from Ius Noachidarum not from that of the Hebrews which required Exod. 22. 1. Five-fold Four-fold or Double restitution to be made If the Person convict were not able to give the satisfaction required he was by Sentence pronounced in Court adjudged to servitude of the Actor or Plaintiff until his Service should equal the Price of the Theft but the restitution Double Quadruple or Quintuple was to be expected from his more Prosperous Fortune after his Servitude Nor was a Woman sold for her Theft Neither was a Man convict of Theft adjudged in Servitude to a Proselyte whether of Iustice or of the House much less to a Gentile but only to an Hebrew who was Obliged to give Food Raiment and a House not only to him but to his Wife and Children too who notwithstanding were not the Masters Servants but when the Husbands and Fathers Servitude was ended went away with him And all this by Virtue of that Law in Exod. 21. 3. To an Hebrew Servant Adjudged by Sentence of Court who had by a lawful Wife fulfill'd the Command of Multiplication it was permitted to have Carnal Conversation with a Maid-Servant that was a Canaanite that the Master might be enriched by the Children born of her provided he were not kept apart from his Legitimate Wife and Children and that but one Maid-Servant were Conjoin'd to one Man-Servant not to two or more Other causes of Servitude there were also among the Hebrews If thy Brother Compell'd by Poverty shall sell himself to thee c. Levit. 25. 39. If any shall have sold his Daughter for a Servant c. Exod. 21. 7. These Addictions or Sales were not permitted but in Case of extream Poverty when the Seller had nothing left not so much as a Garment and that his life was to be sustain'd by the Price agreed on This selling of a Daughter is understood only of a Minor nor without hope of her Marriage to the Emptor or to his Son without Espousals she obtain'd her Liberty Gratis when first the Signs of Puberty appear'd upon her Also an Hebrew was made a Servant Privately that by his Addiction or Sale he might not lose his Dignity together with his Liberty Now from this Permission of an Israelite reduced to extream want to sell himself or his Child for Sustenance lest he should die of Hunger it is sufficiently manifest that from the very Law of Nature obtaining among the Hebrews it was not Lawful to steal for even the greatest necessity To exercise Vsury was more than once forbidden by the Hebrew Law and the Lender upon Vsury was compell'd by sentence of Court to restore to the Debtor what he had receiv'd for the Loan of Mony as a thing taken away by stealth Deut. 23. 20. To a Stranger thou maist lend upon Vsury to thy Brother thou shalt not lend upon Vsury To steal the Goods of a Gentile was no less unlawful than to steal from an Israelite but to take Usury of a Gentile was permitted of which the Contract arises from the Consent as well of the Receiver as of the Giver For neither from Natural Right was it unlawful to lend upon Usury By the Statutes of their Fore-Fathers as Mr. Selden de Iure Nat. Gent. lib. 6. c. 11. delivers an Hebrew was guilty of Theft who made any Gain to himself by Playing at Dice Cockal Tables or committing Wild or Tame Beasts or Fowls to fight together to make sport for the Spectators For they judged no Gain to be honest that arose from a Contract depending upon Fortune But it was not Theft if a Iew contending with a Gentile won the Prize or Wager tho' that also as a thing Inutile or Unprofitable to Humane Society were prohibited By the same Ancient Right he also was a Thief who so bred up and taught Doves or other Birds or Beasts Wild or Tame as that they should fly or go abroad and alluring or decoying others of the same kind bring them home to the gain of their Owner nor was it lawful to go a Fowling after Pigeons in a place inhabited or within Four Miles thereof because Pigeons were reckoned among the Goods of other Men and were nourished by the Owners either for Sacrifices or for food Nor was it lawful for any man to build a Dove-House in his Field unless he had Ground of his own lying round about it of Fifty Cubits extent every way CHAP. IX The sixth Precept Of Judgments or Administration of Iustice in Courts of Iudicature and of Civil Obedience FRom this Natural Precept the Masters saith Maimonides Hal. Melak c. 9. acknowledge that the Rulers ought to Constitute Judges and Prefects in every City and Town both to judge all Causes pertaining to the Six Precepts of the Sons of Noah and to admonish the People of their observation of them And so indeed the Mosaic Law also at length commanded Deut. 16. 