THE HARMONY OF Natural and Positive Divine Laws.  Chrysostom. ad Demetrium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Quòd praeceptis non creditur, ex inertia ad implenda quae praecepta sunt, venit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deo parere, non libertate tantùm, sed & regno praestantius est. Philo Lib. de Regno. 
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1682.   

THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER.  
FOrtune, though beyond my merit, and beside my expectation so propitious, as to give me, not only the liberty of reading the Original Manuscript of this Compendious Treatise, but also a right of adjudging it, either to perpetual Darkness in my Cabinet, or to public Light, as I should think convenient: hath yet been so reserved, or sullen, as to deny me the knowledge of the Author's Name and Quality; as if it were favour great enough, that she entrusted me to dispose of another's Treasure, without understanding from whom she had received it; or as if she designed to make Trial of my Faith, whether I would lay claim to what seemed to want an owner. But this her Caprichio, as it hath not deterred me from divulging, so ought it not to discourage you, Candid Reader, from seriously perusing this Manual. For 'tis an ancient and wise saying of a Philosopher, Non tam quis dixerit refert, quam quid dictum sit: and if the Book be good enough to commend itself, what can it concern you or me to be inquisitive who Composed it? if not; certainly no Name, how much soever celebrated, can defend it from neglect and Contempt. Besides, when we remain ignorant upon whom to fix the blame of our Frustrations, commonly that Ignorance turns to our advantage, by mitigating our Resentments, and keeping our displeasure from transgressing the limits of Humanity and Moderation.  
This I speak, neither out of dislike of that Natural Curiosity by which all Men are led to search into things concealed, nor from vain hope to restrain you from using the liberty of Conjecturing, that is equally common to all: but only from good Manners, which forbid us to pry into the Secrets of another, chiefly of him who judges the Communication of them to be unsafe to himself, and no way useful to us. If therefore our Author, duly conscious to himself of Human Frailty, and diffident of his own Learning and judgement, fears to come upon the Stage in this Censorious Age, wherein the Illiterate blush not to condemn the Knowing: we are at once to acknowledge his Modesty, and commend his Prudence, not to envy him the Privacy he affects. And this is enough for me to say, and for you to know concerning him.  
As for myself; If I, from good will to all Mankind, desire to make Common to that benefit, which seems have been at first intended to be enclosed and kept peculiar: I neither invade the Author's propriety, nor abuse the freedom permitted to me, but charitably dispense to many the Wealth I might have kept entirely to myself. And this too, following the Writers example, I choose to do unknown; that my Charity may be exempt from all suspicion of Ostentation, and that I may prevent all thanks of those that take it in good part. So that in fine, all I ask of you is, that you would freely enjoy the pleasure of his Studies, and of my benevolence, without thinking yourself obliged to either, without perturbing the quiet we both hope from our belov'd obscurity. This, Good Reader, you cannot with Equity deny to Men, who leaving to Censure the Liberty wherein chiefly it delights, do by concealing the more expose themselves.  
It remains only, that I add a short Advertisement concerning the Book itself, of the good reception whereof by the Learned and the judicious, I am not a little Solicitous, and from whose Fate I may learn how rightly to estimate the small Judgement I have in Discourses of this kind. Permit me therefore to inform you, That it was Written by the Author to no other end, but to confirm his Faith by enquiring into the Reasonableness and Purity of it, and to augment his Piety toward God. In a Word, That he might offer to the Divine Majesty, not the Sacrifice of Fools, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worship consentaneous to right Reason: as appears from the laudable Profession he makes in the Fifth Article of the Second Chapter of the First Part; and from the plainness and simplicity of the Style, such as serious Men use, when they commit to Writing their Collections and Remarks for their own private use; and (what is yet more convincing) from the Scope of the whole Disquisition. The Design than you will (I presume) acknowledge to be good, worthy a Philosopher and a Christian. And if he hath pursued it so far as to satisfy his own Reason, why may not I hope from the same Cause the like good effect also in the Minds of others? From this, and only this hope it is, that I permit this Compendium of Natural and Positive Divine Laws to see the Public Light. If my hope be by wiser Heads found to stand upon an infirm Basis; the charity of my intention may at least excuse, if not expiate the Error of my understanding.   


THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART.  

CHAP. I. Of Right and Law in general. Pag. 1.  
II. God's Right to Sovereign Dominion over all things in the World. 10  
III. Of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah, in general. 18.  
IV. Of Extraneous Worshipor Idolatry 21  
V. Of Malediction of the Most Holy Name, or Blasphemy. 28  
VI Of shedding Blood, or Homicide. 32  
VII. Of uncovering Nakedness, or unlawful Copulation. 40  
VIII. Of Theft or Rapine. 54  
IX. Of judgements, or the Administration of justice in Courts of judicature; and of Civil Obedience. 65  
X. Prints of the Six precedent Natural Precepts, found in the Book of Job. 73  
XI. Of not eating any member of an Animal alive. 76    

OF THE SECOND PART.  

CHAP. I. The Preface to the Decalogue Explained. Page 81  
II. The First Precept Explicated 96  
III. The Second Precept Explicated 111  
IV. The Third Precept Explicated 143  
V. The Fourth Precept Explicated 148  
VI The Fifth Precept Explicated 172  
VII. The Sixth Precept Explicated 181  
VIII. The Seventh Precept Explicated 185  
IX. The Eighth Precept Explicated 187  
X. The Ninth Precept Explicated 189  
XI. The Tenth Precept Explicated 193  
XII. Evangelic Precepts reduced to those of the Decalogue. 200   

APPENDIX,  
Containing a short History of the jews TALMUD. 209     

THE CONCORDANCE OF Natural and Positive Divine LAWS.  

PART I.  
Containing a Brief Explication of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah, And Reduction of them to the Dictates of right Reason.  

CHAP. I.  
Of Right and Law in General.  
WHat is by the ancient Wise Men of Greece, 
Article. 1. Right defined, and  as well Philosophers as Legislators, called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by the Latins, Ius; and by the English, RIGHT; may not unfitly be defined to be the Rule, Measure, and Index of what is Lawful, and what Unlawful.  
This is considered in a twofold sense, first as it is Obligative or binding, 
2. distinguished into Preceptive and Concessive.  and then it is called also Preceptive or Commanded: or secondly as it is only Permissive, and then it is named also Concessive. In the former sense it takes place in those things that are commanded or forbidden, as to give every man his due, not to swear falsely, etc. In the later, it is found in those things whereof the use is neither commanded nor forbidden, but yet notwithstanding permitted; as in the act of Buying, Selling, Manumission, in the conditions of Contractors used to be added to their Contracts, and in others of that kind.  
But both these kinds of Right belong, either to all Mankind universally, 
3. What is Right Natural, and What Divine.  that is, to all Nations, or not to all. That which belongs to all Mankind, or all Nations, is again distinguished into Natural and Divine. The Natural is that which is manifest from the light of man's natural reason, or the right use of his faculty of understanding and inferring; elegantly defined by Tertullian (Lib. de corona Militis) to be Lex communis in publico Mundi & naturalibus tabulis Scripta; and called by the two best of all the Greek Historians, Thucydides (Lib. 4.) and Polybius (Lib. 2.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, communia hominum jura; and by jurisconsults, Ius Gentium Primaevum. The Divine, that which hath been ordained and declared by Divine Oracles, committed to writing in the Holy Bible. And this, as well as the Natural, deserves to be acknowledged to be Ius Gentium Vniversale, seu omnium Commune. Because all the Laws of Nature, are the Laws of God Himself; because his Positive or Written Laws are no other but Sanctions or Explications of His Unwritten or Natural: and because whatsoever is Obligatory in either Natural or Divine Universal Right, either from the Nature of the thing itself, or rather from the authority of the Author of Nature, is by all men held to be immutable. Whence that Maxim so often asserted by Philosophers, Theologues, Jurisconsults; jura Naturalia esse immutabilia. Which cannot be truly said of Right Permissive, whether Natural or Divine, extending to all Mankind. For that this is variously mutable, according to the judgement of Governors, is manifest to every man of common sense, even from the name Permissive, and from daily experience, which teaches that Permissive Right admits Obrogations, Abrogations, Temperaments, and Limitations, i. e. Mutations. Whereas the Obligatory, tho' it admit indeed of Increments or Additions (namely such by which it may be either more firmly, or more decently observed) yet admits no Mutations, by which its force or virtue may be in the least diminished.  
From the Additions of Obligatory Right, 
4. What is right Positive or Civil.  and the Mutations of Permissive, there hath risen up that other Right, which being of less extent, belongs not to all Nations, or to Mankind Universally, but only to some parts of it, and is wont rightly enough (as being put or founded, whether by God, or by men) to be called Positive, and sometimes also Civil, and an additament of right reason natural.  

