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
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
People either at a common Table or in their Prayers or Sacrifices Ver. 25. Verse 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean c. According to the prescriptions in the XIth Chapter which are here briefly repeated to inforce the observation of the foregoing Precepts against such incestuous Marriages as other Nations allowed their Law not permitting them so much as to eat such Meat as those Nations did but to account many things which they freely used unclean and abominable Ye shall not make your selves abominable c. See XI 43. Which I have separated from you as unclean Forbidden you to eat and thereby separated you from all other People Which had this intention in it among others already mentioned that this Nation from whom the MESSIAH was to spring might be kept pure and sincere free from all mixture with strange People unto which nothing contributed more efficaciously as an excellent Person hath observed than the difference of Meat which made it not easie for them to contract Acquaintance much less Friendship with other Nations And truly unless the People from whom the Messiah was to come had been kept separate from other Nations either all hope of him would have been lost or many in every Country to the great hurt and destruction of Mankind would have pretended to be the Person Whereas by keeping them a People distinct by themselves it came to pass that all Countries thereabouts were filled with a report that the Lord of the World shall come out of Judaea See Joh. Wagenseil Confut. Carm. Lipman p. 554 c. Ver. 26. Verse 26 And ye shall be holy unto me for I the LORD am holy See XI 44. XIX 2. and v. 7. of this Chapter And have severed you from other people that ye should be mine The very difference of Meats which they used was a Token that God had separated them from other People to be subject to such Rites and Laws as he ordained and hereby also they were so severed from others as to be kept from the most familiar Conversation with them which is at Meals and thereby they were preserved from the danger of being seduced to the Worship of strange Gods Ver. 27. Verse 27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit or that is a wizard c. The consulting such Persons is forbidden XIX 31. and the penalty added v. 6. of this Chapter and here the Persons themselves who were proved to have a familiar Spirit or to be a Wizard what they are see there are condemned to the heaviest punishment which was by being stoned to death For which Severity Maimonides gives this reason Because it is the very Scope of the whole Law to root out Idolatry and abolish the very name of it And therefore God ordered Magicians to be stoned because without doubt they are Idolaters though in a manner peculiar and different from the Vulgar And the greater part of such evil Arts being practised by Women which is the ground he thinks of that Law XII Exod. 18. towards whom Men are naturally pitiful therefore Moses saith in this place A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit c. like to which we find in no Precept not about the prophanation of the Sabbath but in this case it was necessary expresly to mention Women as well as Men because of Mens natural tenderness and clemency towards Women Thus he More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. Procopius Gazaeus his Gloss on these words is very pious but something fanciful He that is hardned like a stone to vertue deserves to be stoned For Magick commits Murders digs up Sepulchres disturbs the souls of men For Magicians are Men who corrupt Human Nature CHAP. XXI Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD said unto Moses speak unto the Priests This Law about the Priests perhaps follows that last mentioned v. 27. of the foregoing Chapter to show unto whom they should resort and of whom they should inquire viz. of the Priests who should always be ready for any Priestly Office and for common Conversation The sons of Aaron His Daughters were not concerned in the following Prohibitions because they had nothing to do in offering Sacrifices as Maimonides observes More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. There shall none be defiled for the dead By touching the dead Body or coming as the Hebrews say within four Cubits of it or entring into the House where it lay though it were to take care of the Funeral or by following the Corps to the Grave or making any Mourning for the Dead Because by these things they were legally polluted for no less than seven days XIX Numb 11 14. and consequently unfit for the Service of God and for Conversation with their Neighbours Who had the greater Reverence also for them when they saw their Dignity to be so great that they were not permitted to perform such Offices as others were obliged unto For this no doubt was intended very much to put an honour upon the Priesthood as it was also in other Nations particularly among the Romans who would not have their Pontifex to look upon a Funeral as Bochart observes out of Seneca Hieroz P. I. Lib. III. cap. 4. and the Flamen Dialis might not go into the place where the Coffin was For which reason as Servius tells us ad Lib. III. Aeneid they ordered a Bough of a Cypress-Tree to be stuck at the door of the House where a dead Body lay that the High-Priest might not ignorantly go into it It appears also by Plato that it was thus likewise among the Greeks For he would have the Priests of both Sexes to accompany one that had discharged the Office of a Censor well unto his Grave when he was buried as unto a pure Funeral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but for this he says they must ask leave of Apollo Lib. XII de Legibus p. 947. See Porphyrius de Abstin Lib. II. sect 50. Among his people The Jews are so Critical as from the word beammo among his People to gather that if a Man did not die among his People but in a strange Country where there was no Body to take care of his Funeral and see him buried a Priest might do it himself rather than his Body should lie above ground Ver. 2. Verse 2 But for his kin that is near unto him Here is an Exception to the general Rule because it would have been very hard to restrain natural Affection from carrying them to their Parents and Children and Brethren and Sisters when they died Which Cases would not often happen as Maimonides observes in the place before alledged and they are particularly named that there might be no mistake nor any colour to extend this Indulgence to Relations more remote For his mother and his father and for his son and for his daughter and for his brother If any have a mind to know the Rabbinical Reasons Why the Mother is here put before the Father and v. 11.
