX Psalm 11. CXIX 103. Onkelos saith Manna tasted like Escaritae which was a delicious Food at Rhodes as Bochart observes out of Julius Pollux between Bread and Cake like our Bisket I suppose which was so grateful that they who did eat it were never satiated but still desired more In the XI Numb 7 8. Manna is said to taste like fresh Oyl Which doth not contradict this for as Abarbinel and others observe the meaning is that when it first fell before it was prepared it tasted like Honey-wafers but when it was baked then it tasted like fresh Oyl And so the words XI Numb 8. plainly import they took it and beat it in a Mortar and baked it c. and the taste of it i. e. thus prepared was like the taste of fresh Oyl Nay the Jewish Doctors commonly say it had all manner of pleasant savours according to Mens different Palates and thence they fancy it is called v. 29. the Bread Mischne which we translate of two days because it was changed according to the diversity of those that did eat it Children young men and old Which conceit the Author of the Book of Wisdom follows XVI 20 21. Ver. 32. And Moses said This is the thing which the LORD commandeth I have this further Command to deliver from God concerning the Manna Take an Omer of it Just so much as was assigned to every one for his daily Bread v. 16. To be kept for your Generations For your Posterity in future Ages That they may see the Bread wherewith I have fed you c. For seeing with ones eyes saith Isaac Aramah mightily confirms a thing and leaves one in no doubt of it And he took care they should see both the Manna it self and the measure which he bountifully allowed to every one of them Ver. 33. And Moses said unto Aaron What God commanded Moses he now commands Aaron to do Take a Pot. He saith nothing of the matter of this Pot or Vrn which some say was an Earthen Pot others say of Lead Brass or Iron and Abarbinel thinks it was of Glass that one might see what was within But the Apostle hath setled this Controversie by calling it a Golden Pot IX Hebr. 4. and so do the LXX in this place And indeed all the Vessels of the Sanctuary being of Gold it was but reason that this which contained such a precious Monument of God's Mercy should be of the same Metal Lay it up before the LORD i.e. Before the Ark of the Testimony as it is explained in the next Verse Which shows that this Command was given after the building of the Tabernacle and is here mentioned because it belongs to the same matter which Moses relates in this Chapter Others suppose it was spoken by way of Prolepsis which seems not to me so probable Ver. 34. So Aaron laid it up When the Tabernacle was built Before the Testimony This is the same with before the LORD in the foregoing Verse For the Divine Glory dwelt between the Cherubims which were over the Ark which is commonly called the Ark of the Testimony XXX 6. XL. 3 5. But here and XXV 36. is simply called the Testimony by an Ellipsis or leaving out the first word which is very usual in other Instances For thus it is called the Ark of God's strength 2 Chron. VI. 41. but elsewhere the first word being omitted it is called only his strength LXXVIII Psalm 61. CV 4. And therefore the Ark is called the Testimony partly because there God gave them a special Token of his Dwelling among them and partly because the two Tables of Stone were in the Ark which are called the Testimony XL. 20. Where it is said Moses put the Testimony into the Ark and then immediately v. 21. he calls it the Ark of the Testimony Ver. 35. And the Children of Israel did eat Manna forty years Within a Month which wanted to make compleat forty years For it begun to fall just XXX days after they came out of Egypt on the XVth of April and ceased to fall on the XVth or XVIth of March the day after the Passover which they kept in the Fortieth year V Josh 11 12. Now in all Writers some days under or over are not wont to be considered when there is a round Number But there are those who fancy these words were put into this Book after Moses his death for which I can see no ground For it is certain he lived the greatest part of the Fortieth year after they came out of Egypt and brought them to the Borders of Canaan within sight of it I Dent. 3. XXXIV 1 2 c. And therefore may well be supposed to have added these words himself to this History as he did the foregoing v. 32. that all belonging to this matter might be put together in one place Vntil they came to a Land inhabited i. e. To Canaan or the Borders of it as it here follows For these words saith Aben-Ezra have respect to the Wilderness in which they now were which was not inhabited Vntil they came unto the Borders of the Land of Canaan That is saith he to Gilgal which was the Borders when they had passed over Jordan when they did eat of the Corn of the Land and had no
days the Lord made Heaven and Earth There were two reasons for the Sanctification of this day One was because God rested from his Work of Creation on the Seventh day which is mentioned here the other was because he had given them rest from their Labours in Egypt which he mentions in the Vth of Deuteronomy There is no body hath explained both these better than Maimonides More Nevoch P. II. c. 31. There are two different Causes saith he for this Precept from two different Effects For when Moses first explained to us the cause of this Celebration in the Promulgation of the X. Commandments he saith it was because in six days the LORD made Heaven and Earth But in the repetition of them he saith Remember that thou was a servant in Egypt c. therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day V Deut. 15. The first Cause is the Glory and Magnificence of this day as it is said Therefore the LORD blessed the seventh day and sancified it II Gen. 3. This was the effect of that Cause for in six days he made Heaven and Earth this was the reason he means of the first Institution of the Sabbath but that he gave this Precept of the Sabbath unto us i.e. the Israelites and commanded us to observe it was from the other Cause which followed the first Cause because we were Servants in Egypt All which time we could not serve according to our own Will and Pleasure nor had any Rest or observed a Sabbath And therefore God gave us this special Precept of Resting and Cessation from Labours to joyn together these two Reasons viz. the belief of the beginning of the World which presently suggests to us the Being of God and then the memory of Gods Benefits unto us in giving us Rest from our intolerable Burdens in Egypt Wherefore he blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it In the beginning of the World he blessed the Seventh day II Gen. 3. and now particularly chose this Seventh day for a Sabbath which he ordered them to observe in memory of their coming out of Egypt on that day as I observed XVI 5 23. By which he preserved in their minds that singular Benefit which he had bestowed upon them and most manifestly saith Maimonides in another place P. III. c. 43. procured great ease to all sorts of Men by freeing a seventh part of their Lives from wearisom Labour Which hath another Blessing in conjunction with it that it perpetually preserved and confirmed that most precious History and Doctrine concerning the Creation of the World Ver. 12. Honour thy Father and thy Mother In another place they are commanded to fear them XIX Lev. 3. and as here the Father is put before the Mother so there the Mother is put before the Father to show as Maimonides takes it in his Treatise called Memarim c. 6. that we ought not to make any difference between them but they are both equally to be honoured and reverenced Which is a Duty of such great concernment that we are taught by the placing of this Commandment immediately after those which peculiarly relate to God's Worship that next to his Majesty our Parents are to be honoured with that reverence love obedience and maintenance which is due to them And therefore notorious disobedience to them is threatned with death as well as Apostacy from God Wherein this honour or fear doth consist is taught in all Books of Religion and Mr. Selden hath named a great many things wherein the Jews place it as the Learned Reader may see L. II. de Synedr c. 13. p. 558 c. I shall only add that this was a Law among the Heathens mentioned by Saleucus Charondas and others in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Children honour their Parents And thus Vlpian expresses it Filio semper honesta sancta persona Patris videri debet And afterward Filium Patrem Matrem venerari oportet With much more that Hen. Stephanus hath collected in his Fontes Rivi Juris Civilis That thy days may be long in the Land c. As disobedience to Parents is by the Law of Moses threatned to be punished with death so on the contrary long Life which is the greatest worldly Blessing is promised to the Obedient