this the Greek and several other Versions of the Bible agree who make the Prohibition of the Wives Daughter to end before he speaks of his own Sister And it is the sense of the principal Men among the Karaites as he shows cap. 6. But this is against the constant sense of the Hebrew Doctors who say it is lawful to marry the Daughter of a Mother-in-law which she had by another Husband for there is no nearness of Flesh at all between these two And therefore as in the ninth Verse the Marriages of all Brothers and Sisters in general are forbidden so here more particularly the Marriage with a Sister by the same Father though not by the same Mother which was necessary to be expresly forbidden because before the Law the Sons of Noah thought it lawful to marry a half Sister as we speak by the Father's side though not by the Mothers See Buxtorf de Spons Divort. p. 15 16. And this was the ancient Law of Solon among the Athenians that they might marry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Sisters by the same Father but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Sisters by the same Mother as Joh. Meursius shows in his Themis Attica Lib. I. cap. 18. And if the one of these had not been in so many words prohibited as well as the other the Jews might still have continued in that practice which was usual before the Law See Sam. Petitus in Leges Atticas p. 440. Some are of the opinion that in the ninth Verse the Son of a second Venter is forbidden to marry the Daughter of the first and here the Son of the first Venter to marry the Daughter of the second And others fancy that the Sister here meant is one that was adopted by his Father Ver. 12. Verse 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers sister And it made no difference whether she was his Father's Sister legitimately or illegitimately begotten by his Grandfather as R. Levi Barcelonita represents the opinion of the Hebrew Doctors Praecept CXCVII Such Marriages also were prohibited by the ancient Romans as Mr. Selden observes in the place forenamed Lib. V. cap. 11. p. 605. though before the Law of Moses they are supposed to be lawful for it is commonly thought that his Father Amram married his Aunt Jochobed VI Exod. 20. and therefore no wonder it was practised in other Countries who were not acquainted with this Prohibition particularly at Sparta where Herodotus saith in his Erato cap. 71. Archidamus their King married Lampito who was Sister to his Father Zeuxidamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leutychides who was Father both to her and to Zeuxidamus giving her to him in Marriage She is thy fathers near kinswoman So near that as he could not be permitted to marry her so his Son also who was but a little further removed from her was forbidden to touch her And by the same reason that a Man might not marry his Aunt an Uncle might not marry his Niece Which though practised among the Romans after Claudius married Agrippina till the time of Constantine yet it was a new thing as Claudius himself acknowledges in Tacitus Nova nohis in fratrum filias conjugia Lib. XII Annal. Marriages with our Brother's Daughters are new things with us And all he could say for it was That it was common in other Nations nec lege ulla prohibita and not forbidden by any Law And indeed the newness of it so frighted Domitian that he would not venture upon it nor did many use it Which shows that this Law had some foundation in Nature which made those Men cautious about such Marriages who had nothing else to guide them Or at least there had been such a long Custom against them in the Western part of the World that Men who were otherwise very bad would not help to alter it Ver. 13. Verse 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers sister for she is thy mothers near kinswoman There is the same reason for this as for the former Prohibition the Aunt by the Mother's side being as near to a Man as his Aunt by the Fathers Ver. 14. Verse 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother This is explained in the next words Thou shalt not approach to his Wife that is not marry thy Uncles Wife And therefore much less might an Uncle marry his Brother's Daughter as Herodotus tells us Darius married Phrataguna the Daughter of his Brother Atarnes who gave him all his Estate with her and Leonides King of Sparta married Gorgo the Daughter of his Brother Cleomenes See Lib. VII called Polymnia cap. CCXXIV. and CCXXXIX She is thy Aunt By such near Affinity that Marriage is forbidden with her as well as with an Aunt by Consanguinity v. 12 13. In which the ancient Romans also were very strict as our Selden observes in the place above-named And it made no difference whether he were only Espoused to her or had after Marriage divorced her or was separated by Death or whether he was his Father's Brother legitimately or spuriously as R. Levi Barcelonita observes Praecept CXCIX and CC. Where he notes that though the Fathers Brother's Wife be only mentioned yet the Mothers Brother's Wife is also prohibited This is repeated XX. 20. Ver. 15. Verse 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law she is thy sons wife c. Though only espoused to him and therefore much more when solemnly married as the same R. Levi explains it Praecept CCI. where he hath the same observation as before that if she was afterwards divorced he might not marry her and that it is probable the Wife of a Bastard Son is prohibited for he is his Son though a Child by a Slave or a Stranger is never called a Man's Son Ver. 16. Verse 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife c. Unless he died Childless for in that case the next Brother was bound to marry her XXV Deut. 5. See Buxtorf de Spons p. 25. and Grotius in XIV Matth. 