the Father before the Mother with such like things he may consult Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra p. 356 c. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And for his sister a virgin I see no reason why it should be restrained to his whole Sister both by Fathers and Mothers side as some of the Hebrew Doctors would have it for that his half Sister by either of them was nigh unto him as it here follows it appears by the Law about incestuous Marriages XVIII 9. Which hath had no husband To take care of her Funeral which her Brother therefore though a Priest might It is commonly observed that there is no mention here of his Wife But Maimonides with great reason thinks it was lawful for him to mourn for her but it was needless to mention her who by the Law of God was dearer to him than Father or Mother And there is this Argument for it that Ezekiel who was a Priest is forbidden by a special command to mourn for his Wife which otherwise he would have done XXIV 16 c. Ver. 4. Verse 4 But he shall not defile himself being a chief man among his people But though he might defile himself for such very near Relations yet he might not for the greatest Man in the Nation who was not so near of kin to him This seems to me to be the easiest and the most natural sense of this Verse by adding the particle lamed which in the two foregoing Verses is put before Mother Father Son Daughter Brother and Sister to Baal i. e. chief man as we translate it nothing being more usual than to omit such a particle which yet must be understood when it hath been often before-mentioned And thus the Vulgar Latin understands it And the sense is the same if we take it as our Translation seems to intend it But he shall not desile himself for any other being a chief man c. As for the Marginal Translation I can see no ground for it and there must be a greater Supplement by adding for his wife which one cannot well think is here forbidden as I observed on the foregoing Verse They also who translate it A chief Ruler shall not defile himself c. have still less reason the whole Discourse in this place being concerning the Priests To profane himself He himself in Sacred Offices being the greatest Person would have been prophaned i. e. rendred a common Man if he had mourned for any but those whom Nature had very closely linkt him unto Ver. 5. Verse 5 They shall not make baldness upon their head neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh Though they were allowed to mourn for some persons yet for none after this manner that is according to the Custom of certain Places in Chaldaea as Aben-Ezra glosses upon these words And he might have added also of the Egyptians among whose Ceremonies we find this in after times and it 's likely had been very ancient For Jul. Firmicus tells us in the beginning of his Book That in their Annual Lamentations of Osiris they were wont to shave their heads that they might bewail the miserable misfortune of their King by depriving themselves of the ornament of hair c. And he adds that they did tear their flesh and cut open the scars of their old wounds c. where Johan Wouver observes the same out of several other Authors And Plutarch in his Book of Superstition saith they generally used in mourning to be shaven whereas the Hebrews let their hair grow See X. 6. XIX 27. Ver. 6. Verse 6 They shall be holy unto their God Attend to their Office unto which they are peculiarly consecrated and not without great necessity be at any time unfitted for it And not profane the name of their God By doing as the common People did or rendring themselves uncapable to Minister unto the LORD as they were when they were any way defiled For the Offering of the LORD made by fire They attend upon his Altar where the Burnt-offerings Peace-offerings and all the rest were offered And the bread of their God do they offer The word And is not in the Hebrew and the sense will be clearer if it be left out The offering of the LORD made by fire being called The bread of their God i. e. his Meat or Food For the Altar was his Table and what was burnt thereon was in the Nature of his Provision which in the Scripture Language is comprehended under the name of Bread So Solomon Jarchi saith whatsoever may be eaten is called bread See III. 11. Thus Fruit is called Bread XI Jer. 19. and Milk XXVII Prov. 27. and Honey 1 Sam. XIV 28. And therefore no wonder the Sacrifices are here called by that name and by Malachi his Meat or Food III. 12. Which phrase is used as the Author of Sepher Cosri well observes to keep up the Notion that God dwelt gloriously and kept House among them Pars II. cap. 26. Ver. 7. Verse 7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore All incestuous Marriages were as much forbidden Priests as any other Men. But besides here are three sorts of Persons whom it was unlawful for a common Priest to marry though there was no Kindred between them The first is a Whore whereby the Hebrew Doctors understand not only one that was a common Prostitute but one that was not an Israelite or an Israelitish Woman with whom a Man had lain whom it was unlawful for her to marry Which comprehends not only all such as are forbidden in the XVIIIth Chapter of this Book but those also in XXIII Deut. 2 3. See Selden de Successionibus Lib. II. cap. 2. 