and that in their own Country which God had peculiarly inriched with abundance of his Blessings Heathens also gave the very same incouragement saying that such Children should be dear to the Gods both living and dead So Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this famous Senarius mention'd by the fame Henr. Stephanus with many other notable Passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt live long or as long as thou canst desire if thou nourish thy ancient Parents Whence children are called by Xenophon and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 13. Thou shalt not kill After the Command about the respect due to Parents naturally follows the regard we ought to have to all other Men who spring from them And the greatest injury we can do another is to take away his Life whereby he is deprived of all the Enjoyments of this World and Humane Society it self is also wounded which cannot subsist if its innocent Members cannot be safe Innocent I say for this Commandment doth not hinder Men from defending themselves from violence XXII 2. nor forbids Magistrates to punish those with death who commit Crimes worthy of it for this is to preserve the Lives of other Men XXII 18 19 20. Ver. 14. Thou shalt not commit Adultery Next to a Man's self his Wife is nearer to him than any other Person they two being one flesh Which makes the injury done to him in her Person a breach of Humane Society next to Murder Nay the LXX place this Commandment before the other Thou shalt not kill Vertuous Woman valuing their Chastity more than their Lives and the Crimes to which meer Pleasure tempts Men being more grievous in the opinion of the great Philosopher than those to which they are stimulated by anger Whoredom is also forbidden in the Law of Moses and Incest as Wounding any Man is as well as Murder but in these X. Words which are a short Abridgment of their Duty it was sufficient only to mention the principal things of every kind which were hateful to God and injurious to Men. Ver. 15. Thou shalt not steal This was to injure Men in their Goods and Possessions either by open Rapine or by Craft and Cheating against which God intended to secure them by this Precept Several sorts of this Sin are afterwards mentioned in particular Laws Ver. 16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbour As our Neighbour is not to be injured by us in Deeds so not in Words by giving a false Testimony against him before a Judge which is the chief Sin of this kind This is both an injury to our Neighbour and an affront to God in whose place
this place CHAP. XXI Verse 1. NOW these are the Judgments thou shalt set before them By Judgments are meant such Political Laws which God thought fit to give for the determination of Differences among the People and that they might be justly and peaceably governed Which though they were not spoken with such Pomp and Majesty as the X. Commandments were and much less were the Ceremonial Precepts delivered with such solemnity yet the Israelites believed that they came from the same Authority though spoken to Moses in the Mount privately and not in the audience of all the People as appears by their submission to these no less than to the other Laws And there was great reason for it it being their own desire not to hear God's voice any more but to be instructed by Moses what God required and they promised to obey it XX. 19. Ver. 2. If thou buy an Hebrew Servant c. Or a Slave Some Persons sold themselves by reason of Poverty of which sort the Hebrews understand that Law XXV Lev. 39. Others were sold by the Court of Judgment which was in case of a Theft they had committed for which not being able to make Satisfaction unto him that had received the Damage they were condemned to be his Servants Of these they interpret this place and XV Deut. 12. But this Sale they say did not extend to both Sexes for a Woman was not to be sold for Theft In the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing If the Damage was so great that his six years Service had not satisfied for it yet he was not to be kept longer And his Servitude also might end sooner by Manumission or Redemption or the Death of his Master if he were a Gentile or a Proselyte Nay if he were an Hebrew his Death put an end to it in case he left no Son And his Master also was bound to maintain his Wife and Children if he had any all this time giving them Food Raiment and a Dwelling though they were not to be his Servants See Mr. Selden L. VI. de Jure N. G. c. 7. It is remarkable that he sets this Law in the first place because Mercy next to Piety is the most excellent Vertue and God would have his People saith R. Levi Barzelonita adorned with and full of the noblest qualities which are Benignity and Mercy This Year of Release also being a Sacred Year the whole Land being Holy to the LORD so that no Man might challenge any Right or Propriety in it to sow his Field or reap that which grew of it self c. it was Sacriledge for any Master to keep a Servant from his Freedom when the Year came which was the LORD's Release as we read expresly XXV Lev. and XV Deut. Whence it was that because the Jews were so prophane as to break this Law and not give their Servants liberty as we read in the XXXIVth of Jeremiah God punished them with a Captivity of LXX years in which the Land lay waste till it had fulfilled the Years of Rest which they would not observe as Mr. Mede hath truly noted Discourse XXVI latter end Ver. 3. If he come in by himself c. That is a single Man without a Wife so he was to depart But if he was a married Man when he was sold as the Master was not to let his Wife and Children want Food and Raiment and Habitation while he continued his Slave so when he was free he was not to meddle with them or detain them from their Father and Husband XXV Lev. 41. Ver. 4. If his Master have given him a Wife Unto such a Servant as this who was sold by the Court of Judgment his Master might give a Gentile-Maid to Wife and no other Hebrew but such as he might marry a Gentile that he might beget Children of her who were to be the Masters Servants or Slaves for ever The Hebrew Doctors say the Master could not do this unless such a Servant had a lawful Wife and Children before of his own who were not to be kept from him but he might beget Children for himself as well as for his Master who could not impose upon him more than one Maid-servant to be his Wife He that sold himself also was not subject to this Law But as his Master could not impose a Wife of this sort upon him so neither was he bound when the Servant went free to bestow any Gift upon him which was due only to him that was sold by the Court for Theft XV Deut. 12. to whom the ancient Jews say he was to give thirty shekels And she have born him Sons or Daughters During his Service The Wife and Children shall be his Masters c. For the Wife was a Slave as well as himself when he married her And she was given to Wife meerly that he might beget Slaves of her Who therefore continued with the Master as well as their Mother when the Man had his Liberty for they were not so much his as his Masters Goods who had such a power over them that he might Circumcise them as he did his own Children without their consent See Selden L. VI. de Jure N. G. c. 7. and de Vxore Hebr. L. I. c. 6. p. 39. Ver. 5. And if the Servant shall plainly say In the Hebrew the words are saying shall say i.e. Stand in it as we speak and stedfastly resolve by saying it not in a fit but constantly I love my Master my Wife and my Children c. If his love to such a Wife and Children who were not properly his own was greater than his Love to Liberty which made him still desire their Company and choose to stay with his Master who had been so good to him Ver. 6. His Master shall bring him to the Judges That it might appear he was not fraudulently or forcibly detained against the Law but with his own consent or rather at his desire He shall also bring him to the door or the door-post After the Case had been heard and the Judges had given Sentence And his Master shall bore his ear through with an awl In token that he was now affixed to his House and might not so much as step over the Threshold without his leave but be obedient to his will for ever This is to be understood only of one that was sold by the Court not of him that sold himself And though the Hebrews take this to have been a mark of Infamy set upon a Man who chose Servitude before Liberty yet it being chosen out of love to his Master I cannot think that they intended by this Act to disgrace him But look upon it only as a solemn Addiction of him to his Master's Service which was done it is likely in the presence of the Judges This Custom of boring the Ears of Slaves lasted a long time after this in Syria and Arabia as Bochartus shows out of Juvenal Sat. 1. and Petronius L.