5. Civil right either peculiar to one Nation, or common to many Nations.  This Positive Right may with good reason be distinguished into that which is proper and singular to some one Nation or People coalescent into a Society; (such long ago was that Patria potestas among the Romans, and that which was in use at Athens, mentioned by Demosthenes (in Orat. contra Aristocratem) and that which is common to many Nations. Which is again distinguished into that, to the observation whereof more Nations than one are at once, equally, and in common obliged: and that under which many Nations live, not at the same time, equally, and from any common Obligation, but singly and by accident. Of this triple Species of Positive Right the first may conveniently be termed Right simply Civil, as pertinent to some one City or Commonwealth: The Second, Common Right of many Nations, because of the communion of obligation: The third, Civil or Domestic Right of some or many Nations, because the Obligation under which they are, is only domestic and civil to each of them singly, not common to all. For example, the twelve Tables brought from Athens to Rome obtained to be of equal force in both Nations, the Attic and the Roman: But from no communion of Obligation or Conjunction of Peoples. The Right of those Tables therefore might much more commodiously have been called, the Civil Right of these Nations, than simply the Right of Both, because this later phrase indicateth a Communion. 
6. Right common to many Nations subdivided into Imperative and Intervenient.  But as for the Common Right of more than one Nation founded upon communion of Obligation; this likewise is to be parted into two branches: viz. that which is Imperative to many Nations or Peoples, and that which is Intervenient. By Imperative, we mean that Right of Nations, which is or aught to be observed by many Nations or Peoples, otherwise subject to divers Governments and Sovereign Powers, from an Obligation common indeed to every one of them, and equal, but derived from the Command either of God or of Man. Such was the Right of the Dolopes, Magnetes, Phthiotae, Thessali, and other peoples of Graecia, who by a common Obligation received from the Command of Acrisius King of the Argives, were under the jurisdiction of the Great Amphictyonic Council at Athens. Such also was the singular Right of War by God prescribed not only to the Hebrews, but to the Canaanites too, with whom they were to make War. For both Nations were obliged though diversimodè, by the Authority of the Imperant. And when divers Nations convene in like manner into the same Right, by the Authority and Command of the Pope of Rome, that is to be called an Imperative Right of those Nations. But we call the Intervenient Right of Nations, that which ariseth, not from an Empire common to many, but from intervenient pact or use of Customs, and is wont to be called Ius Gentium Secundarium. Heads of this Right are remarkable in the Right of demanding satisfaction for injury, of proclaiming War, of Embassies, of Captives, of Hostages, of Leagues, of Commerces, and other like things usually intervenient among divers Nations. For what Right soever, in these things, is made up of the Additions that have come to the Universal Obligative Right of Nations, and of the Mutations that have come to the Universal Permissive Right, among divers Nations; all that, and not more, deserves the name of either Imperative or Intervenient. The rest, 'tis evident, retains the name of the Universal or most ancient Right of Nations. The Caesarian Right also, which is so much insisted upon in the abovementioned Heads of Intervenient Right, when they come to be discussed by Jurisconsults, so far forth as it agrees with the Universal Right of Nations, whether Natural or Divine, is also to be put under the same name: But so far as the Heads and some Decrees of it, which are not of Universal Right, are made use of from the consent of some Nations, with whom they are in force; it is most fitly to be denoted by the Title of Right Intervenient among those Nations. And in fine, so far as the same Caesarean Right is by some single Nations received into their Forum or Court of Judicature; it is to be named the Civil Right of some Nations, or their Domestic Right.  
From this consideration of the nature, various notions, 
7. Right distinguished from Law.  and differences of Right, we may easily be able to distinguish betwixt those two things, which many learned Writers confound, using the words Right and Law promiscuously. For from the Premises it may be collected, that Right consisteth in liberty of doing or not doing: But Law obligeth to do, or not to do, and therefore Right and Law differ as Liberty and Obligation, which about the same thing are inconsistent.  
Hence we may define Natural Right, 
8. Natural Right, and  to be the Liberty, which every man hath of using, according to his own will and pleasure, his power to the conservation of his Nature; and (by consequence) of doing all things that he shall judge to be conducive thereunto: Understanding by Liberty (what that word properly signifies) Absence of external impediments.  
And Natural Law, 
9 Natural Law defined.  to be a Precept, or General Rule excogitated by reason, by which every man is prohibited to do that which he shall judge to tend to his hurt, harm, or wrong.  
By Nature all Wise men understand the Order, 
10. That all the Laws of Nature are the Laws of God.  Method and Oeconomy instituted and established by God from the beginning or Creation, for Government and Conservation of the World. All the Laws of Nature therefore are the Laws of God: And that which is called Natural, and Moral, is also Divine Law: as well because Reason, which is the very Law of Nature, is given by God to every man for a rule of his Actions; as because the Precepts of living, which are thence derived, are the very same that are promulged by the Divine Majesty for Laws of the Kingdom of Heaven, by our most blessed Lord jesus Christ, and by the Holy Prophets, and Apostles; nor is there in Truth any one Branch of Natural or Moral Law, which may not be plainly and fully confirmed by the Divine Laws delivered in Holy Scripture: as will soon appear to any man who shall attentively read and consider what our Master Hobbs hath with singular judgement written in the 4 th'. Chapter of his Book de Cive: where he confirms all the Laws of Nature by comparing them singly with Divine Precepts given in the Old and New Testament. Whoever therefore desires clearly to understand the Reasonableness, Equity, Justice, and Utility of Moral Laws, and the true Causes of the Obligation under which he is to observe them, in order to his Felicity, as well in this life, as in that which is to come; aught most seriously and profoundly to consider the Divine Laws or Precepts recorded in that Collection of Sacred Writings called the Bible. Which I, though of Learning inferior to so Noble an undertaking, and subject by the Nature of my Profession and Studies to various Distractions every day, yet resolve with myself to attempt, according to the Module of my weak understanding, not for Information of Others, but for my own private satisfaction.   