3. and Vxor Hebraica Lib. I. cap. 7. Lib. III. cap. 23. Or profane A Woman was accounted so as he shows in the same place who was either descended from such a Person as is before-mentioned or who was born of such a Conjunction as is here forbidden to a Priest And there are those who think it may be understood of one that had been consecrated to a false Deity whom she served with the use of her Body which she exposed to the Worshippers of that Deity Who though she afterwards repented and became good yet a Priest was not to marry her no more than an ordinary Whore But the simplest meaning of these three seems to be that they should not marry one that had prostituted her Body or that had been any way vitiated though against her will or was of suspected Chastity or as it follows was devorced from her Husband Neither shall they take a Woman put away from her Husband For commonly Women were put away for some fault as Abarbanel notes and were presumed not to be such as a Priest should desire To the same purpose Procopius Gazaeus A Priest saith he should not only fly from manifest Evils as Fornication but decline whatsoever may blemish his Fame now
a Woman that is put away by her Husband lies under a suspicion of something that is bad For which reason as Mr. Selden observes in the place above-named a Priest might not marry her whom her Husband's Brother refused to marry after his death For he is holy unto his God Consecrated after a special manner to the Service of the Divine Majesty and therefore was not to dishonour his Priesthood by such Marriages as were not of good reputation If he did he was not to be suffered to Minister until he had given such a Wife a Bill of Divorce as Maimonides saith in Biath Hamikdasch cap. 6. An example of which there was in Manasseh the Brother of Jaddua the High-Priest who marrying contrary to the Law the Daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan was commanded either to put her away or not to come to the Altar See Selden Lib. II. de Successione in Pontificatum cap. 6. p. 238. Ver. 8. Verse 8 Thou shalt sanctifie him therefore This seems to be spoken to Moses and to all that should succeed him in the Supream Authority that they should take care the Priests should not marry with such Persons or if they did not be suffered to Minister in the Priests Office till they had put them away Accordingly we find that to keep the Priesthood pure and to avoid all suspicion of any such pollution the Names of the Priests Parents were carefully preserved in the Genealogical Tables as we learn from II Ezra 62. VII Nehemiah 64. See Selden de Succession in Pontif. Lib. II. cap. 3. Vxor Hebr. Lib. I. cap. 7. For he offereth the bread of thy God Ministreth at the Altar See v. 6. He shall be holy unto thee Keep himself pure that he may not be unfit to offer Sacrifice for the People as need shall require For I the LORD which sanctifie you am holy I who have taken you to be my peculiar People excel in all Perfections and therefore require Persons of extraordinary Sanctity to minister unto me Ver. 9. Verse 9 And the daughter of any Priest if she profane her self by playing the whore The Hebrew Doctors understand this of one married at least espoused So Aben-Ezra and R. Sol. Jarchi say expresly Our Rabbins confess with one mouth that one not espoused is not concerned in this Law See Selden Lib. I. Vxor Hebr. cap. 6. and Lib. III. cap. 23. p. 488. She profaneth her father She was doubly guilty First in profaning i. e. dishonouring her self who being the Daughter of such an eminent Person committed such an heinous Crime And secondly in dishonouring her Father whose Reputation hereby suffered She shall be burnt with fire Which was the sorest Punishment among the Jews See XX. 14. and was not inflicted upon other Persons in this Case who were barely stoned XXII Deut. 24. but only upon the Daughter of a Priest from whom greater Vertue was expected But if the Witnesses of this Fact were convicted of Perjury by other credible Witnesses produced by the Woman or her Father then both her Husband who accused her and those false Witnesses suffered the same Punishment