III Hierozoic c. 6. p. 1. He shall serve him for ever Till the Year of Jubilee or till his Master died for his Son was not to detain him when his Father was dead unless he would release him or he was redeemed Ver. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant Besides the two former sorts of Persons sold to be Servants there was a third here mentioned which is thus expounded by the Hebrews That she was to be a Virgin under Age that is less then XII years old and a day For if she was more than that it was not lawful for him to sell her and when she came to be of Age it put an end to her Servitude as well as the Year of Jubilee did or Redemption or the Death of her Master Besides her Father might not sell her unless he were reduced to extream Poverty If he did without such necessity he was forced by the Court of Judgment to Redeem her And she was not to be sold neither unless there were some hope her Master or his Son might take her to Wife She shall not go out as the men-servants do There were other and better Conditions for her than for the Servant mentioned v. 3 4. particularly her Master could not marry her to any Body but to himself or his Son Ver. 8. If she please not her Master who hath betrothed her to himself This shows she was sold to him upon the presumption he would take her for his Wife and there was such a previous agreement about this that there needed no other Espousals But if after this he changed his mind and did not like her enough to make her his Wise then God ordains as follows Then shall he let her be redeemed She was to serve her Master six years if she was sold for so long unless she was redeemed which her Master is here required not to refuse or manumitted or set free by the Year of Jubilee or by the Death of her Master or which was peculiar in this case the signs of her being ripe for Marriage appeared See Selden in the place before mentioned To sell her to a strange Nation he shall have no power No Man had power to sell an Hebrew Servant to one of another Nation And therefore by a strange People as the word is here in the Hebrew must be meant an Israelite of another family that was not of her Kindred nor had any right of Redemption Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her Frustrated her hope of marrying her Ver. 9. If he hath betrothed her to his Son Which was expected from him if he did not think fit to marry her himself he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters If the word he relate to the Father the meaning is he shall give her a Portion as if she were his own Daughter If it relate to the Son the meaning is he shall treat her like a Wife Ver. 10. If he take him another wife her food c. If after the Son had married her he took another Wife besides he was still to perform to this all those things that belong to a Wife viz. give her Food and Raiment and at certain times which were determined by Law in some Countries cohabit with her as her Husband From this place the Hebrews have made a general Rule that these three things are owing to all Wives from their Husbands viz. Alimony Clothes and the Conjugal Duty For howsoever the Vulgar Latin understand the last word the Hebrews generally take it for that which St. Paul calls due Benevolence 1 Cor. VII 3. See Selden de Vxor Hebr. L. III. c. 4. Now what was accounted Alimony and sufficient for Clothes he shows cap. 5. and what belongs to the other cap. 6. The Hebrew word Gonata which we translate duty of marriage properly relates to the stated and determined time wherein every thing is to be done and therefore here signifies the use of marriage certo tempore modo as Bochart hath well expounded it L. II. Canaan c. 11. Many indeed will have it derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an habitation as if it signified here the cohabitation of a Man with his Wife But Aben-Ezra rather refers it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time whence Gonat signifies the set and appointed time wherein every thing is done And so the Chaldee use the word goneta for the term prescribed to every thing as the same Author observes that it may be done in due time and manner Theodorick Hackspan thinks Moses here speaks of the Father to whom all the precedent and subsequent acts belong and not to the Son Ver. 11. And if he do not these three to her i. e. Neither marry her to himself nor to his Son nor suffer to be redeemed Then she shall go out free without money When she came of Age and was ripe for Marriage she was to be set free and pay nothing for her freedom Nay on the contrary he was to give her something as appears from XV Deut. 12 13 17. What the signs of Puberty were Mr. Selden shows Lib. de Successionibus c. 9. Ver. 12. He that smiteth a man so that he die That is commit wilful Murder as we now speak Shall surely be put to death Wheresoever we find this word Maveth death absolutely without any addition it always signifies strangling They are the words of R. Levi Barzelonita But the Jewish Doctors will not have this Law extend unto Proselytes of the Gate much less to Gentiles whom if any Israelite killed he was not to suffer death for it See Mr. Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. But Plato in his Book of Laws L. IX p. 872. hath determined more justly than these Rabbies that in the Case of Murder the same Laws should be for Strangers and for Citizens Ver. 13. And if a man lie not in wait Do not design to kill another But God deliver him into his hand But he happens as we speak to kill a Man by that action which aimed at another end This the Scripture expresses more religiously by acknowledging God in every thing that falls out who permits such things as are mentioned XIX Deut. 5. whereby a Man is killed without the intention of him who was about such actions Then I will appoint him a place whether he shall flee He may flee to one of the Places which I will appoint for his Security Which place the Jews say was the Camp of the Levites while they continued in the Wilderness but when they came to Canaan there were Cities appointed for this purpose as we read XXXV Numb 11 12. XIX Deut. 2 3 c. And there being several kinds of involuntary killing Men the Hebrews make these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Places of Refuge to belong only to one of them for the rest did not need them as Mr.