CHAP. II.  
God's Sovereign Right to Dominion over all things in the World.  
THat God is by highest Right Sovereign Lord, 
1. God's Right to the absolute Monarchy of the World.  and Monarch of the Universe, having in himself most absolute power both of Legislation, and of jurisdiction; is sufficiently manifest even from this, That He is sole Author and Creator of the World and all things therein Contained, and doth by His most wise Providence perpetually Conserve and Sustain them. And that He only can relax or remit the Obligation under which His Subjects are to observe the Laws by Him given for their Regimen; and to whom He pleaseth pardon the Violation of them: is no less manifest from His very Supremacy. So that it belongs not to the right of any Mortal Ruler, either to command what God forbids, or to forbid what God commands. The reason is, because, as in Natural causes, the Inferior have no force against the efficacy of the Superior; so it is in Moral also. Upon which reason St. Austin seems to have fixed his most discerning Eye, when teaching that the Commands of Kings and Emperors, so far as they contradict any Divine Command, cannot impose an Obligation to Obedience; advances to his conclusion by the degrees of this Climax or Scale. If the Curator commands somewhat, it is not to be done if the Proconsul forbids. Herein we contemn not the Power, but choose to obey the Higher. Again if the Proconsul bid one thing, and the Emperor enjoin the contrary, without doubt you must give obedience to the Emperor. Therefore if the Emperor exact one thing and God another; what is to be done? God is certainly the greater Power: give us leave, O Emperor, to obey Him. From the same reason that most wise Emperor, Marcus Aurelius also said, the Magistrates judge private men; Princes the Magistrates, and God the Princes: And Seneca the Tragedian, 
Quicquid à vobis minor extimescit,  
Major hoc vobis Dominus minatur:  
Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.  For his sense is, Deum esse supra omnes summates hominum, 
Regum timendorum in proprios greges,  
Reges in ipsos imperium est jovis.   
This Monarchy of God is double, 
2. His Dominion over men Natural, and Civil.  Natural and Civil. By the Natural, is to be understood the absolute Dominion which from the Creation he hath exercised, and at this day doth exercise over all men Naturally or by right of His Omnipotency. By the Civil I understand that which in the Holy Scriptures is most frequently named The Kingdom of God, and which is most properly called Kingdom, because constituted by consent of the Hebrew Nation, who by express pact or covenant chose God to be their King: He promising to give them possession of the land of Canaan, and they promising to obey him in all things. But this Kingdom being by Divine Justice, for the disobedience and many rebellions of that perverse people, long since extinct, they now remain in the same state of subjection with all other Nations, namely under the Natural Empire of the Universal Monarch God.  
But (what is worthy our more serious remark and consideration) though the Commonwealth of the Hebrews, 
3. The Stability of His Positive Divine Laws given to the jews; and Universal extent of the same.  the form of whose Government may be most properly called a Theocraty (for, the Supreme Ruler and Precedent was, not Moses, but Almighty God Himself) hath been, so many Ages past, dissolved: yet the most excellent Positive Divine Laws, principally those comprehended in the Decalogue, upon which that Empire was founded, have lost nothing of their Sanction and Original force, but still continue Sacred and Obligatory, not only to the posterity of the Hebrews, but also to all the Sons of Men of what Nation soever. Which the Learned Cunaeus hath (the rep. Hebraeor. cap. 1.) with singular judgement observed in words of this sense. The Laws of other Nations, inventions of humane Wit, are enforced only by penalties, which by time, or through the sloth of Governors, lose their terror: but the jewish Ordinances, being the decrees of the Eternal God, not weakened by either continuance of time, or softness of the Judges, remain still the same; and when the Axe and the Scourge are no longer feared, men's minds are nevertheless kept in awe by Religion. And as the Stability of these Laws given by Moses, whom God had consituted His Representative and Vicegerent in the promulgation of them, to the People of Israel, is by Cunaeus rightly referred to the Eternity and Immutability of the Divine decrees: so is it Lawful for us to assert the Universal Extent of them from this reason, that the Divine Law of the Decalogue is an Explication of the Law Natural written in the mind of every individual man from the beginning; though we must at the same time acknowledge, that the very giving the same in Precept to the jews, added a new Sanction and Obligation to the former; so that the jew doing the contrary, not only offended in doing an act simply vicious, but also in doing an act strictly for bidden; because (as St. Paul speaks Rom. 11. 23.) by the transgression of the Law he dishonoureth God.  
That this different Obligation of Laws Natural and Divine may be yet more clearly understood, 
4. The difference betwixt Law natural & positive Divine, as to their Obligation.  we observe, that the determining of human actions ariseth, either from their own Nature; as to Honour and Worship God, is due; to lie, unlawful of it self: or from the Positive Divine Law. Those of the former sort are referred to the Law Natural: Those of the Latter are such as have been prescribed by God, some to single persons, namely to Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Moses, and other servants of God: among all People, to Israel alone God prescribed many Positive Laws pertaining to their Religion, which was the same with their Polity. To all mankind, some things were commanded for a time; as the observation of the Sabbath, presently after the Creation, as many of the most Learned think; the Law of not eating blood, or the strangled, after the flood: Others to last for ever, as the institutions of Christ, concerning Excommunication, Baptism, the Supper, etc. if there be any more of that kind. So that one and the same vicious action is more or less offensive to God, according to the determination of it to be so by Positive Law, or by mere light of reason, i. e. by Law Natural. Because though both Laws be Divine, yet the Obligation of the former is double, of the later single.  
Having thus, 
5. The importance of the Premises, & design of the subsequent Discourse.  Briefly indeed, but plainly asserted Gods Right to the Monarchy of the whole World; distinguished His Natural Dominion from His Civil; defined what is Law Natural, what Positive Divine; and shown the difference betwixt that and this, as to their Obligation: it seems to me, that I have not only prevented all such erroneous conceptions, which otherwise might arise, either from Ambiguity of the words, Right, Dominion, Government, Law, and Obligation; or from Confusion of various Notions of single things: But also laid the Corner Stone as it were, of the little structure I propose to myself to erect, in order to the stronger defence of my mind against allurements to do evil, i. e. to violate any of God's Laws. For in this illaborate exercise of my pen, I have no other end or design but this; to investigate and examine the perfect Concordance betwixt the Laws of Nature, and Positive Divine Laws, principally those of the Decalogue; to the end that being at length fully convinced of the double Obligation incumbent on me not to transgress any one of the latter sort, I may in the little remnant of my days do my best devoir to live more inoffensively both toward God, and toward Men. For certainly who is throughly conscious of the justice, equity, and decency of Religious Duties, will be so much the more solicitous to perform them: because the more the understanding is illuminate by the rays of Truth and Evidence, by so much the less prone it is to be imposed upon by the specious pretexts of Passions, and by consequence the more apt to direct its Handmaid the Will in the right way to Felicity; which consists in the Knowledge, Love, and Veneration of God.  
As for Method; the work in which my thoughts are at present versed, will be in bulk so little, 
6. The Method and Heads of the same.  I need not be over curious what Form to give it; the Materials so few, I need not be solicitous in what Order to range them to the best advantage. Without affectation therefore of ornament from either of those two things, and without farther amusing myself with variety of distinctions (many times of more subtlety than use) I will content myself with tracing, as faithfully as I can, the footsteps of Time, or (to speak a little more plainly) reciting and considering the various Moral Laws, whether merely Traditional, or Written, given by God, first to Noah and his little Family, when soon after the Deluge they began to replenish the Earth with Inhabitants; and then to Moses, when he constituted and established the most Admirable Commonwealth of the Hebrews, in the same order in which they are said to have been delivered; and briefly comparing them singly with the Laws of Nature; it being (as I just now professed) my chief scope in this Disquisition, to find the Concordance betwixt these and those.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah in general.  
I Begin from the Moral Laws, 
Article 1. Three Preliminaries concerning these Precepts.  which, according to the Tradition of the Talumdic Masters, were given to Noah and his Sons soon after the Flood, and which are thence named Praecepta Noachidarum. Which before I recite, three things not altogether unworthy to be noted, for our more facile understanding of their authority and extent, are to be Premised. The first, that by the Patronymie Noachidae, the Rabbins unanimously understand all Nations besides the Hebrews, who affect rather to be called Abrahamidae, from the Father of all the Faithful, Abraham. The second, that the same Rabbins, firmly believing, and confidently teaching, that there hath been no Age wherein these Precepts have not obtained; therefore take them for the Natural and Common Right of all men. Whence we may receive a glimpse of Light whereby to discern, both what they thought of the Religion of the Ancients before the Law, and upon what condition it was lawful for Strangers to reside in the Land of Israel, after the Law. For, while the Hebrews were sui juris, i e. lived under no Laws but those of their own Republic, within their territory no dwelling was permitted to any Idolatrous Gentile. But the Stranger, who in the presence of three men, had taken upon himself the seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah, and promised to observe them, was held to be Proselytus Domicilii; and tho' he were neither Circumcised, nor Baptised, might nevertheless, as a Sojourner, dwell among the Hebrews. The third, that tho' in the Mishna or Collection of ancient Traditions made by Rabbi jehuda, surnamed Hakadosh, the Saint (who lived under the three Antonins, Pius, Marcus, and Commodus, and finished his Syntagme of the Mishna in the Year 120. from the destruction of the Temple, but of the Christian Aera 190.) there be no memory of these Precepts: yet in the Babylonian Gemara or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Compliment, composed by Rab. Ascanio, about 400 years after the former, they are not only mentioned, but with sacred respect commended to Posterity; so that even our Prince of Antiquaries Mr. Selden, thought it a task well worthy his diligence, and admirable Learning, to explicate and comment upon them in his seven Books de jure Naturali & Gentium; tho' he had found the Masters themselves embroiled in a kind of Civil War about the number of them, some accounting but six, others seven, others eight, and others again adding two or three more. As appears from the Gemara itself, where (ad titul. Sanhedrin. c. 7. sect. 5.) is found this list of the Precepts. 
2, Various opinions of the Rabbins concerning the number of these Precepts.  Traditur à Rabbinis, septem Praecepta imperata esse Noachidis; de judiciis, de Maledictione Numinis, de Cultu Extraneo, de Revelatione Turpitudinum, de Sanguinis effusione, de Rapina seu furto, de Membro animalis viventis. R. Chanina dixit etiam, de Sanguine viventis: R. Chidka etiam, de Castratione; R. Simeon etiam, de Magia; R. Eliezer etiam, de Heterogeneorum animalium admissione, arborumque insitione. And from Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (vulgarly Maimonides and Rambam) who saith, that the six former were delivered to Adam; that of abstaining from any member of a living Creature, to Noah; that of Circumcision, to Father Abraham; in Halak Melakim, c. 9 But the Major part of these Learned Commentators upon the Mishna give their suffrages to no more than seven. Of those therefore, supposing them to be Genuine and Universal, I choose to speak in this Treatise: preferring these two that belong to Religion or Divine Worship, to the rest which concern the mutual Offices or Duties of Men.   