that she should have done See Selden Lib. III. Vxor Hebr. cap. 1. p. 321. Ver. 10. Verse 10 He that is the High-Priest among his brethren Hitherto the Laws given in this Case concern the common Priests now follow those by which the High-Priest was to govern himself who was under peculiar Laws more strict than the rest Vpon whose head the anointing Oil was poured c. He having a peculiar Consecration different from the rest by pouring the holy Oil upon his Head and clothing him with the most glorious Robes See VIII 7 8 c. was in all reason to distinguish himself more than the rest of the Priests from common Men. And that is consecrated In the Hebrew the words are whose hand is filled as it was with the fat and the right shoulder of the Ram of Consecration c. by which he was hallowed to minister in the Priests Office XXIX Exod. 22 23 24. To put on the Garments To be High-Priest Shall not uncover his head Rather Shall not let his hair grow neglected without trimming as the manner was in token of mourning So Onkelos and Jonathan and a great many more See Selden Lib. II. de Successione in Pontificatum cap. 5. p. 235. and what I have noted upon the tenth Chapter of this Book v. 6. Nor rent his Clothes Another token of mourning which he was to forbear Though the Talmudists will have it that he might rent his Garments at the bottom about his feet but not at the top down to his breast as P. Cunaeus observes out of Mass Horajoth Lib. II. de Rep. Hebr. cap. 3. Before his Anointing and Consecration and putting on the holy Garments it was not unlawful for him to attend the Funeral of his Father And therefore Eleazar was present when Aaron died XX Numb being as yet in a lower Ministry and not compleatly advanced to the Office of High-Priest but only declared Aaron's Successor by putting on him his Garments See X. 6. Ver. 11. Verse 11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body nor defile himself for his father or for his mother He might not go into the House where the Body of his Father or Mother lay dead which was permitted to the inferiour Priests v. 2 3. and consequently he was not to make any external signs of mourning for Son or Daughter Brother or Sister Ver. 12. Verse 12 Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary If he was there when he heard of the death of his Father or Mother he was not to stir out from thence till he had sinished his Ministry See X. 7. For he had a little House after the Temple was built within the Precincts of it where he commonly remained all the day time which was called Lischcath cohen gadol the Parlour of the High-Priest as Cunaeus observes out of Mass Midoth Lib. II. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 3. At night he went to his own dwelling House which was in Jerusalem and no where else There he might perform all the Offices of a Mourner except those which are here forbidden and the People came to comfort him as Maimonides relates in his Treatise on this Subject and sitting upon the ground while he sat in his Chair at the Funeral Feast they said let us be thy Expiation i. e. let all the Grief that is on thee fall upon us unto which he answered Blessed be ye from Heaven as their words are reported in Sanhedrim cap. 2. n. 1. Nor profane the Sanctuary of his God By preferring his Affection to the Dead before the Service of God in the Sanctuary or by returning thither to his Ministry when he had been defiled by the dead which had been a great profanation For he that touched a dead Body was unclean seven days XIX Numb 11 12. For the crown of the anointing Oil of his God is upon him Some supply the word and
those to whom they were given such as those about Meats and Garments and Leprosie c. Against which lest any one should object it is here added I am the LORD your God I am the LORD your God I who am your Soveraign LORD and by redeeming you from the Egyptian Bondage am become in a special manner your God have ordained these things Therefore let no Man dispute them or make a question of them as the forenamed Gemara expounds these words See Selden Lib. I. de Jure N. G. cap. 10. p. 122. where he observes that the Laws called Statutes are in their Language such as depend only on the Royal Authority Ver. 5. Verse 5 Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my Judgments Observe the Laws before-mentioned For the word we here translate Statutes is the same with that translated Ordinances in the foregoing Verse Which if a man do he shall live in them Not be cut off but live long and happily in the enjoyment of all the Blessings which God promised in his Covenant with them I am the LORD Who will faithfully keep my Covenant and fulfil my Promises VI Exod. 3. Ver. 6. Verse 6 None of you In