4. Much less might a Man marry his Brother's Daughter as was before noted who was nearer to him and of his own Flesh Which was so much abhorred by the ancient Romans that Claudius Caesar durst not celebrate his Marriage with Agrippina till he had got a Decree of the Senate for it Quo justae inter patruos fratrumque filias nuptiae etiam in posterum statuerentur which made the Marriage of Uncles with their Brother's Daughters to be lawful for the future which hitherto had been without example So Tacitus relates in the fore-named Book of his Annals cap. 5. where he saith notwithstanding this Decree there were none found but only one Man who desired such Matrimony and most thought he did it to gain Agrippina's favour Neque tamen repertus est nisi unus talis matrimonii cupitor c. Ver. 17. Verse 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a
Woman and her daughter If a Man married a Widow that had a Daughter it was a wicked thing to marry that Daughter either while her Mother lived or after she was dead Neither shalt thou take her sons daughter nor her daughters daughter to uncover her nakedness To preserve them from this the Jews added as a Hedge to this Law a Prohibition to marry the Grand-daughters of such Daughters as R. Levi Barcelonita tells us Praecept CCV For they are her near kinswomen Of such Consanguinity with her from whom they directly come as makes it very Criminal in him that is one with her to marry them It is wickedness The Hebrew word Zimmah imports more than Wickedness The LXX translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impiety the Vulgar Latin Incest others nefarious wickedness which is the word in the Civil Law for those Marriages that are contrary to Nature Such were these in some measure though not in the highest degree Ver. 18. Verse 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister There are a great many eminent Writers who following our Marginal Translation one wife to another imagine that here plurality of Wives is expresly forbidden by God And they think there is an example to justifie this Translation in XXVI Exod. 3. Where Moses is commanded to take care the five Curtains of the Tabernacle were coupled together one to its sister as the Hebrew phrase is i. e. one to another And so the Karaites interpret this place That a Man having a Wife should not take another while she lived Which if it were true would solve several difficulties but there are such strong Reasons against it that I cannot think it to be the meaning For as more Wives than one were indulged before the Law so they were after And Moses himself supposes as much when he provides a Man should not prefer a Child he had by a beloved Wife before one by her whom he hated if he was the eldest Son Which plainly intimates an allowance in his Law of more Wives than one And so we find expresly their Kings might have though not a multitude XVII Deut. 17. And their best King who read God's Law day and night and could not but understand it took many Wives without any reproof Nay God gave him more than he had before by delivering his Master's Wives to him 2 Sam. XII 8. And besides all this Moses speaking all along in this Chapter of Consanguinity it is reasonable as Schindlerus observes to conclude he doth so here not of one Woman to another but of one Sister to another There being also the like reason to understand the word Sister properly in this place as the words Daughter and Mother in others v. 17. and XX. 14. where he forbids a Man to take a Woman and her Daughter or a Woman and her Mother as Theodorick Hackspan judiciously notes Disput I. de locutionibus sacris n. 29. See Selden L. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. and Buxtorf de Sponsal p. 28 29. The meaning therefore is That though two Wives at a time or more were permitted in those days no Man should take two Sisters as Jacob had formerly done begotten of the same Father or born of the same Mother whether legitimately or illegitimately as the fore-named R. Levi expresses it Praecept CCVI. Which though it may seem to be prohibited before by consequence and analogy because the Marriage of a Brother's Wife is forbidden v. 16. yet it is here directly prohibited as other Marriages are which were implicitly forbidden before For v. 7. the Marriage of a Son with his Mother is forbidden and v. 10. the Marriage of a Father with his Daughter To vex her There were wont to be great Emulations and Jealousies and contentions between Wives some of them being more beloved than others and also superiour to them which between two Sisters would have been more intolerable than between two other Women who not being à consanguinitate aequiore animo sub eodem marito aetatem unà agant as Petrus Cunaeus speaks Lib. II. de Repub. Hebr. cap. 23. of the same Consanguinity as two Sisters are might live with more equal and quiet minds under the same Husband The Vulgar Latin understands this as if Moses forbad them to make one Sister their Wife and the other their Concubine which could not but beget the greatest discords between them In her life time From hence some infer that a Man was permitted to marry the Sister of his former Wife when she was dead So the Talmudists but the Karaites thought it absolutely unlawful