CHAP. IU. The first Precept.  
Of Extraneous Worship or Idolatry.  
BY Extraneous Worship, 
Article 1: What was understood to be Extraneous Worship by the Egyptians; and what by the Hebrews.  the Ancient Egyptians seem to have understood and detested only whatsoever [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] their Parents had not taught them; as may be collected from that Prayer, or Apology rather, used by them at funerals, translated from the Egyptian tongue into the Greek by Euphantus, and from him transmitted to Posterity by Porphyrius in Lib. de Abstinentia 4. sect. 10. For in this Apology, one of the Overseers of the Obsequies, personating the defunct, and speaking in his or her name, pronounces among many other these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Ego enim Deos, quos mihi parentes commonstrarunt, piè colui quamdiu in hoc saeculo vixi. But the Hebrews thereby understood, that the Worship of any Creature whatsoever, as well of Angels, and bodies Celestial or Terrestrial, as of Images or Idols, was strictly prohibited. For, to acknowledge and worship one God, and him the true God, was to them, as it is now to us Christians, the fundament of Religion. This difference betwixt the Egyptian and Hebraick Religïon, even Tacitus treating of the jews (Hist. l. 5.) clearly enough observes in these words; Corpora condere, quam cremare, è more Aegyptio; eademque cura; & de Infernis persuasio. Coelestium contrà: Aegyptii pleraque animalia, effigiésque compositas venerantur; Judaei ment solâ, unumque Numen intelligunt; profanos, qui Deûm imagines mortalibus materiis in species hominum effingant; Summum illud & aeternum, neque mutabile, neque interiturum. Itaque nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis sunt.  
From the times of Abraham, 
3. That the interdict of Idolatry given to the Hebrews, seems to have respect to the manifold Idolatry of the Egyptians.  Idolatry was held by the Hebrews to be of all crimes the greatest, and to be fled from as the worst of plagues: but that which is interdicted in the Decalogue and other Laws, seems to have respect to the manifold Idolatry of the Egyptians. In the parts of lower Egypt, the highest honour and veneration was given to a sort of Buck-Goats with long shaggy hair, called Seirim: and the Israelites placed there, were grown so mad with this Mendesian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they needed a special interdict to restrain them. Which they received in this form (Leu. c. 17. v. 7.) They shall no more offer their Sacrifices [Pilosis] unto Devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. Where not only our Translators, but Maimonides (in More Neboch. part 1. cap. 36.) by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understand Devils appearing to their Votaries in the shape of Hee-Goats with long hair. The same Rabbi (Doct. Perplex. lib. 3. cap. 46. pag. 480.) saith moreover; Of the Zabians there have been some, who worshipped Daemons, and believed them to have the form of Male-Goats, and thence called them also Seirim, i. e. Goats. Which foolish and ridiculous opinion was in Moses' time diffused far and wide; as appears from the above recited Prohibition, non sacrificabunt ultrà sacrificia sua Lasseirim, hircis, i. e. Daemonibus ita appellatis: and was the true cause why the eating of such Goats was Piacular among the Zabians, by which name he understands chiefly the Mendesii, People of a Province in Lower Egypt.  
To enumerate all the various kinds of Idolatry used by the Egyptians in the time of the Israelites servitude under them, 
3. Egyptian Polytheism, contagious to the Hebrews; and therefore obviated by one general interdict.  would require a large Volume. For not contented to adore all the Host of Heaven, by an Idolatry common to them with many other Nations; they were then grown so impiously devout, that they formed to themselves Deities of all sorts of Animals, fourfooted Beasts, Fowls, Fishes, Serpents, Infects, not excepting Plants, Trees, and Herbs. So that it was not without reason that Moses, solicitous to extirpate the relics of Idolatry out of the hearts of the infected Israelites, at once, and by one Universal Antidote; gave them this Command (Deut. c. 12. v. 2. & 3.) You shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye shall possess, served their Gods, upon the high Mountains, and upon Hills, and under every green Tree. And you shall overthrow their Altars, and break their Pillars, and burn their Groves with fire, and hew down the graven Images of their Gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Yea more, he made it unlawful for them either to enter into a League of what kind soever with any people serving Idols intra solum Israeliticum; or to have conversation, or commerce with them. (Exod. cap. 34. ver. 15. and Deut. cap. 7. ver. 2.)  
Before the Law, 
4. The setting up of Pillars, Statues, etc. Why forbidden by Moses to the Hebrews; tho' not unlawful to the Stranger, unless used to Idolatry.  jacob the Patriarch erected [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cippum, statum] a pillar, (Gen. 35. 14.) and Moses, before the Tabernacle was built, raised an Altar, and twelve Titles (Exod. 24. 4.) But lest from these conspicuous example's occasion might be given to Idolatry, the Law forbid such things also. (Levit. 26. 1.)  
But these Laws, peculiar to the Israelites, did not per se oblige a Noachid or stranger; to whom living without the Hebrew Territory, it was lawful to raise such Pillars, Altars, Monuments, etc. at his pleasure; provided he did it not in Cultum Extraneum: within the Promised Land, lest from such example encouragement might be taken for Idolatry, it was no more permitted to the Stranger, than to an Israelite, either to set up a Statue, or plant a Grove, or make Images, or do any other thing of that kind, no not merely for ornament sake; as Mr. Selden hath truly observed (De jure Naturali & Gentium lib. 2. c. 6.) The Rabbins hold a Humane Image protuberant to be unlawful: but not that which is made in plano, flat, or in concavo, in a hollow. Of Celestial bodies neither prominent, nor plane made for ornament, were lawful; but made for teaching or learning, as in Diagrams Astronomical, and the like, they were permitted. Other figures, as well an Israelite, as a Noachid might form as they pleased.  
Of the same respect is that interdict (Deut. 
5. The Mosaic Law concerning Idols, explicated.  7. 26.) Non inferes quidpiam ex idolo in domum tuam, Thou shalt not bring (as our Translation renders it) an abomination into thy house: which the jewish Masters thus interpret. To have, use and enjoy an image made only for ornament, was Lawful, the same being part of domestic furniture: but one made by a Gentile for worship sake, was not to be admitted into promiscuous use with other utensils; nor was it permitted, either to possess, or to sell Victims, Oblations, Vessels, instruments consecrated to idolatrous uses. Nor was any thing, whose use had been interdicted, to be retained; but either burned, or broken in pieces, and thrown into the Air, River or Sea: nay the very ashes or coals thereof were an abomination. But an Idol itself, if melted or broken in pieces and applied to common uses by a Gentile, before it came into the possession of an Israelite, might be kept, and among other utensils commodious to life used: because the liquation, comminution, and application thereof to common uses by the Gentile, was a manifest Resecration or Solution of the Religion of it: and the Idol being once resecrate, all furniture and utensils belonging to it, are so too. But whatsoever has not been made by Man, as a Mountain, Fountain, River, fourfooted Beast, and other Terrestrial things, the works of Nature, tho' worshipped as an Idol; the use and possession thereof was not prohibited. A Grove or Tree planted by a Gentile for Worship, or only to shadow, or adorn an Idol was so abominable, that to an Israelite, it was unlawful either to shelter himself from heat, cold, rain or wind under the boughs of it; or to pass through it, if there were any other way; or to eat the Eggs or Young of Birds building their nest in the branches of it; to bring home the wood for building, instruments of agriculture, or fuel, or to eat any bread or meat dressed with fire made of the wood; or to wear cloth woven with a shuttle of the wood; or to make use of the ashes. And yet the use of herbs growing there, was not unlawful; because the soil itself was unpoluted. Now of all these things, whatever was unlawful to an Israelite to do, or possess; the same was equally unlawful to a Proselyte of the House. And this is a Summary of the most learned Rabbins exposition of this first Precept against Extraneous Worship or Idolatry.   

CHAP. V. The second Precept.  
Of Malediction of the Most Holy Name, or Blasphemy.  
SO agreeable is this Interdict to the Law of Nature or Light of Reason, 
Article 1. Blasphemy forbidden among the Egyptians,  that even the old Egyptians themselves, tho' overspread with the Leprosy of Polytheism, acknowledged themselves under a most strict Obligation punctually to observe it: as may be inferred from hence, that Hermippus, in the life of Pythagoras, whose doctrines were all derived from Egypt, among many other Statutes of that Sect concerning the Soul's purification, etc. sets down this for one; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to abstain from all Blasphemy.  
To the Israelites God expressly gives the same. (Leu. 22. 32.) Keep my Commandments and do them; 
2. What was blasphemy to the Hebrews.  I am the Lord; ye shall not profane my Holy Name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel. Now among the Hebrews, a more diligent observation of the Law is called Sanctification of the Divine Name: and on the contrary, to perpetrate any thing against the Law, is called Profanation of it; as Mr. Selden hath out of the Princes of their Rabbins judiciously remarked, de jure Natur. & Gent. lib. 2. cap. 10. The more notable Interdicts of Idolatry, Homicide, Unlawful Coition, were not to be violated, tho' to avoid the danger of imminent Death: for of a less danger no account is made. In time of public persecution, life was not to be redeemed by violation of any Law. At another time, it was sufficient to violation of the Law, to obey the person impellent by menaces of Death, rather than to be killed; at least if the act turned to the emolument of the impellent: as where work was to be done for him upon the Sabbath, or if ten or more Hebrews were not present. To a sick man it was lawful to eat things prohibited, to deliver himself from death. Farther, a sin against more established customs or manners and humane society, tho' not against the Law, is a Profanation of the Holy Name. Nor is such Profanation in any case observed to have been fully remitted to any man before the very moment of death; according to that of Isai. cap. 22. ver. 14. This iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pollution or Profanation of the Divine Name, seems to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Apostle, (Rom. 2. 24.) but is not that which is interdicted to the Noachid here in this second Precept; and Naaman the Syrian cleansed from the Leprosy (2. of Kings c. 5. v. 18.) is brought for an Example. The difference is clearly shown by Mr. Selden (de jur. Nat. & Gent. lib. 2. cap. 11.) whose words therefore I here faithfully translate.  
The Blasphemy or Malediction by this Precept forbidden, 
3. Blasphemy and Idolatry, equal crimes and always to be punished by Excision.  is that most Horrible Wickedness [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Execration of the Divine Name, when any reproach and audacious contumely is openly and maliciously thrown forth against God; such as was cast forth by those most impious miscreants, the son of Shelomith (Levit. 24.) and Rabshakehs (Kings 2. ch. 18. v. 30.) Also when the Divine Majesty is understood to be knowingly and proudly denied, from the consequence of any Act or Profession: as when any man, not from Ignorance, but out of Malapertness and Pride, professeth and endeavours to persuade others, that Idolatry is to be embraced; this man, tho' he hath himself worshipped no Idol, denies God by consequence, and is to be held a Blasphemer. And against this most execrable impiety is turned the edge of that Sacred Law (Numb. 15. 30.) But the Soul that doth aught presumptuously, or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] with an high hand, whether he be born in the Land, or a Stranger [ex Proselytis, tam Domicilii quam Justiciae] the same reproacheth the Lord; and that Soul shall be cut off from among his People. Upon which Law Maimonides commenting (More Neboch. pa. 3. c. 41.) saith; No man so sinneth, but he into whose Soul another opinion, that is repugnant to the Law, hath crept. The Scripture there speaks also the Cultu Extraneo, because that is opposite to the very foundation of the Law. So that a Balsphemer is equal to an Idolater, both denying the fundamental Principle of all Religion. Other sins committed from error, or ignorance, or force of concupiscence or pravity of manners, were to be expiated by certain Sacrifices, or corrected by other sorts of punishments: Idolatry and Blasphemy always to be punished by Excision or cutting off, to be inflicted by Divine Vengeance; but Blasphemy also by stoning, (Levit. 24. 16.) And these explications of the Hebrew Doctors seem to me sufficient to evince the equal Obligation of these two Precepts concerning Divine Worship, and common to the Noachides with the Israelites. I proceed therefore to the rest, which concern the mutual offices of Men.   