Selden shows L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 2. An Officer of Justice was not bound to flee if he chanced in the Execution of his Office to kill a Man that resisted him Nor a Master if he killed his Scholar or a Father his Son when he gave him Correction Ver. 14. But if a man come presumptuously The Vulgar Latin rightly translates it industriously or with design to kill him for it is opposed to ignorance The Hebrew word also carries in it a signification of boiling anger which doth not alter the Case For if a Man in the height of his Rage resolved to kill another and laid wait for him to execute his Design it was justly judged to be wilful Murder and punished with Death Which was far more equal than Plato's Law That such a Man should only be banished for three years as he that on a sudden killed a Man in his Anger only for two L. IX de Legibus p. 867. Vpon his Neighbour The Hebrew Doctors by Neighbour understand only an Israelite or a Proselyte of Justice As for others they were not put to death if an Israelite killed one of them Which was not the intent of this Law whereby God would have all Men that lived among them safe and secure from being murdered To slay him with guile By which it appeared the Act was designed and deliberate For two things are denoted by this word with guile first fore-thought and then delay as Isaac Karo observes See L'Empereur in Bava kama cap. 3. sect 6. Thou shalt take him If it be inquired who should take him it seems to be determined XIX Deut. 12. where the Elders of the City were to fetch away a wilful Murderer from the City of Refuge In after times the King ordered it as Moses did while he lived 1 Kings I. ult II. 29. By which places it appears That if a Man refused to come from the Altar being judged upon proof to be a wilful Murderer or other high Offender he might be there killed as Georg. Ritterhusius shows L. de Jure Asylorum c. 8. where he observes out of Plutarch in his Laconioa that Agesilaus declared publickly at the Altar of Pallas where he sacrificed an Ox that he thought it lawful to kill one that treacherously assaulted him even at the Altar And thus the practice was among Christians as he there shows when their Temples became Sanctuaries to Malefactors From my Altar This was an Asylum as well as the Cities of Refuge but under many Limitations both with respect to the part of the Altar and to the Persons that fled thither and to the Crime they had committed as Mr. Selden shows in the place above-mentioned p. 475. That he may die Though he was the High Priest and in the Act of Sacrifice he was to be taken away without delay if he had committed wilful Murder If it was involuntary then he was to be taken from thence and carried to the City of Refuge For God would not have a Pious place as Conradus Pellicanus glosses be a Protection to Impiety See Mr. Selden L. III. de Synedr c. 8. p. 100. Maimonides his Observation is pertinent enough upon this occasion That the Mercy which is shown to wicked Men is no better than Tyranny and Cruelty to the rest of God's Creatures and therefore though such Persons sought to God for his Patronage by betaking themselves to that which was dedicated to his Name he would not afford them any protection but commanded them to be delivered up to Justice More Nevoch P. III. c. 39. Ver. 15. And he that smiteth his Father or Mother So as to wound them and to make the Blood come or to leave a mark of the stroke by making the flesh black and blue as we speak Selden L. II. de Synedr c. 13. p. 556. Shall be surely put to death Strangled say the Hebrews see v. 12. by the Sentence of the Judge there being competent Witnesses of the Fact as in other Cases The giving them saucy words or making mows at them which signified Contempt was punished also with Whipping There was no need to say any thing of killing them for all wilful Murder was punished with Death And Solon it is commonly noted made no Law about this because it was not to be supposed any Man would be so wicked Nor was this Crime known among the Persians as Herodotus saith in his days Nor do we find any mention of it in the Law of the XII Tables But in after times there were most severe Punishments enacted against Parricide which are described at large by Modestinus And Diodorus Siculus tells us of the like among the Egpytians See Hen. Stephanus in his Fontes Rivi Juris Civilis p. 18. Plato would have him that killed either Father or Mother Brethren or Children not only to be put to Death but to be disgraced after his Execution by throwing his dead Body naked into a common place without the City where all the Magistrates in the Name of the People should every one of them throw a Stone at his head and then carrying him out of the Coasts leave him without Burial L. IX de Legibus p. 873. Ver. 16. He that stealeth a Man By a Man the Hebrews understand an Israelite whether he was a Freeman or but a Servant as Mr. Selden observes L. VI. de Jure N. G. c. 2. And selleth him No Israelite would buy him and therefore such Plagiaries sold him to Men of other Nations Which made the Crime to be punished with Death because it was a cruel thing not only to take away his Liberty but make him a Slave to Strangers Or if he be found in his hand Though he had not actually sold him yet his intention was sufficiently known by his stealing him Shall be surely put to death I observed above v. 12. they interpret this Phrase every where to signifie strangling If it be said any where his blood shall be upon him it signifies stoning Maimonides makes this the reason why such a Man was condemned to die because it might well be thought he intended to kill him whom he violently carried away at least as I understand it if he could not find means to sell him More Nevoch P. III. c. 41. Ver. 17. And he that curseth his Father or his Mother c. The Hebrews take this Law to concern those who cursed their dead Parents no less than those who cursed them when they were alive but not without Praemonition and Witnesses as in other Capital Crimes And not unless they cursed their Parents by some proper Name of God as Mr. Selden observes out of the Jewish Doctors L. II. de Synedr c. 13. This and the other Law v. 15. enacted Death as the Punishment of such Crimes because they were a sign saith Maimonides More Nevoch P. III. c. 41. of a desperate Malice and audacious Wickedness being a subversion of that Domestick Order which is the prime part of good Government
if it were formed than Life was to be given for Life So that this whole Law is to be understood of an Abortion and according to the condition of the Abortive not the Life or Death of the Mother so the Punishment was to be inflicted And thus Philo takes it and hath a large Discourse upon it See Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. p. 464. and Constantin L'Empereur in Bava kama p. 200 c. Ver. 24 25. Eye for eye tooth for tooth c. These and all the rest that follow to the end of the 25th Verse the Hebrews understand to signifie Pecuniary Mulcts as may be seen in their Comments upon this place And Maimonides gives three Reasons for it which L'Empereur takes notice of and indeavours to confute in his Annotations upon Bava kama p. 187 c. 198 c. But after all there seems to be a great deal of reason at least in many Cases to admit of a Compensation As in that mentioned by Diodorus Siculus L. XII where the one-eyed Man complained of this Law which was among the Heathen as too rigid for if he lost the other Eye he should suffer more than the Man whom he injured who had still one Eye left Upon such Considerations Phavorinus argues against this Law which was one of the XII Tables as not possible to be justly executed according to the very Letter of it For the same Member of the Body is far more valuable to one Man than it is to another For instance the right Hand of a Scribe or a Painter cannot be so well spared as the right Hand of a Singer And therefore the Law of the XII Tables concerning Taliones Like for Like was with this Exception Ni cum eo pacit That is if he who had put out a Man's Eye or taken away the use of any other Member would not come to an Agreement de talione redimenda to make him Satisfaction and redeem the Punishment he was to suffer in the very same kind So Sex Caecilius expounds it in Aulus Gellius L. XX. c. 1. Ver. 26. If a man smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid c. It is but reason that this should extend to all Servants though of another Nation not meerly to those who were Jews And so Maimonides seems to allow when he saith This is a Precept of Piety and Mercy to poor Wretches who should not be any longer afflicted with Servitude when they have lost a Member of their Body More Nevoch P. III. c. 41. And therefore the common Resolution of their Doctors is very cruel That Gentile Servants whom they call Canaanites who were not Circumcised should not have the benefit of this Law For they thus distinguish Servants of another Nation Some were Circumcised and Baptized others still remained Gentiles