as Mr. Selden observes Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4. For it is directly against the Scope of all these Laws which prohibit Men to marry at all with such Persons as are here mentioned either in their Wives life time or after And there being a Prohibition v. 16. to marry a Brother's Wife it is unreasonable to think Moses gave them leave to marry their Wive's Sister These words therefore In her life time are to be referred not to the first words Neither shalt thou take her but to the next To vex her as long as she lives Chaskuni refers it to both the Sisters according to the Targum and makes this the sense least they should both be afflicted Widows as long as they live for no Body would marry either of them being defiled by such an incestuous Conjunction for which God cut off their Husband In this the ancient Christians were so strict that if a Man after his Wife died married her Sister he was by the tenth Canon of the Council of Eliberis to be kept from the Communion five years Ver. 19. Verse 19 Also thou shalt not approach to a woman No not to his own Wife as the fore-named R. Levi expounds it Praecept CCVII. though all other Women also are comprehended even their Canaanitish Slaves as he observes As long as she is put apart for her uncleanness Which was seven days XV. 19. All the Laws about Marriages unto this place seem to have a special regard to the wicked Customs among the Egyptians who above all other People were then polluted with such incestuous mixtures And now he proceeds to direct them to abhor the Customs of the Canaanites who were polluted more than other Nations with Adulteries and offering their Children to Molech and the rest of the foul Crimes which follow For against the practises of these two Nations the Egyptians and the Canaanites Moses cautions them v. 3. and accordingly first mentions the doings of the Egyptians unto this place and then those of the Canaanites in the following Verses Ver. 20. Verse 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbours wife While he lived with her for this was to commit Adultery To defile thy self with her This signifies the foulest impurity as appears from v. 23. and was punished with death XX. 10. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed i. e. Of
a manner such as are wont to live together in the same House for so Fathers Mothers Children Brothers and Sisters do who might easily be tempted to lewdness one with another if even marrying together were not severely forbidden And thus the LXX translate the words of the foregoing Verse none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as other Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are so near of kin that they usually dwell in the same House as Parents and Children Brothers and Sisters and the Brothers and Sisters of our Parents Mahomet as lewd and impudent as he was had not the boldness to controul these Laws but in the fourth Chapter of his Alcoran expresly forbids his Followers to marry their Mothers their Mothers-in-law c. and a great many of the rest which here follow Ver. 8. Verse 8 The nakedness of thy fathers wife shalt thou not uncover That is of a Step-mother Such was the incest of Reuben with Bilhah XXXV Gen. 22. and of Absolom with the Wives of his Father David 2 Sam. XVI 21 22. And of Antiochus Soter with Stratonice who abhorring from such a Conjunction was taught that all things were honest that pleased the King But the thing it self is so hateful that the very naming it is a Condemnation and therefore it is all one with the prime Natural Law which prohibits the Conjunction of Parents and Children For she that is one flesh with my Father as a great Man speaks is as near to me as my Father and that 's as near as my own Mother As near I mean in the estimation of Law though not in the accounts of Nature and therefore though it be a Crime of a less turpitude yet it is equally forbidden and is against the Law of Nature not directly but by interpretation Book II. chap. 2. Ductor Dubitantium Rule 3. n. 29. It is thy fathers nakedness He having known her it was not permitted the Son to have her also Nay the Jews say if the Father had only espoused her it was not lawful for the Son to have her to Wife or if he had divorced her it was not lawful for the Son to have her even after he was dead See R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CXCI. Buxtof de Sponsal p. 16 17. Ver. 9. Verse 9 The nakedness of thy sister As the nearness of flesh mentioned v. 6. above a Man is his Mother and below him is his daughter so on the side of him is his Sister The daughter of thy father Though she were begotten by his Father of another Wife not of his Mother yet he might not marry her Or the daughter of thy mother Born of her by another Husband not by his Father Whether she be born at home or born abroad Be legitimately born in wedlock or illegitimately out of wedlock as the Talmudists expound it See Selden Lib. V. de Jure N. G. cap. 10. p. 591. where he observes that though the Egyptians as Philo and others report with such like Nations thought the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters to be lawful and it was practised also in Greece yet the greatest Men in the Western Countries condemned such Marriages which some of the Greek Philosophers also disallowed and Euripides himself called barbarous even when it was practised Insomuch that in after Ages this wicked Custom was quite abolished and that before Christianity was well settled among