CHAP. VI The third Precept.  
Of Spilling Blood or Homicide.  
THat this Precept also was contained in the Moral Discipline of the Ol● Egyptians, 
Arti. 1. Homicide prohibited to the Egyptians and other Gentiles, by Law Natural: and after to the Israelites, by the Mosaic.  is evident from the precedent Apology of the Overseer of the Obsequys in Sacred use among them, in which he● in the name of the defuntct, makes thi● profession, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Of other men I have killed none. And to 〈◊〉 Noachid belongs that of Gen. 9 5. I wi●● require your blood of your lives. Which is to be understood of incruent or bloodless Homicide also of what kind soever. Some interpret it of Suicide or Self-murder. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: not by judgement pronounced in Court, but by Natural Right of Talion, or like for like. And this Interdict is renewed in the Decalogue, Thou shalt do no Murder; and elsewhere more than once in the Mosaic body of the Law.  
Philo the Jew (the Leg. special. Precept. 6. 
2. Exposing of Infants, and procuring of Abortion also Interdicted.  & 7.) saith, the Exposing of Infants is among many Nations, by reason of their native inhumanity, a vulgar impeity. To the Hebrews it was expressly forbidden, either to extingusih a Foetus in the Womb, or to expose Children. And Tacitus could say, (Hist. lib. 5.) Augendae multitudini consulitur. Name & necare quenquam ex gnatis nefas. Egyptians also, if we believe the Records of Diodorus the Sicilian, the best of Antiquaries, (lib. 1. p. 51.) were obliged to nourish all their Infants, for increase of Mankind, which highly conduceth to the Felicity of their Country.  
Voluntary or wilful Murder was, 
3. Punishment of wilful Murder in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews.  ex fo●ensi sententiâ, to be punished by the Sword: but Philo judaeus (de Leg. special. p. 617.) saith, the Murderer was to be suspended or hanged upon a Gibbet. He that killeth any Man, saith Moses (Levit. 24. 21.) shall be put to Death. Ye shall have one manner of Law, as well for the Stranger (or Proselyte, of justice, not of the House) as for one born in your own Country. For so the Masters understand this Text: And as for the punishment of this sort of Homicide; they have some differences betwixt the Gentiles living within the Territories of the Israelites, and the Natives and Proselytes rightly circumcised. Again Moses saith (Numb. 35. 21.) the Revenger of blood shall slay the Murderer, when he meeteth him [without any place of Refuge.] Now the Right of the Revenger of blood, in the Territories of the Israelites, belonged no less to the Gentiles and Proselytes of the House, than to the Hebrews themselves, but whether it obtained among the Noachides before the Law, or among the Egyptians, is uncertain: but that Name seems to derive itself, not so much from the Mosaic Constitution, as from a Custom more Ancient. However, most certain it is, that the Revenger of Blood was the next Heir of the Slain.  
Homicide by chance, 
4. Right of Asyle, in casual Homicide.  or error, had right of Sanctuary. Of which Right, or Cities of Refuge, the Sacred Law hath ordained many things (Numb. 35.) and the Masters deliver many necessary to the Interpretation of the Law. To a Gentile, the Privilege of Sanctuary did not appertain; he was Obnoxious to the Revenger of blood: nor to a Proselyte of the House, in the casual slaughter of one Circumcised; but he enjoyed the Right of Asyle, when he had by chance slain another of his own kind or quality; as Mr, Selden hath curiously collected (de jur. Nat. & Gent. l. 4. ●. 2.) Who in the next Chapter proceeds to the Interpretation of divers other Niceties concerning this Precept, from the Commentraries of the jewish Masters of greatest estimation and authority.  
Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy Neighbour, 
5. How far an Aggressor was to be resisted by a by-stander, in defence of the assaulted.  saith Moses (Levit. 19 16.) that is, thou shalt not stand Idle, when danger of Death is imminent over one of thy own Kind, Stock or Nation; but shalt help to deliver him. The force of an Aggressor with purpose to kill, also of a Buggerer, of an Adulterer, of an Intestuous Person, was to be hindered, tho' with loss of life, that they might not commit sin. And such Wicked Force was also ●o be punished by Private Force; if it could ●e done, by blows (not Mortal) or by ●utting off a Member; if not, rather than fail, even by killing. If an Israelite shall have delivered an Israelite, or his goods, into the Power of a Gentile, whether by fraud or by force: it was Lawful either to slay him, or to give him up into the power of a Gentile, that he might not betray or deliver up others in like manner. To kill an Israelite a Prevaricator (i. e. a Worshipper of Idols, or a Sinner in Contempt of the Divine Majesty) as also an Epicurean (i. e. an Apostate denying the Holy Law and the Prophecies) it was Lawful to any other Israelite to kill him, either in Public with the Sword, or by Stratagem. For by his Prevarication and Apostasy, he is deprived of the Title and Privilege of a Neighbour, i. e. he hath ceased to be an Israelite. By fraud to Circumvent a Gentile an Idolater, to his destruction, was not Lawful: and yet notwithstanding the Law doth not command to deliver him from imminent death, seeing he is not a Neighbour.  
Other kinds of Homicide there were, 
6. Homicide, in what cases permitted, and whence arose the Right of Zealots.  permitted to private men. A Thief in the Night breaking into a House Inhabited, might be impunely slain. Which is also in the Platonic Laws, and in those of the twelve Tables. In Childbirth, it was Lawful, for the Mother's preservation, to extinguish the Foetus in her Womb: but not vice versâ. For Worshipping the Calf, three Thousand were slain, not Twenty-three Thousand as the Vulgar. From the notorious Example of Phinehas the Son of Eleazar (Numb. 25. 11.) was derived Ius Zelotarum, the Right of Zelots, by which it was lawful for private Men led by Pious Zeal, whensoever an Israelite, openly and before at least ten Israelites, violated the Sanctity of the Divine Majesty, Temple, or Nation, to punish the wickedness in the same moment by beating, wounding, and even by slaying the Offender persevering in his sin. By this received Right of Zelots, Mattathias (Macchab. lib. 1. cap. 2. v. 24.) killed a jew going to sacrifice after the Grecian rite: and our Lord jesus Christ himself, as a private Person, by whipping drove out Money-Changers and Buyers and Sellers Violating the Sanctity of the Temple, without reprehension; because they had profanely made the House of Prayer a Den of Thiefs: and his Disciples referred this fact of their Lord to Zeal of thy House. Under pretext of the same Right, the jews in their Assembly ran upon our Lord Himself as guilty of Blasphemy, and smote him on the Face with their hands: and a Servant of the High Priest struck him presently, because he seemed, by an irreverent answer, to have violated the Sanctity of the High Priest. In fine, under the same pretext, St. Stephen was stoned to death, and a Conspiracy undertaken against St. Paul; and at length in the jewish War sprang up from the same root a power of horrid Villainies and dire Mischiefs.  
From this Universal Interdict of Homicide, 
7. That the Law de Anathemate gave the Hebrews no right to devote their children or servants to death: and therefore that the Daughter of jephtha was made, not a victim, but a Nun.  what we read of Abraham's readiness to immolate his Son Isaac, seems very much to derogate: and some there are, who think it to have been lawful to the Hebrews, from the Sacred Law de Anathemate, of a thing vowed or devoted, by voluntary Consecration, to devote to death their Sons and Servants whom they had in their power; and they affirm, that jephtha offered up his devoted Daughter in Sacrifice. Yea josephus (Antiq. l. 5. c. 9) professeth himself to be of this opinion: but hath been clearly convicted of Error therein by his Rival in the search of the jewish Antiquities, our incomparable Selden; who (the jur. Nat. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 11.) from Rabbi Kimchi's commentaries, and the very words of the Sacred Text, concludes most rationally, that jephtha, in accomplishment of his Vow, built a house for his Daughter in a solitary place, and brought her into it; where she remained during life secluded from the Sons of Men, and from all secular affairs; and it was a Statute in Israel, that the Daughters of Israel should yearly visit her, to condole her perpetual Virginity. The Father indeed is said to have deplored the cruelty of his Vow, and rend his Garments for sorrow: but not because he thought himself thereby bound to immolate her, but because he had cut off all hope of Issue from her. So that she seems to have been rather the first Nun in the World, not an Example of a Right granted, by the Law de Anathemate, to the jews of consecrating or devoting their Children to death. For Humane slaughter was by no Right of the Hebrews permitted, unless in case of legitimate punishment, and of just War: and then too the very Act of Killing was in itself reputed so hateful and impure, that it required solemn lustration of the Actor, by virtue of this Command (Numb. 31. 19) Whoever hath killed any Man [Malefactor justly condemned, or Enemy in War] and whoever hath touched a dead body, let him be purified, as well ye as your captives.   