or were only Proselytes of the Gate The former kind might be set free three ways by being Redeemed by a Price paid by themselves or any Friend by Manumition and by virtue of this Law upon the Loss of any Member For though only an Eye and a Tooth be here mentioned yet herein are included all the rest of the principal Members of the Body which being mutilated cannot be repaired which they reckon to be Four and twenty in all If they did not dismiss such a Servant thus maimed the Court of Judgment upon an Appeal to it compelled them to give him his Liberty with a Certificate of it But the second sort of Gentile Servants could be made free only be the two first ways having no benesit according to this Doctrine by this third way here mentioned See Selden L. VI. de Jure N. G. c. 8. But Heathens themselves were more merciful than these Doctors for the Civil Laws as L'Empereur observes upon Bava kama cap. 8. sect 3. made better provision for Slaves when they were hardly used Ver. 27. And if he smite out his man-servants tooth c. The loss of a Tooth was not so great as that of an Eye yet to prevent Cruelty God ordained a Master should lose the Service of his Slave for so small a loss as this Ver. 28. If an Ox gore a man or a woman that they die then the Ox shall be surely stoned This was not a Punishment to the Ox as the Sadducees saith Maimonides cavil against us but to his Owner who was admonished hereby to look better after his Cattle For which reason also the Ox was not to be eaten More Nevoch P. III. c. 40. And his flesh shall not be caten Because God would have the Owner intirely lose all benefit by it as Maimonides interprets it And so Josephus L. IV. Arctaeol c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It was not permitted to be so much as profitable to him for his Nourishment And the Hebrew Doctors say that if a Man eat so much as the Bigness of an Olive of this Flesh he was to be Scourged By this means both he and others were admonished to be more careful and cautious And God also declared how heinous the Crime of Murder is the Punishment of which in some sort reached even unto Beasts which were therefore also stoned when they had killed a Man that no more might be in danger of their Lives by them Some think its Flesh therefore could not be eaten because being stoned it was a Carcase whose Blood was in it But Maimonides answers to this in his Treatise of forbidden Meats that the Scope of the Law is that as soon as the Sentence for its being stoned was pronounced it became unclean Nay if a Man to prevent this Sentence killed it after a legal manner no Man might eat a Bit of it And when it was stoned the Flesh was neither sold nor given to the Gentiles nor to the Dogs c. as Bochart obobserves L. II. Hierozoic P. I. c. 40. The same Maimonides in his Treatise of Pecuniary Mulcts rightly extends this Law to other Creatures whether Beasts or Birds that any Man kept as L'Empereur observes upon Bava kama cap. 4. sect 5. And Plato I observe hath the very same Law that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. if an Ox or any other Animal kill a Man except it were in the Publick Combats the Officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were set over their Fields were to kill it and throw it out of their Territories 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. IX de Legibus p. 873. But the owner shall be quit The loss of his Ox was all his Punishment And if the Ox did not kill the Man but only wounded him in that case the Owner was obliged to make him such a Compensation as the Judges thought equal and to take care the like hapned not again Ver. 29. But if the Ox were wont to push in time past and it hath been testified to him c. In the former case the Owner was only punished with the loss of his Ox it being the first
time that it had been known to push But if the Ox had formerly been known to be so unruly and he had been told of it and yet did not take care to prevent further mischief then he as well as the Ox were to be put to death The Jewish Doctors indeed have softned this by divers Exceptions As first they say it was to be proved that the Ox had pushed upon three several days for though it appeared he pushed a great many times in one day it would not make the Man liable And secondly it was to be testified not only to the Owner but before the Magistrate that he had pushed so often And lastly they interpret the last words of this Verse the Owner also shall be put to death of Punishment by the Hand of Heaven that is they leave him to God See Bochart in his Hierozoic P. I. L. II. c. 40. But though Abarbinel propound this as the opinion of their Wise men yet he was sensible of its absurdity For he confesses that God doth decree the Sentence of Death should be executed upon the Owner of the Ox only he thinks that he remits something of the strictness of it in the next Verse And there are three Cases here mentioned relating to this matter One in the foregoing Verse where the Ox is ordered to be stoned Another in this where the Owner is also made liable to be put to death And a third in the next Verse where a Pecuniary Mulct is only set upon him Ver. 30. If there be laid upon him a sum of money then he shall give it for the ransome of his life By this it appears there might be a Case wherein the Owner of the Ox should not be put to death but only be fined though the Ox had been wont to push and he was told of it And the Interpretation of this and the foregoing Law which is given by Constantine L'Empereur is not unreasonable upon Bava kama c. 4. sect 5. Either the knowledge which the owner had of the ill Conditions of his Ox was certain or uncertain and his carelesness in preventing the Mischief he was wont to do was greater or lesser and the Friends of him that was killed pressed the strictest Justice or were content to remit it In the former cases if the knowledge was certain the carelesness very gross and the Friends were strict in the Prosecution he was punished with death but if otherwise he was punished only by setting a Fine upon him Certain it is that the foregoing Law might prove too rigorous in many cases as if the Ox pushed being provoked or broke loose when he was tied up or was let go by the negligence of a Servant c. and therefore God permitted the Judges to accept of a Ransom as they saw cause which was to be paid according as the Sanhedrim thought meet So Jonathan Whatsoever is laid upon him He was to submit to the Fine whatsoever it was and it was given to the Heirs of him that was killed If a Man's Wife was killed the Jews say it was given to the Heirs of her Father's Family and not to her Husband Ver. 31. Whether he have gored a son or have gored a daughter c. Because what was said v. 29. of killing a Man or a Woman might have been restrained to the Father or Mother of a Family whose loss was greatest and their lives most precious therefore the same Law is here extended to the Children yet both Jonathan and Onkelos consine it to the Children of Israelites as if all Mankind besides were nothing worth See Bochartus in the place above-mentioned Ver. 32. If an Ox shall push a man-servant or a maid-servant c. Whether the Servant was of greater or lesser value saith Maimonides the Punishment was the payment of thirty shekels and the loss of the Ox half the price of a Free-man who was estimated he saith at sixty shekels More Nevoch P. III. c. 40. He adds in another place in his Treatise of Pecuniary Mulcts that the Owner was not bound to pay this Ransom unless the Ox killed the Man out of his own Ground For if he was killed within in the Owners Ground the Ox indeed was stoned but no Ransom was paid Divers other cases he mentions in that Book as L'Empereur observes upon Bava kama p. 85. where he takes notice that Solon himself wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law concerning the mischief done by Cattle as Plutarch relates in his Life Ver. 33. And if a man shall open a pit c. In the Street or publick High-way as Jonathan rightly interprets it For if he opened or digged a Pit in his own Ground he was not concerned in this Law though another Man's Beast fell into it And not cover it If he did cover it conveniently though in time the Cover grew rotten and a Beast fell into it he was not bound to make it good as Maimonides resolves the Case Ver. 34. The owner of the pit shall make it good c. There were so many Cases arose upon this Law that it is not easie to number them Maimonides hath amassed together abundance belonging to this matter with wonderful accuracy as Bochartus observes who hath transcribed a great many of them in his Hierozoic P. I. L. 2. c. 40. p. 391 c. Ver. 35. If one mans Ox hurt anothers that he die Which equally belongs to all other Cattle as Maimonides observes for the Law mentions an Ox only for example sake They shall sell the live Ox and divide the money c. Though the Ox that was killed was worth as much more as the other yet satisfaction was to be made only out of the live Ox which did the mischief as the same Maimonides observes who hath several Cases upon this Law as may be seen in the fore-named Book of Bochart's p. 393. But it might so happen that the Ox which was killed was of little value and the live Ox worth many pound in which case it seems so unreasonable the Man whose loss was small should be a great gainer by the Sale of the Ox which did the mischief that the Jewish Lawyers resolve the meaning of this Law is the Man whose Ox was killed should receive half the Damage he had sustained as L'Empereur observes upon Bava kama cap. 1. sect 4. Ver. 36. Or if it be known that the Ox hath used to push c. There is a great difference between what is done casually and what is done constantly The former Verse speaks of the hurt done by a Beast that was not wont to push and this of the hurt done by one that was notoriously mischievous And accordingly greater Damages were given in this latter case than in the former And by this general Rule the Jews regulated all other Cases making those Mischiefs that were done by Beasts which were wont to hurt or were of a hurtful Nature to be punished above as much more than the Mischief done by a