them For Sextus Empiricus saith that in his time it was utterly unlawful See there cap. 11. p. 603 605 c. Where he shows the Romans always abhorred such Marriages nay it was late before the Persians took up this abominable Custom after the example of Cambyses who being in love with his own Sister as Herodotus relates in his Thalia cap. XXXI and having a Mind to marry her which was never practised before in that Country he commanded the Royal Judges as he calls them who were the Interpreters of the Laws to advise whether he might lawfully do it or no. Who to please him and yet not seem to give an illegal opinion answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That they could find no law which permitted a Brother to marry his Sister but there was a Law that the Persian King might do even what he would See Grotius Lib. II. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 5. sect 13. Even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover It shall be unlawful to thee to marry any of the forenamed Sisters For though the Marriage of Brother and Sister was necessary in the beginning when God created but one Man and one Woman by whose Children the World was peopled yet when it was so there was great reason that it should be made utterly unlawful as many have demonstrated Particularly Bishop Taylor in his Ductor Dubitantium Book II. chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 24 25 c. For now it is next to an unnatural mixture as he speaks it hath something of confusion in it and blending the very first parting 's of Nature which makes it intollerably scandalous and universally forbidden for if it were not the mischief would be horrible and infinite Ver. 10. Verse 10 The nakedness of thy sons daughter or of thy daughters daughter even their nakedness thou shalt not discover This Law concerns a Man's Grand-daughters by his Son or his Daughter whether legitimately or spuriously begotten as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it Praecept CXCIII Who adds in the next Precept but one this is another Prohibition Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter which saith he is not expresly mentioned in this Law because it was not necessary For a Man's Grand-children either by Sons or Daughters which are more remote being forbidden there was no need to say it was unlawful for him to marry his own Daughter For theirs is thy own nakedness They have their original from thy Nakedness For which reason some of the Jews extended this to those Descendants which were still further off as an Hedge to this Law So R. Levi calls it in the place forenamed The ancient Romans also as our Mr. Selden shows were very strict in restraining the Marriage of Men with their Nieces either by their Brothers or Sisters and with others mentioned in the following Laws of Moses Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gentium c cap. 11. p. 605. c. Ver. 11. Verse 11 The nakedness of thy fathers wives daughter begotten of thy father she is thy sister thou shalt not uncover her nakedness This Prohibition seeming to be the same with that v. 9. some of the Hebrews have expounded this concerning the Daughter of a Mother-in-law begotten by another Father For the words may be thus translated as Mr. Selden observes the order of them will bear Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4. The nakedness of the Daughter of thy Father's Wife for she that is born of thy Father is thy Sister thou shalt not discover And with
or a voluntary offering These two other sorts of Peace-offerings were in the nature of Prayers for the obtaining such Blessings as they desired and hoped for And they were either the performance of a Vow which they made to God of offering him such a Sacrifice when they received the benefit which was called Neder or they were freely made before hand in hope God would bestow the benefit which Sacrifice was called Nedebah a voluntary offering Now these were not so holy as the former and therefore might be eaten on the morrow as well as on the same day they were offered So it here follows It shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his Sacrifice Then they were immediately to begin to feast upon the Sacrifice And on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten But if they could not conveniently eat it all the same day or had a mind to lay up some of it till the next they had that liberty allowed them For which Philo gives this reason in the same Book that these being for Mercies not yet received or offered by vertue of an obligation they might take more time to feast upon them with their Friends and be more sparing but the former being a thankful Acknowledgment of Blessings already bestowed their hearts were to be inlarged in greater bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they upon whom God readily bestowed his benefits might make a quick and speedy return by doing good to others without delay And what is here said of the Flesh of the Sacrifice the Jews also understand of the Meat-offerings mentioned v. 12 13. None of which were to be kept longer than two days at the most There is no place here assigned where these Sacrifices should be eaten at the Sanctuary as there is for the other VI. 16. 