CHAP. VII. The fourth Precept.  
Of Uncovering Nakedness, or Unlawful Copulation.  
OF Matrimony both the Original, 
1. Incest, Adultery Sodomy, and Bestiality, interdicted by the Law of Nature.  and the necessity are derived from the very Creation. Male and Female created He them; and God Blessed them, and said to them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth. Which was repeated to the Sons of Noah soon after the Deluge. From Natural Right, was interdicted Coition with Mother, with Stepmother, with Another's Wife, with a Sister of the same Venture, with a Male, with a Beast saith Mr. Selden (de jure Nat. & Gent. lib. 5. cap. 1.) To the Children of Adam indeed it was of absolute necessity not to observe the fourth branch of this Natural Interdict, because the Males had no other Females, with whom to conjoin themselves, besides their Uterine Sisters: but all the rest have at all times been unlawful. 
2. Before the Mosaic Law, marriage of the Brother with the German, not with the Uterine Sister, permitted: & why.  Nevertheless, after Mankind had been sufficiently multiplied, even till the Law was given, the German Sister, i. e. of the Paternal blood only, was not interdicted to the Brother. Abraham saith of Sarah, in truth she is my Sister. For she is Daughter of my Father, tho' not of my Mother; and she became my Wife. And thence they collect, (that I may repeat the words of Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. 2.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; That Uterine Sisters ought not to be taken for Wives. Also Solon the Athenian permitted the Marriage of Sisters begotten by the same Father, not those born of the same Mother; as Philo judaeus (de Spec. leg. p. 602.) delivers. And he had reason, more perhaps than he or any man else then understood. For if the curious Observations of Dr. Harvey, De Graaf, Swammerdam, and other Anatomists of this our Age be true (as doubtless they are) the Father contributes much less to the generation of the Foetus, than the Mother doth. He gives only fecundity to the Egg, in and of which pre-existent in her Ovary the Foetus is form: she gives the seminal matter, the Augmenting Nourishment, the cherishing Warmth, and the secure Closet in which it is conserved and brought to perfection. And therefore the Consanguinity betwixt Brothers and Sisters of the same Womb seems to be Naturally greater than betwixt those born of divers Mothers, but of the same Father: and by consequence, the Interdict of Marriage to those, is founded upon more of Natural Right. But this reason being occult to Solon, I am inclined to think, that in making this Law against Marriage of Brother and Sister Uterine, either he followed the example of the Hebrews, or had respect to this Proverbial saying, the Mother's is still the surest side. 
3. Lacedaemonian Law permitting marriage with Uterine Sisters, not with German.  To which the Lacedaemonian Lawgiver seems to have given no belief at all. For he on the contrary (as Philo the most Learned jew hath recorded in the place just now cited) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, permitted marriage to Vternine Brother and Sister, not to those of the same Father: persuaded perhaps, that the Seminal Principle derived from the Father is more Energetic, than that proceeding from the Mother, in the Work of Forming Organizing, 
4. Marriage with both Uterine and German Sister, lawful among the Egyptianes,  Augmenting, and Perfecting the Faetus. But among the Egyptians, by a constitution or custom different from all these here mentioned, it was free to the Brother to marry the Sister either of the whole or the half blood, Elder or Younger, or Equal; for sometimes Brother and Sister are born Twins. And this licence in process of time descended also to the Grecians. For the Example drawn form Isis, obtained among the Macedonians. Arsinöe had Ptolomeus (thence named) Philadelphus, both Brother and Husband. Yea, to honest this incestuous use by yet more illustrious Examples, they say, the Gods themselves affected such Marriages, as most Divine; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sic & Deorum sacra Connubia confecta sunt, saith Theocritus (idyl. 18. v. 130.) and Ovid (Metam. l. 9 v. 498.)  
— Dii nempe suas habuere sorores;  
Vt Saturnus Opim junctam sibi sanguine duxit;  
Oceanus Tethyn, junonem Rector Olympi.  
So that even from hence we may understand, that the Deities of the West were traduced from Egypt. Hence also we understand, why Philadelphus and Arsinöe, by a kind of second Marriage [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of Deification, obtain the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Brother and Sister Gods, in Coins and Marbles.  
Among the Persians, 
5. and Persians.  from the late example of Cambyses, the like Marriages were introduced; as Herodian (l. 3. c. 31.) hath transmitted to Posterity.  
Antiochus Soter languishing with Love of Stratonice his Stepmother, obtained her, even by his Father's consent, for his Wife; by an example sufficiently rare: as Lucian (de Dea Syria) observes. But this Matrimony was not unlawful by the Right of the East, rather than by that of Greece. In a word all kind of Incest, Adultery, yea [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Sodomy itself were by some of the Ancients, and those too Renowned for Wisdom, accounted among things indifferent. Concerning which Sextus Empiricus (l. 3. c. 24.) deserves above all others to be consulted.  
As for the Hebrew Constitutions concerning Matrimony, 
6. Marriages interdicted to the Israelites.  the various degrees of Consanguinity, in which it was interdicted to the Israelites to Marry, are either expressly set down by the Writer of the Books of Moses in the eighteenth Chapter of Levit. or may be from thence by easy and familiar reasoning inferred; as the Prohibition of Wedlock with the own Daughter may be by an argument à majori ad minus, inferred from the Interdict of contracting Matrimony with the Wife's Niece, etc.  
The Custom of Marrying the Wife of the Brother deceased without issue, 
7. The Right of Marrying with the Brother's Widow, most ancient, and confirmed by Moses.  seems to be of remotest Antiquity. For juda the Patriarch said to his son Onan (who died before the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt) go in unto thy Brother's Wife, and [jure Leviri] marry her, and raise up Seed to thy Brother (Gen. 38. 8.) And this Right Moses long after by a singular Law confirmed (Deut. 25. 5.) Which our Immortal Selden occasionally considering (Vxor. Ebr. l. 1. c. 13.) observes, that some of the Masters hotly contend, that the cause and mystery of this Marriage of the surviving Brother with the Relict of the Brother defunct, is to be fetched from the opinion of a Metempsychosis or Transmigration of the Soul: which tho' commonly fathered upon Pythagoras, was of much higher Antiquity, and born in Egypt. Where also this jus Leviri obtained, 
8. The same used by the Egyptians.  from their antique Laws derived down to the times of the Emperor Zeno. Who (in justiniani Cod. l. 5. tit. 6. leg. 8.) saith; The Egyptians therefore by matrimony conjoined to themselves the Widows of their Brethren, because they were said to remain Virgins after the former Husband's death; for they thought, that when the Man and Wife had not conjoined bodies, the marriage seemed not contracted, according to the mind of some Lawmakers. From the reason then, which the Egyptians render of this Law, it appears plainly, that among them the Nuptial Contract was not perfect without carnal knowledge. Nor was it indeed otherwise among the Hebrews before the Law: but after, from the Civil Right of that Nation, Consent alone sufficed to contracting Matrimony.  
Before the Law, 
9 The Hebrew Women unmarried, free to humble themselves to whom they pleased before the Law.  Women unmarried among the Hebrews might freely permit the use of their Bodies to whom they pleased: and of the Egyptians Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhon. l. 3. c. 24. p. 152.) saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the same was esteemed Honourable by many of the Egyptians. This the Law expressly prohibits (Deut. 23. 17.) There shall be no Whore of the Daughters of Israel.  
Before the Law, 
10. The Right of Divorce instituted by Moses.  the Matrimonial pact remained firm and stable, so long as both Parties continued in consent: but was, either Party renouncing, dissolved. Among the Athenians, the man had jus ejiciendi Vxorem, and the Woman jus relinquendi Maritum; as Pollux (l. 3. c. 3. sect. 5.) records. The Law of Moses introduced the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Bill of divorce, that the matter might be brought before the Judges the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Wife's dereliction or leaving of the Husband, was long after induced by Salome, Sister of Herod the Great, in favour of her Sex; as josephus (Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 11.)  
Before the Law, 
11. Polygamy permitted to the Hebrews both before and after the Law.  Lamech, Abraham, jacob, Esau, enjoyed the pleasure of variety in many Wives: which was permitted also by the Law. Elkanah had two, David more, Solomon Seven Hundred Princesses, besides Three Hundred Concubines, tho' it were forbidden to the King to multiply Wives, beyond the number (say the Masters) of Eighteen. Just so many Wives Rehoboam had (2 Chron. c. 11. v. 21.) and josephus (Antiq. l. 8. c. 3.) calls them Legitimate Wives. Of this Licence of Polygamy among the Hebrews, Maimonides (in Halach Ishoth c. 14.) hath this Memoir. It is lawful to Marry many Wives, even a Hundred, either all at one time, or one after another; nor hath the Wife married before, any power of hindering the Husband herein: provided he be of Estate sufficient to maintain them all in Food and Raiment, according to their Degree and Quality; and of strength of body sufficient to pay to each one her conjugal debt, i. e. once in a week at least to each, nor to run upon the score above a month with any one. Concerning the Oeconomy of these Ancient Polygamists, and how they preserved peace and quiet in their Families, or Seraglios rather; Epiphanius (Haeres. 80.) hath this brief Remark; Tametsi quidam è Patribus duas & tres Vxores habuerunt, non tamen in una domo Vxores fuerunt. They kept them in several houses, or several apartments at least, to prevent jealousy. By the Law of Moses, the Highpriest was obliged to take a Wife in her Virginity, (Levit 21. 13.) and because a Wife, in the singular number, the Masters, thence conclude, that he ought to have but one.  
Besides that singular Law (Deut. 21. 10.) 
12. The Hebrews not permitted to lie, or marry with Gentiles not Proselytes.  by which Liberty was indulged to an Hebrew Soldier of lying once before Marriage with a Captive Gentile; the Hebrews had no Right at all given them, either of Coition, or Matrimony with Strangers, not yet admitted into judaism: nor was the same right granted to all Proselytes of Marriage with Hebrews. After Circumcision was instituted among the Hebrews, before their entrance into Egypt, the Sons of jacob say to Sichem (Gen. 34. 14.) We cannot do this thing, to give our Sister to one that is Uncircumcised: for that were a reproach to us. Of the Gentiles, Moses saith, Thou shalt not Contract Assinity with them: thy Daughter thou shalt not give to his Son, nor shalt thou take his Daughter unto thy Son (Deut. 7. 3.) Which Law extends, not only to the Seven Nations there named, but also to all Uncircumcised Nations whatsoever. Of the Circumcised, the Law Enrolled (Deut 23. 7.) decrees far otherwise. Now the Egyptians were Circumcised, so were the Idumeans by Esau (called also Edom) and the Ishmaelites by their Father Ishmael, whom Abraham himself Circumcised. With the Nephews and Nieces therefore of Proselytes of Egyptians or Idumeans, it was permitted to the Israelites to Marry: and Solomon's Nuptial Contract with an Egyptian Proselyte, Daughter of King Pharaoh, was Legitimate.  
By the Mosaic Law (Deut. 23. 1. & 2.) 
13. Eunuches & Bastards excluded from Matrimony with Israelites.  neither Eunuch, nor Bastard might enter into the Congregation of the Lord. The Marriages of such therefore were Interdicted, even to the Tenth Generation. Of Eunuches, because they were unfit for Generation: of Bastards, because of the Infamy of their Birth, the Ignominy of the Parents sin descending to their Posterity. Nevertheless the Manzers or Bastards were not Prohibited to Contract Matrimony with either Proselytes of Justice, or Libertines. If a Maid-Servant, being a Proselyte, were joined to a Manzer, the Son born of her of Servile Condition, was, by Manumission, accounted a Libertine: and by such Emendation of his Birth, both he and his Posterity put off the Ignominious name of Bastard, and enjoyed equal Right with Proselytes.  
An Ingenuous (i. e. a Freeborn) Gentile 
14. The Right of Proselytes and Libertines.  admitted into judaism, was called a Proselyte of justice; a Servant, in the very Act of his admission made Free, was called a Libertine: the same Civil Regeneration, and blotting out of former Cognation; the same Participation of the judaic Right and Name; the same retention of Peregrinity in their Posterity, were common to both. Also to both Proselytes and Libertines, Marriages with either Foreigners, or Servants, were no less unlawful, than to Natives; among themselves, of whatsoever Nation, they might freely Intermarry: nor did the diversely Interdicted Marriages with the aforesaid Nations belong to them, but to the Originaries only. When a Gentile was made a Proselyte; or a Servant, a Libertine; all his former Consanguinity ceased, and was ipso facto utterly extinguished: so that his Marriage with his Sister or Mother was not Incestuous. Among the Sons of a Female Proselyte was no Fraternity, unless both were as well Conceived as Born in Sanctity, i. e. after her Conversion and Admission into Judaisme. Thamar (the Masters say) was David's Daughter Conceived of Maacha, a Captive and yet a Gentile; and Amnon was his Son by his Wife Ahinoam: Thamar then was German Sister to Amnon in respect of Blood, but not by Right of Regeneration. She therefore saith to Amnon Ravishing her, Nay my Brother, do not Force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel.— but speak rather to the King for he will not withhold me from thee. And she spoke with understanding. For the Consanguinity that was betwixt her and Amnon, being by her Mother's Proselytism taken away, the Marriage was lawful.  
A Handmaid received into judaism, 
15. The Maid-Servant not permitted to Marry, before she was made absolutely Free by Redemption or Manumission:  her servitude retained, was not Rightly capable of Matrimonial Right; as Mr. Selden (the jur. Nat, & Gent. l. 5. c. 17.) and josephus (Antiq. l. 4. c. 8.) but to one Manumitted, i. e. made Free, as having obtained entire Freedom, Marriage was permitted. With a Handmaid partly a Libertine, the whole Price of her Liberty not yet Paid, Espousals were neither void, nor of full force. (Levit. 19 20.) Whosoever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a Bondmaid betrothed to an Husband, and not at all Redeemed, nor Freedom given her; she shall be Scourged: they shall not be put to death, because she was not Free. Death therefore, the Vltimum Supplicium, was not to be inflicted upon her, as in the case of Adultery, because Matrimony with a Maid not perfectly Redeemed, or made Free, was not absolute.  
A Proselyte Manservant, 
16. Nor the Manservant; until the Christians gave them jus Conjugii.  his servitude retained, was not participant of Civil Right (extra Sacra:) nor was there among such, either any respect of Cognation, or any Legitimation of Espousals. The Maid-Servant joined by the Master to the Manservant, ut in fructu prolem haberet; was not his Wife, but his Contubernali●, Chamber or Bed-fellow: and this Contubernium or Bed-fellowship was dissolved by the same Master at his Pleasure; nor was there, as to this matter, any thing of difference betwixt such Servants, and Beasts enured to labour in Carriage or Tillage. But the more Humane and Mild Doctrine of Christianity at length remitted this extreme rigour of the jewish Law, and introduced the Right de Servorum Conjugio, by Canon Law, or Right Pontifical. By which also Marriage is Interdicted even to the Seventh Degree of Consanguinity (Caus. 25. q. 2. & 3.) according to the Names of Cognations, in the Cesarean Law, to which Inheritances and Guardianships are ascribed. But in the Council of Lateran, Anno Dom. 1215. It was Decreed (cap. 50.) That Prohibition of Matrimony exceed not the Fourth Degree of Consanguinity and Affinity. And in England (by Statute 32. of Hen. 8. c. 38.) the Levitical Constitutions concerning degrees of Kindred to be excluded from Contract Matrimonial, are restored.   