18. Iudges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates c. In many other places also Juridical Prefectures are commanded to be constituted according as the Civil Societies of Men require Many and memorable things indeed hath that most Excellent Interpreter of Eastern Antiquities Mr. Selden written of the Councils or Assemblies of the Ancient Hebrews in that interval of time that preceded the giving of the Holy Law on Mount Sinai But to me I confess it doth not from thence appear that any one of the Patriarchs before Moses exercised Jurisdiction in Foro in Court much less constituted Juridical Prefectures in Cities and Towns The Family of the Hebrews descending from Sem to Abraham lived in Mesopotamia nor is it constant from the Scripture whether it were at that time sui Iuris or under the Laws of the Neighbour Nations The Grand-Children of Abraham were toss'd to and fro in continual Peregrination until at length they sate down in Egypt where they were so far from living by Laws and Customs of their own that they groan'd long under a most cruel Servitude Common-wealth of Hebrews there was none Tribunal or Court of Judicature they had none till after their deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage Then and not till then it was that the People of God being greatly multiplied and divided into Twelve Tribes the Precept concerning Judgments was given in Mara Exod. 18. 25. Among the Traditions of the Masters we find mention'd often the House of Iudgment of Methusalem also of Sem and Eber which yet are not to be taken for Juridical Prefectures but for Schools Witness Maimonides More Neboch part 2. c. 39. Who saith The Wise Men speak of the Prophets that were before Moses the House of Judgment of Eber the House of Judgment of Methusalem that is the School of Methusalem All those were Prophets and taught Men after the manner of Preachers or Doctors Nor is it otherwise said of Abraham Gen. 18. 19. I know him that he will command his Children and Houshold after him and they
shall keep the way of the Lord to do Iustice and Iudgment c. For this was a thing Oeconomical not Political Soon after the Deluge God Proclaimed this Edict Gen. 9. 6. He that sheddeth Mans blood by Man shall his blood be shed not by judgment of any Court of those times but by Natural Right of Talion Cum Lex haec lata est saith the Incomparable Hugo Grotius in locum nondum constituta erant Iudicia aucto humano genere in gentes distributo meritò solis judicibus permissum fuit jus illud primaevum From these places of Genesis therefore truly interpreted no pretext can be drawn to excuse their error who dream of I know not what Publick Tribunals or Courts of Judicature constituted before Moses Neither can any be drawn from either of these two Examples following Simeon and Levi in revenge of the Rape committed upon their Sister Dinah by Sichem the Hivite slew him and his Father and all the Males of the City But this was done by War not from any Sentence of a Judicial Court nor is this revenge of a private Injury to be brought for an Example here where the question is concerning Publick Iudgments It was told Iudah Thamar thy Daughter in Law hath played the Harlot and is with Child per fornicationes by whoredome And Judah said bring her forth that she may be burnt But this saying of Iudah rashly pronounced and in heat of anger is by no means to be accepted for a Iuridical Sentence For by the Law of Moses Levit. 21. 9. the Priests Daughter was for Fornication the Masters understand Adultery not Stuprum Whoredome to be burnt alive But Thamar was neither Priests Daughter nor Wife but a Widow expecting to be Married to the Brother of her Husband deceas'd and this Law was not then made Others think that there was such a Law peculiar to this Family to which Iudah had respect which is in truth repugnant to the Ius Noachidarum by which it was accounted no Crime for an unmarried Woman to humble her self to whom she pleas'd Of which Right Maimonides being conscious and speaking of this our Thamar saith Ante Legem datam coitus cum Scorto erat sicut coitus hominis cum Vxore suâ hoc est licitus erat nec homini fugiendus velut delictum c. Thamar then by virtue of this ancient Right then obtaining was not to be held guilty Whence other Interpreters understand the Combustion or Burning mentioned in the Text to signifie not burning to death but a Stigmatizing or Marking in the Forehead with an hot Iron by which she might be known to be an Harlot Again when Thamar was brought forth not ad poenam as the vulgar Latin the whole matter being detected Iuda non cessavit eam cognoscere that is he took his Daughter in Law to be his Wife such Marriages being not unlawful before the Mosaic Law This place is I acknowledge Translated by the Seventy Seniors thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non adjecti ultrà cognoscere eam vel ultrà non cognovit eam but the Hebrew verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying as well cessare as adjicere I am inclined to prefer the foremr Interpretation and the more inclined because the Genealogy of King David and of our Saviour Christ is deduced from one of the Male Twins she brought forth at that birth These Examples therefore not sufficing to prove that for which they have been alledged