the Hebrew the words being isch isch as much as to say Man Man that is no Man the Talmudists take it as if he had said neither Jew nor Gentile For all Mankind they say are comprehended under these Laws about Incest Nay the very Karaites or those who adhere only to the Scripture and reject all Talmudical Expositions are of this mind as Mr. Selden observes Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 5. But the Talmudists themselves do not all understand this matter alike For some of them think all the Gentiles at lest those who were under the Dominion of the Israelites were bound to refrain from all incestuous Marriages to which Death is threatned by the Law But others of them think they were concerned only in those six things which were unlawful before the Law of Moses was given See Selden Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 1. and cap. 11. p. 596 c. But the ancient Hebrews give a good reason for all these Laws as Grotius observes Lib. II. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 5. sect 13. n. 2. Shall approach Some of the Jews have been so rigorous as to expound this word as if it bound them not to have any familiarity with the Persons after named R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CLXXXVIII which is against all Reason and natural Affection The plain sense is they should not approach or come near to them for the end afterward mentioned viz. to uncover their Nakedness Nay this very phrase is used for the same thing XX Gen. 4. without the addition of uncovering their Nakedness Any that is near of kin to him It must be confessed that these words near of kin do not sufficiently express the full sense of the Hebrew phrase nor are they of a determinate signification for a Man maybe near of kin to a Woman who is not the remainder of his flesh as the Hebrew phrase is that is so near of kin to him that nothing comes between them This is properly the nearness of flesh here spoken of she that is immediately born of the same Flesh that a Man is or she out of whose Flesh he is born or she that is born out of his Flesh that is in plainer words a Man's Sister Mother or Daughter These are a Man 's own immediate Relations which the Karaites call the Foundation and Root of all that is here forbidden as Selden notes Lib. I. Vx Hebr. cap. 2. For the sake of whom the rest here mentioned are prohibited having a nearness of flesh to them viz. his Father or Mother's Sister his Grand-daughter and his Niece For the best Explication of this Phrase is the express Particulars mentioned by God himself in this place To uncover their nakedness To have Carnal knowledge of her as the Scripture modestly speaks in other places For nakedness in the holy Language signifies the Secret Parts which natural Modesty teaches all civilized People to cover and not to reveal them to any but those whom they marry Therefore not to uncover the nakedness of the Persons here named is properly not to take them in Marriage and much less to have Knowledge of them without Marriage Answerable to this is the Name of a Virgin whom the Hebrews call Alma which is as much as covered clothed or veiled because those parts were never exposed to any one but those to whom they were espoused and joyned in Marriage I am the LORD By my Authority who am your Soveraign and the Soveraign of the World these Laws are enacted and I will punish those that break them Ver. 7. Verse 7 The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of thy mother thou shalt not discover It is commonly thought by Interpreters that the Particle we translate or is here as much as that is for so it signifies in some places particularly 1 Sam. XXVIII 3. So that the latter part of the Verse is only an Explication of the former and makes them but one Prohibition against a Man's marrying his Mother And this indeed the next words seem to imply she is thy Mother who bare thee and therefore not to be taken to be thy Wife much less to be otherwise known by thee But we may as well think that the nakedness of the Father and of the Mother are both here mentioned to show neither the Daughter might marry her Father nor the Son his Mother and consequently that in all the following Particulars Women were concerned just as Men were though the Men be only mentioned And under the Name of Father and Mother are comprehended Grandfather or Grandmother or other Progenitors before them She is thy mother thou shalt not uncover her nakedness This is the very first Prohibition it being a going back in Nature for a Man to marry his Mother Which though it was practised in those days by the Canaanites and Egyptians and by the Persians also in after times and some other Eastern Countries yet in the Western part of