many Exceptions For they would have him make good what was torn by one Wolf alone because they think he might have been able to defend the Cattle against one though not against many If also he put the Oxen or Sheep into a Pasture wont to be infested with wild Beasts or Thieves or if he did not call in the help of his Neighbours c. in these and such like cases he was to make good that which was torn as Maimonides reports their Judgment See Bochart Hierozoic P. I. L. II. c. 44. Ver. 14. If a man borrow ought of his neighbour and it be hurt or die This the Hebrew Doctors think concerns such things as were lent to another out of kindness without any consideration for the use of them About which if there arose any controversie by reason of some maim that it received or its death it was to be determined by the Rule following The owner thereof being not with it he shall surely make it good These words and those in the beginning of the 15th Verse but if the owner be with it he shall not make it good seem to signifie that if the Owner was with the thing that was lent at the time of its hurt or death it was to be presumed he would do his best to preserve it and see it was not ill used and so must bear the loss But if he was not present at that time then the contrary was presumed that the borrower was in fault and therefore bound to make it good Which though it may seem hard was but necessary to make Men careful and do their best to preserve what was lent them in pure kindness R. Levi of Barcelona Praecept LVI interprets it quite another way in this manner That if the Owner was with it at the time it was borrowed though not present at the time of its hurt or death the borrower was free but if the Owner was present at the time of the hurt or death but not at the time of lending he was bound to make it good For the matter saith he depends upon the beginning of it Ver. 15. If it be an hired thing it came for his hire Some make the Hebrew word Sachir which we translate hired thing to relate unto the Person If he be a Mercenary i. e. the Man who lends agrees to let the borrower have it at a certain price c. But this is the same in effect with the sense of our Translation which makes this word relate to the thing it self which if it were borrowed with a Condition to pay so much for the use of it as the Lender demanded then the Man who hired it was not bound to make it good whether the Owner were present or not when it was hurt or died But the Owner was to run the hazard because of the hire which he received for the use of the thing Ver. 16. If a man intice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her Whosoever lay with such a Maid in the City was thought to have been an inticer only unless Witnesses came and proved that he forced her because it might be well supposed her Voice would have been heard if she had cried out upon the Force in the City But if he lay with her in the Field where no Body could hear it was presumed to be a Rape Thus Maimonides and other Hebrew Doctors He shall surely endow her to be his wife This Law doth not say as the Old Translation hath it he shall ondow her and take her to be his Wife but only endow her to be his Wife that is give her such a Dowry that she might be his lawful Wife So the same Hebrew Doctors understand it who will not have it to be a Command that he should marry her though that was best but only that he should make Satisfaction for taking away her Virginity which was by paying so much in the nature of a Dowry as would render her fit to be his Wife if both of them could agree Yet so that if either he or she or her Father refused for it was in the power of any of these as they say to hinder the Marriage he paid this Mulct as the Dowry of a Virgin to her Father See Selden's Vxor Hebr. L. I. c. 16. There is another Law of this Nature XXII Deut. 28 29. but it speaks of a Virgin deflowred by force of which see there Ver. 17. If her father uiterly refuse to give her unto him Here is mention made only of the Father not of the Man that deflowred her who one would think should have been bound to marry her if she and her Father pleased And so Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if the Father of the Damosel did not like to give her to him he was to pay as here is directed He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins That is saith Josephus fifty shekels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Satisfaction for her Reproach L. IV. Archaeol c. 8. Ver. 18. Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live This Law about Witches follows the other about Virgins because Witches among other practises helpt by â—vil Arts to allure and entice silly Virgins to consent to Mens Solicitations Epiphanius reports from one that saw it such a Magical Operation used by a Jew to procure the Love of a Christian Woman who was preserved from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of his Witcheraft by the Seal of Christ as he calls the Sign of the Cross wherewith she fortified her self at the first attempt made upon her Haeres XXX n. 7 8. But such wicked Wretches did a world of other Mischief and therefore were to be put to death whether they were Men or Women The Scripture indeed mentions a Witch only saith the Gemara of the Sanhedrim c. 7. n. 10. because for the most part they were Women who were addicted to Magick So Maimonides also because the greater part of Evil Works are performed by Women therefore the Law saith Thou shalt not suffer MECHAS SHEPHA a Witch to live P. III. c. 37. More Nevochim Where he discourses of the sorts of Witchcraft and in general affirms that there were no Magical Works performed without respect to the Stars For such People held that every Plant had its Star and so had every Animal and all Metals For Example they said Pluck such a Leaf or such an Herb when the Sun or any other Planet is in such a place let such a Metal be melted under such a Constellation or such a Constitution of the Moon and then say such and such words and let a Fume be made with such Herbs or Leaves and that in such or such a form and then this or that will follow This was their Doctrine and such Works as these were the peculiar worship of the Stars who were delighted they fancied with such Actions Words or Fumes and for the sake of them would do
whatsoever was desired All this he saith he took out of their Books then extant from which he concludes That the Scope of the Law being that all Idolatry should be taken out of the World and that no vertue should be ascribed to any Star of doing good or hurt to Men which opinion led Men to their worship it necessarily followed that all Witches and Wizards should be put to death because they were Idolaters though after a peculiar and different way from that wherein the Vulgar worshipped Idols And he thinks that a Witch is rather mentioned than a Wizard though both intended because Men are naturally more tender towards the Female Sex and apt to favour them and therefore it is as if Moses had said Thou shalt kill even a Woman that is guilty of this Crime But afterward XX Lev. 27. he commands both Men and Women to be stoned Others of the Hebrew Doctors particularly R. Levi Barzelonita give this Reason why Witches were not to live Because they directly thwarted God most blessed who made all things when he created them for such and such purposes which they perverted and by devices of their own made to serve other ends which God never designed Praecept LXII But this they could not do without the help of Evil Spirits and therefore their Crime consisted in entering into a Familiarity and a League with them whose assistance upon such occasion they invoked which was in effect a renouncing of God This was an Impiety which had overspread the whole World especially the Eastern parts of it And as for the Romans we find a Law as old as the XII Tables against Witchcraft Apud nos in duodecine Tabulis cavetur ne quis alienos fructus excantassit as we read in Seneca L. IV. Nat. Quaest c. 7. where he mentions the like Law among the Athenians For the Greeks were extreamly addicted to this especially in Thessaly Of which none that I have read spake so plainly as Plato in his Eleventh Book of Laws p. 932 933. where he orders Punishments not only for those who destroyed others by Potions but for those who pretended to be able to revenge themselves or others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either by certain Inchantments or by Charms or by those Spells which are called Ties or Knots Concerning which he acknowledges it is hard to know any thing or to perswade others there is nothing in them For if a Man see any where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. waxen Resemblances made and set either at their doors or in the turning of the ways or at the Tombs of their Ancestors none can prevail with him to neglect these things because he knows not what efficacy is in them And therefore he would have even such People who used these sorts of Witchcrafts to be put to death if they were Professors of any sort of Knowledge as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if they were simple People he leaves the Judges to punish them as they found reason Ver. 19. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death This is so infamous a sin and such a dishonour to Nature and the Author of Nature as Conr. Pellicanus well glosses that it was not fit such a Person should live upon the face of the Earth but die without mercy See XVIII Lev. 23. XX. 15 16. where this is more largely handled Ver. 20. He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only he shall be utterly destroyed Sacrifice being the principal act of Worship in those days includes in it all other acts of Worship and Divine Service which they were required to pay to the LORD alone XX. 2 3 c. but the Punishment of doing otherwise was not enacted till now Of which he treats more largely XVII Deut. 2 3 c. See there Ver. 21. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him Here are two distinct Commands The first of which not to vex a stranger the Hebrews will have to consist in not upbraiding him with his former state of Heathenism nor giving him any approbrious words as saying remember what thou wast or what thy father did And this was neither to be done to a Proselyte of Justice nor to a Proselyte of the Gate as far as Mr. Selden could judge of their opinion herein L. II. de Jure N. G. c. 4. The second not to oppress him consisted in not using him hardly in their dealings with him by making him pay for instance for any thing more than it was worth Which the same Mr. Selden L. VI. c. 5. p. 690. thinks the Hebrews were of opinion belonged only to their usage of Proselytes of Justice who were perfectly in their Communion But this is very unreasonable for as R. Levi Barzelonita himself observes by thus treating any Proselyte they might endanger their return to Paganism again out of indignation to be so despised and much more when they saw they were wrong'd Which God took care they should not be because they were more helpless than other Men and had fewer Friends Which is the reason that this Precept as the Jews themselves have computed is inculcated in one and twenty places See particularly XXIII 9. XIX Lev. 33. For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt There could not be a more powerful reason to more them to treat Strangers kindly than the remembrance of their own Oppressions in Egypt from which they were delivered by the meer Mercy of God which they ought to imitate Ver. 22. Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child Give them no trouble either in word or deed as the same R. Levi interprets it Praecept LXV but in all their Commerce with them in buying felling or any other intercourse to treat them not only civilly but kindly and benignly And the reason of the Precept saith he is the same with the former because Widows and Orphans have few or none to protect them or plead their Cause and therefore the Law took care of them as if their Husbands and Parents were yet alive Ver. 23. If thou afflict them in any wise By giving them ill Language or by infulting over them or destroying their Goods much more if 〈◊〉 Man smote them he was liable to the Judgment of God as Nachmanides interprets it And they cry at all unto me A Child saith the same R. Levi cries to his Father and a Wife to her Husband but the Widow and the Fatherless cry unto me and I will hear them for I am merdiful I will surely hear them Punish you for your ill usage of them as it follows in the next Verse Ver. 24. And my wrath shall wax hot This signifies their Punishment should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent upon them from God who orders no Penalty to be inflicted by their Judges because he intended himself to be their Avenger and that in a very remarkable manner by serving them in their kind as it here follows And I will kill you with
Synedris c. 6. The sense is this in short He that violates a Negative Precept as they call it either doth it secretly which is most frequent or openly which happens seldom unless a Man be one of those profligate Wretches whom we call Apostates Now him that secretly brake the Sabbath the Scripture threatens with cutting off viz. by the hand of God according to what is written here in this place In like manner incestuous and unlawful Conjunctions are threatned XVIII Lev. 29. because they were wont to be committed secretly But if any Man did any Work openly on the Sabbath so that there were Witnesses of it he was to be stoned according to what is said XV Numb 35. Though if he did it out of mistake either secretly or openly he was only to bring a Sacrifice for his Errour And if he offended against any of the Decrees of the Wise-men about the Sabbath he was to be beaten Or if there was no Court of Judgment in the place as now in their present Condition then all such Transgressors were left to God to punish them of whatsoever sort they were Ver. 15. Six days may work be done but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest holy to the LORD So it is called also XXXV 2. and XXIII Lev. 3. And so the Sabbath wherein the Land rested is likewise called XXV Lev. 4. But the Hebrew words Schabbat Schabbaton Sabbath of Rest properly signifies Sabbath above all Sabbaths i. e. the greatest Sabbath on which a rest was to be most punctually observed from all manner of Work which the Jews as de Dieu notes call the weighty Sabbath as if other days of rest were but light in comparison with this According to that saying of R. Josee Great is Circumcision because the weighty Sabbath gives place to it that is admits of this Work though the Rest on this Sabbath be so very great Shall surely be put to death As an Idolater who did not acknowledge the Creator of the World See before v. 14. Ver. 16. Wherefore the Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their Generation for a perpetual Covenant The most litteral Interpretation of this Verse seems to me to be that of Lud. de Dieu The Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath by making the Sabbath a perpetual Covenant throughout their Generations That is by never suffering it to be interrupted they made it a perpetual Covenant between God and them throughout all Ages Ver. 17. It is a sign between me and the Children of Israel for ever A Badge and Livery that they were the Servants of the most High who made the Heavens and Earth A Mark of their being devoted to him and continuing in Covenant with him no less than Circumcision For in six days the LORD made Heaven and Earth In memory of which the Sabbath was first instituted to preserve perpetually and establish that most precious History and Doctrine of the Creation of the World as Maimonides speaks More Nevoch P. III. c. 43. And on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed Delighted in the Contemplation of all his Works which he saw were very good I Gen. 31. The same Maimonides observes that the word jinnaphash which we translate was refreshed comes from nephesh which among other things signifies the intention of the Mind and the Will and therefore the sense of this Phrase is All the Will of God was perfected and brought to a Conclusion his whole good Pleasure was absolutely finished on the seventh day More Nevoch P. I. c. 67. Ver. 18. And he gave unto Moses when he made an end of communing with him upon Mount Sinai When he dismissed him having said all that is before related during his forty days stay with him in the Mount he delivered unto him two Tables of Testimony to carry down with him to the People Two Tables of Testimony Wherein God testified to them his Mind and Will in the principal things which concerned their Duty See XVI 34. Tables of stone That what was written upon them might be more durable There is no ground to think that these Tables were made of some precious Stone as the Author of the Book Cosri and other Jews fancy for the word Eben in the Hebrew simply signifies any sort of Stone and is wont to have some other joyned to it when precious Stones are meant as in 2 Sam. XII 30. 