CHAP. VIII. The fifth Precept.  
Concerning Theft and Rapine.  
IF by this Precept, 
Article 1. Theft Interdicted among the Egyptians, whose Singular Law concerning Robbery is recited.  not only the taking away, whether Privily or by Open Force, from another any thing that is Rightfully his, but also the interring upon another any Loss or Detriment whatever, contrary to Right and the common Faith of Mankind, be (as certainly it is) Interdicted: then am I well assured, that the Egyptians of Old were under an Obligation to observe it. For, reflecting upon the Apology made by the Overseer of the Solemn Funeral Rites used among them, in the name of the Defunct, more than once abovementioned; I therein find these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neque eos deposito defraudavi, nor have I defrauded them of any thing committed to my trust. And that Theft, which properly is Clandestine Stealing, was among them unlawful, is sufficiently manifest, even from the Memorable Example of the Thief in Herodotus (lib. 2. c. 22.) who plundering King Rhampsmites' Treasury, and being at length catched in a Snare or Trap by the Neck, chose rather to have his Head cut off, than to be detected. As for Robbery indeed, they had a Singular Law, yet extant in the most Faithful Monuments of Diodorus Siculus (lib. 1. p. 50.) which was this: He gave Command, that they who would addict themselves to Robbery, should profess their Names [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] before the Prince of Thiefs, and solemnly promise to bring to him so soon as they could, whatever they had Stolen; and that the Persons robbed should likewise send to him in a written Bill or Ticket a particular account of the things they had lost, with mention also of the place where, and of the Day and Hour when they were taken from them. By which Means the Goods being easily found, the Loser recovered what was his own, Paying the Fourth part of the Real Value thereof. For since it seems Impossible, that all men should abstain from Stealing, the Maker of this Law found out a way, by which the whole thing Stolen might be Redeemed for a small part of the Price of it.  
By Virtue of this Natural Interdict, 
2. Theft, of what kind soever, forbidden also to the Sons of Noah, by Law Natural: and  as the Talmudists (Gem. Bab. tit. Sanhed. c. 7.) affirm; Every one of the Sons of Noah was Obnoxious to Punishment, if he had stolen any thing from Gentile or Israelite, either Clancularly or Openly, Goods or Persons; or detained Wages from an Hireling, or done aught of that kind.  
In the Mosaic Law, 
3. By the Mosaic, to the Hebrews.  Theft is simply forbidden more than once; in the Decalogue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt not Steal: as of Goods, so of Men, as well Servants, as Freevill (Exod. 21. 16.) He that stealeth a Man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Which was Interdicted also by the Roman Law (F. F. de furtis 37. 60.) The defraudation of Wages is particularly Prohibited. (Deut. 24. 14.)  
Other Thefts there are of that kind, 
4. Fraudulent removing of ancient Landmarks, Theft.  which are called Not Manifest: such as the Deceitful removing the Boundaries or Marks of Fields. (Deut. 27. 17.) Let him be accursed, that removeth his Neighbours Landmark, namely the Bounds which your Fathers have put in thy Inheritance. Which is understood of the Limits or Boundaries set in the First distribution of the Holy Land: as also of the limits of the Nations confining thereupon, without just cause of War. Whence that of josephus (Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. p. 123.) Terminos Terrae movere non liceat, neque propriae, neque alienae quibuscum nobis pax est. Sed cavendum nè auferatur, quod velut Dei calculus in aeternum figitur.  
Among the Egyptians, 
5. Punishment of various frauds among the Egyptians.  Fraudulent Practices were severely punished, whether they were of Public or Private Wrong. Witness Diodorus Siculus (l. 1. p. 50.) The Law Commanded, saith he, That both the Hands should be cut off [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of those that adulterated Money, or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] substituted new Weights, or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] counterfeited Seals, or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Scribes that wrote Forged Tables or Instruments, or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] took away any thing from written Records or Deeds, or obtruded false Bonds. To the end that every Offender might suffer punishment in that part of his Body, with which he had offended against the Law, and by an irreparable loss deter others from committing the like Crime. 
6. All fraud, even in words, unlawful to the Hebrews.   
To the Hebrews it was forbidden, not only to use false Weights and Measures, but even to use any fraud of words in Contracts, or to lie to another's wrong. (Leu. 19 11.) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. Upon which Text the Masters commenting, pronounce, that tho' an Israelite accounted not a Gentile for his Neighbour, yet by the Natural Interdict of Theft, Gentiles were not to be any ways defrauded in Negotiations. Nefas est, say they, quenquam decipere in emptione & venditione, aut in consensum arte pellicere: quod pariter obtinet in Gentilibus atque in Israelitis.  
Nevertheless, 
7. The difference betwixt the Right of an Hebrew, and of a Gentile, as to pilfering things of small Value.  in the Violation of this Interdict, the Babylonic Gemara (tit. Sanhed.) makes the Right of Foreiners different from that of Natives. If a Labourer working in a Vine-yard or Olive-yard, eat of the Fruit thereof, at any other time than that wherein he laboured there, he was guilty of theft, tho' he were a Noachid: but with an Israelite the Case was otherwise, he might eat at any time. And this difference arises from the Mosaic Right (Deut. 23. 24.) When thou comest into thy Neighbour's Vine-yard, thou mayest eat Grapes thy fill, at thine own pleasure, but thou shalt not put any into thy Vessel. And so of the standing Corn. By which Law there was given to the Israelites, not a licence of Stealing, but juris Modus, a Measure or Rule how far the Right extended. Another Example of this difference may be from the Value of the thing taken away by Stealth, which is not Taxed by Moses. By the Institute of their Ancestors, an Hebrew was not liable to an Action of Theft, if he filched from another, what was in Value less than a Prota (which is the smallest Piece of Money, the Eighth Part of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, weighing half a Grain of Pure Silver;) but a Noachid was guilty of Theft, if he took away by stealth any thing of less Value than a Prota; and for so small a Trifle was to be punished with the Sword; from this Natural Interdict, not from the Civil Law of the Hebrews, which in such Cases required neither Atonement of the Divine Majesty, nor Compensation of the Neighbour. But Capital Punishment was, in the Dominion of the Hebrews, inflicted upon Gentiles for almost every light Offence.  
Satisfaction for damage sustained, 
8. Satisfaction for damage, always to be made, by the Mosaic Law; and to whom.  was always to be made, either by restitution of the very thing that had been taken away, or by payment of the Price thereof and a Fifth part more, to the Heirs of the Person that sustained the damage, if he himself were dead; if he had no Heir, to the Lord, and in His Right to the Priest. (Numb. 27. 8.) An Israelite could not want an Heir; and therefore this Law is to be understood to concern only the Proselyte, who had no Kindred, nor Heir, unless one born after his Regeneration; nor had the Occupant any Right to the Goods that had been by stealth taken from a Proselyte deceased without Heir.  
Restitution of things lost (saith Mr. Selden, 
9 The Law of restoring things lost, explicated.  de jur. Nat. & Gent. l. 6. c. 4.) depended, not upon this Natural Interdict of Theft, but upon that Mosaic Law in Deut. 22. 2. To an Israelite it was lawful to retain a thing that a Gentile had by chance lost; as left, and not yet Occupied: but on the contre-part, 'twas not lawful to a Gentile to retain what he had found of an Israelites. To deceive a Gentile in reckoning, was unlawful: but if a Gentile in casting up accounts, through error pretermitted any thing, the Israelite had the same Right to make his advantage of the mistake, that he had to retain what he had found of the others, and so might refuse afterward to pay it; as Maimonides (Galiz. Waib. c. 11.) Also any thing lost by an Israelite, if he despaired to find it, became the Finders own, as if it had been left of purpose: or if he could not so describe the Signs or Marks of the thing lost, as that it might be thence known, that it ought to be restored; 'twas then to be presumed, that the Owner had despaired to find it. (ibid. c. 14.)  
In Mutual Commerce to impose upon another by an unequal Price, 
10. An unequal Price, unlawful.  was unlawful by that Mosaic Law in Levit. 25. 14. Which is understood (saith Mr. Selden l. 6. c. 5.) of Goods Movable, as the Law of Redemption is of Lands and Houses. Nor doth the same belong to a Gentile: but if a Gentile had brought damage to an Israelite by an unequal price, he was by Judgement of Court to refund. From the received Interpretation of the Law, if the price were by a Sixth part less than the true Valour of the thing, nothing was to be refunded: if greater by a Sixth part, the Buyer might require his Money to be restored, the Seller his Ware.  
The Punishment of Theft was Capital, 
11. Punishment of Theft Capital, not from the Law of the Hebrews, but from that given to the Sons of Noah.  from Ius Noachidarum, not from that of the Hebrews, which required (Exod. 22. 1.) fivefold, fourfold, or Double restitution to be made. If the Person convict were not able to give the satisfaction required, he was by Sentence pronounced in Court, adjudged to servitude of the Actor or Plaintiff, until his Service should equal the Price of the Theft: but the restitution Double, Quadruple, or Quintuple, was to be expected from his more Prosperous Fortune after his Servitude. Nor was a Woman sold for her Theft. Neither was a Man convict of Theft adjudged in Servitude to a Proselyte, whether of justice or of the House, much less to a Gentile, but only to an Hebrew; who was Obliged to give Food, Raiment, and a House, not only to him, but to his Wife and Children too: who notwithstanding were not the Master's Servants, but when the Husbands and Father's Servitude was ended, went away with him. And all this by Virtue of that Law in Exod. 21. 3. To an Hebrew Servant Adjudged by Sentence of Court, who had by a lawful Wife fulfilled the Command of Multiplication, it was permitted to have Carnal Conversation with a Maid-Servant that was a Canaanite, that the Master might be enriched by the Children born of her: provided he were not kept apart from his Legitimate Wife and Children, and that but one Maid-Servant were Conjoined to one Manservant, not to two or more.  
Other causes of Servitude there were also among the Hebrews. 
21: The Mosaic Interdict of Theft deduced from Law Natural.  If thy Brother Compelled by Poverty, shall sell himself to thee, etc. (Levit. 25. 39) If any shall have sold his Daughter for a Servant, etc. (Exod. 21. 7.) These Addictions or Sales were not permitted but in Case of extreme Poverty, when the Seller had nothing left, not so much as a Garment, and that his life was to be sustained by the Price agreed on. This selling of a Daughter is understood only of a Minor; nor without hope of her Marriage to the Emptor, or to his Son: without Espousals, she obtained her Liberty Gratis, when first the Signs of Puberty appeared upon her. Also an Hebrew was made a Servant Privately; that by his Addiction or Sale he might not lose his Dignity together with his Liberty. Now from this Permission of an Israelite reduced to extreme want, to sell himself or his Child for Sustenance, lest he should die of Hunger, it is sufficiently manifest, that from the very Law of Nature obtaining among the Hebrews, it was not Lawful to steal for even the greatest necessity.  
To exercise Usury was more than once forbidden by the Hebrew Law: 
13. Usury unlawful to the Hebrews among themselves; lawful to the Gentiles.  and the Lender upon Usury was compelled, by sentence of Court, to restore to the Debtor; what he had received for the Loan of Money, as a thing taken away by stealth, (Deut. 23. 20.) To a Stranger thou mayst lend upon Usury; to thy Brother thou shalt not lend upon Usury. To steal the Goods of a Gentile, was no less unlawful, than to steal from an Israelite: but to take Usury of a Gentile was permitted; of which the Contract arises from the Consent as well of the Receiver, as of the Giver. For neither from Natural Right was it unlawful to lend upon Usury.  
By the Statutes of their Forefathers 
14. Gain from Games, unlawful to an Hebrew.  (as Mr. Selden de jure Nat. & Gent. lib. 6. c. 11. delivers) an Hebrew was guilty of Theft, who made any Gain to himself by Playing at Dice, Cockal, Tables, or committing Wild or Tame Beasts, or Fowls to fight together, to make sport for the Spectators. For they judged no Gain to be honest, that arose from a Contract depending upon Fortune. But it was not Theft, if a jew contending with a Gentile won the Prize or Wager: tho' that also, as a thing Inutile or Unprofitable to Humane Society were prohibited. By the same Ancient Right, he also was a Thief, who so bred up and taught Doves or other Birds, or Beasts Wild or Tame, as that they should fly or go abroad, and alluring or decoying others of the same kind, bring them home, to the gain of their Owner: nor was it lawful to go a Fowling after Pigeons in a place inhabited, or within Four Miles thereof: because Pigeons were reckoned among the Goods of other Men, and were nourished by the Owners, either for Sacrifices, or for food. Nor was it lawful for any man to build a Dove-House in his Field, unless he had Ground of his own lying round about it, of Fifty Cubits extent every way.   