26. and here in this Chapter v. 6. The reason is because there was such a multitude of them that it might have made too great a crowd in the Court of the Israelites if they had been confined to it Where they might eat them if they pleased as I showed before VI. 16. but were not determined to that place but left at liberty to eat them in any part of the City where the Tabernacle and afterward the Temple stood See XII Deut. 6 7. And consequently while they dwelt in the Wilderness they might eat them any where in the Camp which was pitched round about the Tabernacle only it was to be in a clean place where the Priests might eat them as well as the People X. 14. Ver. 17. Verse 17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire If there were such plenty or they and their Friends were too sew or they were so niggardly as not to call Poor enow to eat all in two days time they were to have no further benefit of the Flesh of this Sacrifice but what remained of it on the third day was to be burnt Which was to preserve the dignity of the Sacrifice as the Jews speak in preventing its stinking And there was no nobler way of consuming it than by sire which consumed the Sacrifice on the Altar So R. Levi Barcel observes Praecept CXXXVIII where he also adds that God taught them hereby not to be solicitous for the future nor careful to hoard up more than needed when they saw him command the holy Flesh to be destroyed after the time allotted for its use was past The Heathens themselves thought this a decent Rite for there was a Sacrifice at Rome which they called Protervia as Bochart observes out of Macrobius L. II. Saturnal cap. 2. in which the Custom was ut si quid ex epulis superfuisset igne consumeretur that if any thing of the Feast remained it was consumed in the fire See his Hierozoic P. I. L. II. cap. 50. Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day it shall not be accepted c. He lost the fruit of his Sacrifice which he had offered to God by this profanation which destroyed the Grace and Favour which it had procured him with God Neither shall it be imputed to him that offered it He shall not be thought to have made any offering at all It shall be an abomination c. And more than that it rendered him abominable being abominable it self and made him liable to be scourged as the Jews here understand the last words of this Verse he shall bear his iniquity Which I think also signifies that he should die under a great guilt till it was purged by a Trespass-offering Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten That is the Flesh of the Peace-offerings before-mentioned which might happen as they carried it from the Altar to the place where they intended to make a Feast upon it to touch any unclean thing might not be eaten by any body But burnt with fire As that which remained to the third day was v. 17. This made them very careful to preserve it pure And as for the flesh That is all the Flesh which was not defiled by touching any unclean thing All that be clean shall eat thereof Whether the Priest or other Persons For the Priest had the right Shoulder and the Breast as we read expresly v. 33 34. and he that brought the Sacrifice had the rest Of the former the whole Family of the Priest might eat not only his Sons but his Wife and Daughters who were not married or being Widows were come back to their Father again if they had no Children or if those they had were begotten by Priests Yea his Servants born in his House or bought with his Money See XXII 11 12 13. XVIII Numb 11. And of the rest of the Sacrifice he that offered it might eat it with all his Family and his Friends excepting those who had any uncleanness upon them There are frequent mention of these Feasts in the following Books of the Bible As that made by Elkanah 1 Sam. I. 4. and by Samuel when he entertained Saul 1 Sam. IX 13 24. And when the Kingdom was renewed to Saul at Gilgal there was a Publick Feast made on these Offerings with great rejoycing 1 Sam. XI 15. And the like was made for Jesse and his Sons XVI 3 5. And by David when he entertained the People 1 Chron. XVI 3. and by Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple 1 Kings VIII 65. And all the Children of Israel made such a Feast at their return from Babylon VIII Nehem. 19. There are many Examples also of the like Feasts among the Heathens particularly in Homer where Agamemnon Iliad I. offered an Hecatomb and made a Feast upon it And Nestor Odyss III. offered a Sacrifice of LXXXII Oxen and made the like Entertainment Ver. 20. Verse 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of the
here by devoured them took away their Breath in a moment From which Expression the Hebrew Doctors conclude that when any body was condemned to be burnt it was not to be consumed to Ashes but only exanimated by the Fire because this is called devouring or burning here in this place See Gamera Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 1. And they died before the LORD Fell down dead in the House of God Which may seem too great a Severity till it be considered how reasonable and necessary it was to inflict a heavy Punishment upon the first Transgressors of a Law concerning a Matter of great moment to deter others from the like Offence Many instances of which there are in Scripture Some observed by St. Chrysostom upon VI Psal 2. where he gives this account why the Man who gathered a few sticks upon the Sabbath-day was adjudged to be stoned as Blasphemers were because it was a very heinous thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as soon as a Law was enacted immediately to break it which made it necessary it should be thus severely punished to strike such a Terror into others that they might not dare to do the like Which was the reason he observes of the sudden Death of Ananias and Sapphira mentioned Acts V. Isidore of Peleusium hath made the same observation Lib. I. Epist. 