the World as Mr. Selden observes such Marriages were nunquam non execranda execrable in all Ages Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 11. p. 601 c. Such were the Marriages of Oedipus with Jocasta of Nero with Agrippina Pelopeja and Thyestes her Father of whom Aegistus was born which every Body detested See Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis Lib. II. cap. 5. sect 2. For the Law of Nature was against such Marriages notwithstanding the practice of Persons nay whole Nations whom God gave up to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul shows dishonourable affections for their other sins especially for their forsaking him and falling to Idolatry Maimonides gives this as the general reason of prohibiting this and all the following Marriages because the Persons here forbidden to be so joyned together are all in
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
their Children as it is explained XVIII Deut. 10. This was a Spiritual Adultery and therefore here mentioned Pass through the fire to Molech It is certain that Molech was particularly worshipped by the Children of Ammon at least in future Ages 1 Kings XI 7. but seems to have been the Name of many of the Heathen Gods and the same with Baal both of them signifying Dominion This appears by comparing XIX Jer. 5. with XXXII 35. But more especially it signifies the Sun the Prince of the Heavenly Bodies See Vossius de Orig. Progr Idolol Lib. II. cap. 5. as the Queen of Heaven was the Moon VII Jer. 18. Now it is evident by several passages in Scripture that the ancient Pagans whom the Israelites were prone to imitate not only made their Children pass through the fire but also offered them in Sacrifice unto Molech The former I take to be forbidden in this Law the latter in XX. 3. where giving their Children to Molech is prohibited under a severe Penalty of being put to death for that Crime whereas there is no Penalty annexed here to their making them pass through the fire Which I take therefore to have been a less Crime than the other though an idolatrous Rite practised by those who abhorred the cruelty of offering the very Life of their dear Children to Molech Instead of which this Rite was devised of making them pass through the fire for though the word fire be not here in the Hebrew Text yet it is understood by all and expressed XVIII Deut. 10. by way of Purification and Lustration as they called it and by this means to dedicate them to the Worship and Service of Molech And therefore being a Rite of Initiation whereby Parents consecrated their Sons and Daughters to their Deities we never find it mentioned in Scripture but only concerning Children not concerning Men and Women whom the Israelites are forbidden to dedicate in this manner which was in truth to alienate them from the LORD God of Israel Now that this was practised among the ancient Pagans as a Rite of Initiation appears particularly in the Mysteries of Mithra See Suidas upon that word and continued long among the Persians if we may believe Benjamin Tudelensis in his Itinearium p. 214. See G. Schickardi TARICH p. 126 c. And this very phrase make to pass unto for the word fire as I said is not here mentioned signifies as much as ad partes ejus transire to be addicted to any one like that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto God XI Hebr. 6. And so this Hebrew Phrase is used XIII Exod. 12. and may very well be thus understood here for devoting or making over their Children unto Molech For the Heathen thought their Children unclean and obnoxious to the Anger of their Gods and consequently in danger to be taken away from them if they were not thus expiated as Maimonides tells us More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. And on the contrary they fancied as R. Levi Barcelonita observes Praecept CCVIII that if only one of their Children were thus consecrated to Molech all the rest were blessed and should be prosperous For he very nicely takes notice that the Israelites are forbidden to make any of their seed to pass through the fire It not being the manner he saith to make them all pass But the idolatrous Priests to make the People more willing to this Service cunningly perswaded them that if any one Child was offered to Molech it procured a Blessing upon all and if there was only one Child in a Family they laid no Obligation on the Parents to do this The manner of doing it at this distance of time cannot certainly be known Some say their Parents carried them through two fires upon their shoulders Others that they were led between them by their Priests and so R. Levi in the place before-named The Father delivered the Child to the Priest in the name of the Idol just