1 Kings X. 2. 2 Chron. III. 6. Written with the finger of God i. e. By God himself Just as the Heavens saith Maimonides are said to be the work of his fingers VIII Psal 4. which he interprets in another place XXXIII 6. By the word of the LORD were the Heavens made Therefore written by the singer of God is as much saith he as by the word that is the Will and good Pleasure of God More Nevoch P. I. c. 66. In short this Phrase signifies that God employed neither Moses nor any other Instrument in this Writing but it was done by his own powerful Operation For all things that we do being wrought by our hands and our fingers these words are used to express God's power See XXXII 16. This was a thing so notorious in ancient times and so much believed by those who were not Jews that many other Nations pretended to the like Divine Writings that they might gain the greater Authority to their Laws Thus the Brachmans report in their Histories That the Book of their Law which they call Caster was delivered by God to Bremavius upon a Mount in a Cloud and that God gave also another Book of Laws to Brammon in the first Age of the World The Persians say the same of those of Zoroaster and the Getes of Xamolxis Nay the Brachmans have a Decalogue like this of Moses and accurate Interpretations of it in which they say there is this Prophecy That one day there shall be one Law alone throughout the World This evidently shows how well the World was anciently acquainted with these Books of Moses and what a high esteem they had of them See Huetius L. II. Alnetan Quaest c. 12. n. 19. CHAP. XXXII Verse 1. AND when the People Not the whole Body of the Congregation but so many of them that the rest durst not appear to oppose their desires Saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the Mount The Jews fancy that he stayed beyond the time that he had appointed for his return to them But that is not likely for he himself was not told how long God would detain him there See XXIV 14. The meaning therefore is that he stayed longer than they expected so that they did not know what to think of it And having as yet received no Directions about the Service of God for which they were called out of Egypt VII 16. and other places they thought it was time to desire Aaron to set about it in such a way as other People served their Gods The people gathered themselves
See XX Lev. 9. And thus far the Athenians went in this matter that by their Law a Son was disinherited who reproached his Father And if the Father did not prosecute such a Son he himself became infamous So Sopater ad Hermogenem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the same Law also if he struck his Father both his hands were to be cut off as we read in Heraclides Ponticus in Allegor Homen and in Quimillian Declam CCCLXXII Qui patrem pulsaverit manus ei incidantur And by another Law he was to be stoned to death as the Author of Problemata Rhetor. tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that without any formal Process against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 18. And if men strive together Fall out and quarrel And one smite another So that from words they proceed to blows With a Stone c. Men usually in their anger take up any thing that is next at hand to throw at him against whom they are inraged or finding nothing smite them with their fists And he die not but keepeth his bed Sometimes the blow falls in such a place that sudden Death follows or such a Wound or Bruise is given as confines a Man to his Bed Ver. 19. If he rise again and walk abroad c. If a Man recovered so far as to get up and walk abroad after the stroke it was presumed though he died not long after it was by his negligence or something else not of the Blow he received And upon the hearing of the Cause the Judges were to acquit the Man that gave the blow i. e. he was not to die for it Only The Hebrew particle Rak signifies but or truly as well as only and here expresses that the Man who gave the blow should not escape all punishment but suffer something for the hurt he had done Yet if we take it to signifie only the sense is not much altered for the meaning is as Constant L'Empereur observes in Bava kama cap. 8. sect 1. by this word to exclude Death but not other Punishment in his Purse He shall pay for the loss of his time c. The Jews say in Bava kama cap. 8. sect 1. that satisfaction was to be given him for the loss he had sustained in five things for the hurt in his Body the loss of his Time the Pain he had indured the Charge of Physician or Chyrurgeon and the Disgrace all which they there indeavour to prove out of the Scripture Two of them are plainly here The first of which the Doctors upon the Misna consider with great Nicety as L'Empereur observes upon the fore-named Treatise some Men being able to earn more by their Labours than others and the disability the stroke brought upon them being more or less of a larger or shorter continuance with respect to all which a proportionable Compensation was made to them And shall cause him to be throughly healed Here they also distinguish between the Cure of the Wound Bruise or Swelling caused by the stroke and of any other breaking out that he chanced to have at the same time He was bound to pay for the Cure of the former but not of the latter And if after a Man was cured he fell ill again he that struck him was not bound to take care of his Cure The same Provision is made in the Civil Law as L'Empereur notes which perfectly agrees with this Constitution of Moses Judex computat mercedes medicis praestitas caeteráque impendia quae in curatione facta sunt Praeterea operas quibus caruit aut cariturus est ob id quod inutilis factus est According to Plato's Laws he that wounded another in his Anger if the Wound was curable was to pay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double to the Damage the wounded Man sustained thereby If it was incurable he was to pay fourfold and so he was to do likewise if it were curable but left a remarkable Scar. If the Wound was given involuntarily he was to pay only simple Damages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For no Law-giver is able to govern Chance L. IX de Leg. p. 878 879. Ver. 20. If a man smite his servant c. A Slave who was not an Israelite but a Gentile He shall surely be punished With Death say the Hebrew Doctors in Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. p. 463. if the Servant died while he was beating him For that is meant by dying under his hand But it seems more likely to me that he was to be punished for his Cruelty as the Judge who examined the Fact thought meet for his smiting with a Rod not with a Sword was a sign he intended only to correct him not to kill him And besides no Man could be thought to be willing to lose his own Goods as such Servants were Ver. 21. Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two A day and a night as the Hebrew Doctors interpret it He shall not be punished Because it might be presumed he did not die of those strokes He is his money His Death was a loss to his Master who therefore might well be judged not to have any intention to kill him and was sufficiently punished by losing the benefit of his Service Ver. 22. If men strive and hurt a woman with child Who interposed between the contending Parties or came perhaps to help her Husband So that her fruit depart from her She Miscarry And yet no mischief follow She do not die as the Hebrew Doctors expound it See Selden L. IV. de Jure N. G. c. 1. p. 461. He shall be surely punished according as the womans husband will lay upon him Her Husband may require a Compensation both for the loss of his Child and the hurt or grief of his Wife Yet he was not to be Judge in his own Case but it was to be brought before the Publique Judges as it here follows And he shall pay as the Judges determine Who considered in their Decree what Damage was done which was estimated by the hurt his Wife received in her Body and by the lessening of her price if she were a Slave and might be sold Unto which several other Mulcts were added to be given to the Woman her self as Mr. Selden observes in the place above-named Ver. 23. And if any mischief follow If the Woman did die Thou shalt give life for life In the Interpretation of this saith Jarchi our Masters differ For some by Life understand that which is properly so called or the Person himself so that it should signifie being put to death But others understand by it a pecuniary Mulct that so much Money should be paid to the Heirs as the Person killed might have been sold for The LXX carry it to quite another sense which is that if a Woman Miscarry and the Child was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not yet formed and fashioned that the Man who occasioned the Miscarriage was to pay a Fine But