181 and goes so far back as to our first Parents who were dreadfully punished for a seemingly small Offence because they were the first Transgressors The same others have observed of the punishment of Cain who committed the first Murder of the filthiness of Sodom of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf the Covetousness and Sacriledge of Achan the Disobedience of Saul the first King of Israel the sudden Death of Vzzah who was the first that presumed to touch the Ark of God Ver. 3. Verse 3 And Moses said unto Aaron To satisfie him in the Justice and Wisdom of this dreadful stroke at which he could not but be extreamly afflicted This is that the LORD spake saying I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me To come nigh unto God is in the holy Language to perform the Office of a Priest XIX Exod. 22. XVI Numb 5. who having the honour of attending upon the Service of the Divine Majesty were bound to approach into his Presence with the greatest Reverence We do not read indeed those very words which Moses here recites in the foregoing Books But as many things were spoken to them which are not recorded so the sense of these words are in the place forenamed XIX Exod. 22. and the reason of them in XXIX Exod. 43 44. where the Tabernacle being said to be sanctified by the Divine Glory and the Priests being sanctified to minister unto him therein which was seven days a doing as we read here VIII 35. they were plainly taught to draw nigh to God with a holy Fear and to do nothing rashly nor without order from him For God being peculiarly known by the Name of the Holy One i. e. who hath incomparable Perfections such as no other Being hath he justly required to be accordingly worshipped sutable to his most surpassing Greatness by peculiar Rites of his own prescribing in a different manner from all other Beings It was for instance below his Emenency or rather Supereminent Majesty to have common Fire such as they imployed in their Kitchins used for the burning Sacrifice upon his Altar And in like manner all other parts of his Service were in reason to be performed after such a fashion as might signifie their sense of the peculiar Excellencies of the Divine Nature who therefore sent Fire from Heaven as only fit to burn perpetually upon his Altar And before all the people will I be glorified This may be thought to be but a solemn Repetition of what was spoken before as the manner is in these Books to deliver the same thing twice in different words Or the meaning is if they who draw nigh to me will not sanctifie me I will vindicate my own honour by such Punishments as shall openly declare to all that I am the Holy One. Thus God is said to be honoured upon Pharaoh by drowning him in the Red-sea XIV Exod. 4. And Aaron held his peace Silently adored the Justice of the Holy One and did not complain of his Severity For this doth not seem to be the effect meerly of great Grief but of great Reverence to the Divine Majesty Ver. 4. Verse 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron It appears from VI Exod. 18. that Vzziel the Father of Mishael and Elzaphan v. 22. was the younger Brother of Amram the Father of Aaron and consequently Aaron's Uncle And said unto them Come near and carry your brethren All near Kindred are called Brethren in Scripture And these Cosin Germans of theirs are appointed to carry them out because Aaron's other Sons were now attending upon God in their Ministration upon the Day of their Consecration But without this special order these two Persons could not have been admitted to come near into the very Sanctuary being not of the Family of Priests though of Kin to him From before the Sanctuary See v. 2. Out of the Camp For anciently they buried not in their Cities but in the Fields adjacent to them XXIII Gen. 9 17. and so they did in after times XXVII Matth. 7. and VIII Luke 27. where the Tombs are plainly intimated to be without the City Ver. 5. Verse 5 So they went near There being two Accents upon the Hebrew word for draw near the Cabbalists from thence observe I know not upon what grounds that these Men did not come into the very Sanctuary where the dead Bodies lay but drew them out with long Poles and those of Iron being afraid of the Fire wherewith Nadab and Abihu had been killed or rather fearing to go into the Sanctuary or too near it See Hackspan's Cabala Judaica n. 58. And carried them out in their Coats c. Their Linen Vestments wherein they ministred which having touched dead Bodies were no more fit to be used in the Divine Service As Moses had said As he had directed in his order which he gave them Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses said unto Aaron and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar his sons These two were all the Sons that Aaron had now remaining from whom came two great Families of the Priests which in the days of David we find very numerous though more of the House of Eleazar than of the other when they were by him divided into XXIV Classes and had their Courses of waiting appointed them 1 Chron. XXIV 4 c. Vncover not your heads The Hebrew Doctors interpret it quite contrary Let not the head of your hair grow so long that is as to cover their Faces which was the custom of Mourners 2 Sam. XV. 30. XIX 4. and many other places And thus Onkelos and the Arabick Version set forth by