by some Interpreters otherwise of Profound Erudition and Solid Judgment and it remaining still difficult to demonstrate that there were any such things in the World as Courts of Judicature more ancient than those erected by Moses let us enquire what was the Ius Noachidarum in the Common-wealth of the Israelites as to Iudgment They that preside over the Tribunals of the Israelites saith Maimonides in Hal. Melak◠c. 10. ought to appoint Judges for the Proselytes of the House to hear and determine their causes according to the Rights of the Sons of Noah lest humane Society should suffer any thing of detriment and that they might constitute these Judges either by electing them out of the Proselytes themselves or from among the Hebrews at their pleasure In another place viz. c. 9. he saith a Noachid is put to death by the Sentence of one Judge and upon the Testimony of one Witness and that without Premonition and the Testimony of Neighbours but not upon the Testimony of a Woman Nor was it lawful to a Woman to give judgment upon them nor upon the Hebrews On the other side by the Civil Right of the Hebrews three Judges at least were to hear and determine Causes Pecuniary and Twenty-three to judge of Causes Capital not without Plurality of Witnesses and Premonition By the receiv'd Right of the Sons of Noah the Violation of these Seven Precepts was punish'd in a Proselyte of the House with death inflicted by a Sword but an Israelite by his own Right was not to be punish'd with death for Violation of the three latter No Gentile that was under Age of discretion or Blind or Deaf or Mad was punish'd because such were not reputed Sons of the Precepts i. e. capable to observe them A Noachid that was a Blasphemer or an Idolater or an Adulterer with the Wife of a Noachid and after that made a Proselyte of Iustice was not to be call'd into Judgment but was free but if he had slain an Israelite or committed Adultery with the Wife of an Israelite and were after made a Proselyte of Iustice he was to be punish'd with the Sword for Homicide with a Halter for Adultery that is with the punishments of the Israelites By the vertue of Proselytism which was Regeneration by the Hebrew Law Crimes committed against Equals yea also against God Himself were purged away those committed against an Israelite not All which nice differences betwixt the primitive Right of the Sons of Noah and the Civil Right of the Israelites punctually observed by Judges in hearing and determining causes in Foro have been with vast labour collected out of the Monuments of the Masters and with exact Faith and Judgment recited by Selden the Great in lib. 7. de Iure Nat. Gent. to whom I owe the Knowledge of them with many other remarkable things of good use toward the Interpretation of divers difficult Places in Holy Scripture CHAP. X. Prints of the Six precedent Precepts observable in the Book of Job THe same most Excellent Antiquary to add the more of Credit and Authority to the Six foregoing Precepts of the Sons of Noah hath also observed manifest Prints of them in the Book of Iob a man as St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 47. of admirable Sanctity and Patience who was neither Native nor Proselyte of the People of Israel but an Idumean by Descent and Birth and died there and by consequence could not be Obliged to keep the Laws of Moses of which perhaps
intend the Omnipotent Author of them assisting me seriously and according to the best of my weak understanding to consider one by one in the same order in which they are delivered in the Twentieth Chapter of Exodus And that neither want of skill in the Hebrew Language and in the Idiotisms or proper modes of speaking used by Esdras or whoever else was the Writer of the Pentateuch nor the slenderness of my judgment may lead me into errors in the interpretation of the Sacred Text I am resolved to resign up my self entirely to the conduct and manuduction of the most celebrated Interpreters of the Holy Scripture and among them principally of the Illustrious Hugo Grotius a Man no less admirable for the singular felicity of his judgment in difficult questions than for the Immensity of his Erudition in his Explication of the Decalogue as it is extant in the Greek version of the Seventy Seniors choosing rather to tread in his very footsteps than to deviate from the right way in an argument of so great moment Not that I think it necessary to recite whatsoever he hath congested of this Subject in that part of his Theological writings wherein are deliver'd many curious Criticisms concerning the various significations and uses of as well Greek as Hebrew Words and Phrases that belong chiefly to the cognizance of Philologers but that I design from thence to select only such things that seem requisite to my right understanding of the sense of all and singular the Precepts that I am now about to consider In pursuance therefore of this design I begin from The