as it is said concerning Legal Sacrifices XV. 14. he shall give them to the Priest Others think that the Priest or some Body else waved the Child about in the very flame while Men and Women danced round the fire nay leaped through the flame And Joh. Coch observes upon the Title Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 7. that some are of the opinion the Children thus dedicated did not walk but dance through the fire which being an emblem and representative of the Sun plainly signified such Children were consecrated to that Deity And this comes nearer to the Hebrew phrase as we translate it that they did not pass between fires but through the fire But which way soever it was done whether they waved the Child through the very fire and presented it to Molech before whom the fire was kindled or led it between two fires when they had so done the Priest restored the Child to the Father again And in some such way Ahaz made his Son to pass through the fire according to the abomination of the Heathen 2 Kings XVI 3. which cannot be meant of his burning him for Hezekiah his Son outlived him and succeeded in his Throne See Theodoret in IV King Quaest 47. Maimon de Idol c. 6. sect 14. n. 4 5 6 7. and Vossius his Notes with Simeon de Muis in CVI Psal 37. Neither shalt thou prophane the name of thy God By offering their Children to Molech they in effect rejected and disowned as I before observed the LORD God of Israel which was to pollute his Name by giving that honour which was due to him alone unto another God For he gave them Children who were therefore to be devoted to none but him I am the LORD The only Soveraign of the World who will severely punish the Transgressors of this Law Ver. 22. Verse 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman-kind it is an abomination A detestable wickedness condemned by all Nations though practised by some lewd Persons among them Insomuch that the Apostles of Christ make mention of it with the greatest abhorrence I Rom. 27. 1 Corinth VI. 9. 1 Tim. I. 10. For not only several of the Roman Emperors were infamous upon this account but some also of the Greek Philosophers This Prohibition is repeated according to Maimonides in XXIII Deut. 17. whom our Translation follows there shall not be a Sodomite of the Sons of Israel But Onkelos interprets that place otherwise Ver. 23. Verse 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast c. i. e. Of any kind whatsoever Some are apt to say What need was there of such Prohibitions when it is so monstrously unnatural to mix with Creatures of a different Species from us as all Beasts are But such Persons do not understand that this was not only practised in Egypt against whose doings he cautions them v. 3. but was also made a piece of Religion Women devoted to the Worship there used most filthily submitting to the Lust of their sacred Goats So Strabo tells
them carried the two rows of Bread six Cakes apiece and the other two carried each of them a golden Dish in which the Frankincense was set upon the Bread See Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple Service Chap. 14. sect 5. Being taken from the Children of Israel At whose charge they were provided though prepared by the Levites See X Nehem. 32 33. By an everlasting Covenant By vertue of that Command which they had all agreed to observe which required the Shew-bread to be set before the LORD alway XXIV Exod. 3. XXV 30. Ver. 9. Verse 9 And it shall be Aaron 's and his sons Who as God's Servants eat of the Bread which came from his Table And they shall eat it in the holy place For the most holy things could be eaten no where else See VI. 26 29. For it is most holy unto him See Chap. II. of this Book v. 3. Of the offerings of the LORD made by fire It need not seem strange that this Bread which was not burnt upon the Altar as Meat-offerings were should be reckoned among the Offerings made by fire for as the Altar where those Meat-offerings were burnt is called God's Table I Mal. 12. so this Table where the Shew-bread stood was really God's Altar Insomuch that the Bread which was set upon it before him was lookt upon as offered upon him and the Frankincense set upon the Bread as a part of it being really burnt it may be called an Offering made by fire Thus the Gentiles also as an excellent Person of our own hath observed thought Tables rightly dedicated unto their Gods to supply the place of Altars So Macrobius saith Lib. III. Saturnal cap. 11. it evidently appeared by Papyrian's Law That arae vicem praestare posse mensam dicatam a Table consecrated might serve instead of an Altar Of which he gives an instance in the Temple of Juno Populonia and then proceeds to give a reason for it because Altars and