Preface to the Decalogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Lord spake Here by the Lord is meant the God of Gods And the reason why the Greek Interpreters chose rather to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seems to be this that writing to the Greeks amongst whom are to be number'd the Egyptian Kings of the Macedonian blood by the Hebrews call'd Kings of Graecia and that among the Graecians also they who were reputed wiser than the rest as the Platonicks of which order were the Ptolomies Kings used to give the appellation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God also to those whom they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Daemons and sometimes in imitation of the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angels they thought themselves religiously concern'd openly to testifie that they spake of that God only who by supreme Right ruled and commanded all those that they honor'd by the name of Gods as among Mortal Kings the King of the Persians was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King of Kings and even at this day the King of the Habessins in Ethiopia writes himself Negûsa nagast Zaitjopja King of the Kings of Ethiopia with respect to some petty Kings subject to him or his Vice-Roys who also are honoured with the Title of Negus King as the most Learned Iobus Ludolfus observes in Hist. Aethiop l. 2. c. 1. Printed at Francfurt this present year 1681. But although the Lord that is the Highest God be here said to speak these words that follow yet ought we to hold for certain that He spake them not by Himself or Immediately but by an Angel sent as an Embassador acting in the Name of the Most High God which ought to be understood also of other the like Visions that have hapned to Holy Men in old times For it was an Angel that spake to Moses and the People in Sinah if we believe the Writer of the Acts of the Apostles chap. 7. v. 38. And so thought the Grave Iosephus also when Antiq. l. 15. he said Cum nos dogmatum potissima Sanctissimam Legum partem per Angelos à Deo acceperimus They err greatly who here by Angel understand the Second Substance of God or Second Person in the Trinity For God spake indeed in various and manifold manners to the Fathers of old but in the last times He began to speak to us by His Son Hebr. 1. 1. The Law was given by Angels by the ministry of Internuncii an Embassador or Mediator namely of Moses that it might be of force until the promised Seed should come Galat. 3. 19. And the Writer to the Hebrews prefers the Gospel to the Law from this that the Gospel was given by our Lord Iesus Himself the Law only by Angels Heb. 2. 2. In which places Angels are named in the Plural Number tho' St. Stephen saith Angel in the Singular because such is the manner of Visions of that kind that there is One Angel sustaining the Person and Name of God and others present with him as Apparitors or Ministers As in Gen. 18. Luke 2. 13. conferr'd with 1 Thess. 4. 16. and with Matth. 13. 39. 41. 49. As therefore the Angel that pronounced the Law saith I Iehovah so also do other Angels that have been likewise sent from God as Embassadors to transact affairs of great Importance speak in the first Person just as the Crier of a Court pronounces the words of the Judge as St. Austin l. 2. de Trinitate c. 2. makes the Comparison So Moses Exod. 3. 15. saith that the God Iehovah spake to him in the Bush and he that then spake to Moses had newly said I who am which is an explication of the word Iehovah i. e. Existens or Being for Being without Beginning without End and without Dependence is Proper to God alone But St. Stephen Acts 7. 30. saith that an Angel of the Lord appear'd to Moses in a Flame of Fire in a Bush and that from the Authority of Moses himself Exod. 3. 2. Of which St. Athanasius Orat. 6. saith Et vocavit Dominus Mosem exrubo dicens Ego sum Deus Patris tui Deus Abraham Deus Isaac Deus Jacob at Angelus ille non erat Deus Abraham sed in Angelo loquebatur Deus qui conspiciebatur erat Angelus c. Of the same judgment was the Author of the Responses to the Orthodox Christians when he said Angelorum qui Dei loco visi aut locuti sunt hominibus Dei vocabulo nominati sunt ut ille qui Jacobo quique Mosi est locutus Etiam homines Dii vocantur Vtrisque ob Officium ipsis injunctum datum est Dei vicem nomen obtinere Expleto autem officio desinunt vocari Dii qui tantùm operae alicujus causâ id nomen acceperunt We must acknowledge then that the words recited in this place of Exodus were pronounced by an Angel in the Name of God but we are not obliged to believe the same of those that are in Deut. 5. For they were the words of Moses by memory rehearsing the former and indeed with such liberty that he transposeth some words changeth some for others of the same signification omitteth others and addeth new for interpretation sake For Deuteronomy or as Philo speaks Epinomis is nothing else but the Law and