Tables eodem die quo aedes ipsae dedicari solent were wont to be dedicated on the same day with the Temples themselves From whence it was that a Table hoc ritu dedicata dedicated in this manner was of the same use in the Temple with an Altar See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 8. n. 7. By a perpetual statute As long as these Sacrifices lasted Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman whose father was an Egyptian went out among the Children of Israel In the Hebrew the words run thus And there went out the son of an Israelitish woman and he was the son of an Egyptian man in the midst of or among the Children of Israel Which last words signifie that though his Father was an Egyptian by birth yet he was become a Proselyte by Religion And was one of those it is probable who went along with the Israelites when God brought them out of Egypt XII Exod. 38. So R. Solomon Jarchi interprets this phrase Among the Children of Israel Hence saith he we learn that he was a Proselyte of Righteousness And Aben-Ezra to the same purpose He was received into the number of the Jews See a great many more in Mr. Selden Lib. II. de Synedriis cap. 1. numb 2. where he observes That it is the common Opinion of the Jews this Man was the Son of him whom Moses kill'd in Egypt II Exod. 12. And this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the Camp When God was delivering the foregoing Laws unto Moses this Case seems to have hapned And the Jews say the Controversie between these two was this The former looking upon himself as having a good right to it by his Mother came and endeavoured to set up a Tent among the Children of Dan in that place where their Tribe had pitched their Tents which was opposed by one of that Tribe who told him the right of his Mother would do him no service unless his Father had been an Israelite for the Law was II Numb 2. that every Man of the Children of Israel should pitch by his own Standard with the Ensign of their Father's House Which Law though given afterward yet they suppose was the Rule before by which this Man was condemned by those that heard the Cause to be in the wrong Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the Israelitish womans son blasphemed the Name of the LORD and cursed Sentence being given against him he uttered blasphemous words against God himself perhaps renounced the LORD and also cursed those Judges that had condemned him The Jews commonly think that this Blasphemy was his pronouncing the peculiar Name of God which he heard at Mount Sinai when the Law was given But this is a meer fancy for there were some reproachful words utter'd against God as well as against the Judges as appears from v. 15. And they themselves acknowledge that a Proselyte was guilty of death whether he cursed by the proper Name of God or any other as Mr. Selden shows Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 12. Pellicanus thinks it probable that this Man mockt at the foregoing Laws which were delivered about the Worship of God and contemned God himself when he was told by whose Authority they were enacted And they brought him unto Moses If the occasion of their strife was such as the Jews imagine then Mr. Selden thinks it highly probable that the Cause had been heard and judged by some of the lesser Courts established by Jethro's advice XVIII Exod. 21 22. where the Blasphemy had been so plainly proved that he was convicted of it but they doubting about the Punishment of so high a Crime referred the consideration of that to Moses as the Supream Judge And his mothers name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri of the Tribe of Dan. I see no reason of mentioning the name of the Woman from whom he was descended but that all might be satisfied of the Truth of this History Ver. 12. Verse 12 And they put him inward Committed him to Prison that he might be secured till his Punishment was declared That the mind of the LORD might be shewed them In the Hebrew the words are That it might be expounded to them viz. by Moses according to the mouth of the LORD that is as the LORD should declare to him And so Onkelos renders them Till the matter was expounded to them according to the sentance of the word of the LORD For it is noted here by a famous Commentator among the Jews as Mr. Selden observes in the place before mentioned Lib. II. de Synedr c. 1. that God was consulted about this matter because they did not know whether he was to die for this crime or whether his judgment was to be expected from the hand of Heaven or otherwise Whence Jarchi says they did not know whether he was guilty of death or not And so Theodoret Q. XXXIII in Lev. There was no Law as yet about this matter But there was