CHAP. IX. The sixth Precept.  
Of Judgements, or Administration of justice in Courts of judicature; and of Civil Obedience.  
FRom this Natural Precept, the Masters (saith Maimonides, 
Artic. 1. The administration of Justice by judges, prescribed, first by Natural Law, & after by the Mosaic.  Hal. Melak. c. 9) acknowledge that the Rulers ought to Constitute Judges and Prefects in every City and Town, both to judge all Causes pertaining to the Six Precepts of the Sons of Noah, and to admonish the People of their observation of them. And so indeed the Mosaic Law also at length commanded (Deut. 16. 18.) judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, etc. In many other places also, Juridical Prefectures are commanded to be constituted, according as the Civil Societies of Men require.  
Many and memorable things indeed hath that most Excellent Interpreter of Eastern Antiquities, 
2. Courts juridical not constituted before Moses.  Mr. Selden, written of the Councils or Assemblies of the Ancient Hebrews, in that interval of time that preceded the giving of the Holy Law on Mount Sinai: But to me (I confess) it doth not from thence appear, that any one of the Patriarches, before Moses, exercised Jurisdiction in Foro, in Court; much less constituted Juridical Prefectures in Cities and Towns. The Family of the Hebrews, descending from Sem to Abraham, lived in Mesopotamia: nor is it constant from the Scripture, whether it were at that time sui juris, or under the Laws of the Neighbour Nations. The grandchildren of Abraham were tossed to and fro in continual Peregrination, until at length they sat down in Egypt; where they were so far from living by Laws and Customs of their own, that they groaned long under a most cruel Servitude. Commonwealth of Hebrews there was none. Tribunal or Court of Judicature they had none, till after their deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage. Then, and not till then it was, that the People of God being greatly multiplied, and divided into Twelve Tribes, the Precept concerning Judgements was given in Mara; Exod. 18. 25.  
Among the Traditions of the Masters we find mentioned often, 
3. The contrary not evident from the Traditions of the Rabbins; nor from the Scripture.  the House of judgement of Methusalem; also of Sem, and Eber: which yet are not to be taken for Juridical Prefectures, but for Schools. Witness Maimonides (More Neboch. part. 2. c. 39) Who saith; The Wise Men speak of the Prophets that were before Moses, the House of Judgement of Eber, the House of Judgement of Methusalem, that is, the School of Methusalem. All [those] were Prophets, and taught Men after the manner of Preachers, or Doctors. Nor is it otherwise said of Abraham, (Gen. 18. 19) I know him, that he will command his Children and Household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgement, etc. For this was a thing Oeconomical, not Political. Soon after the Deluge, God Proclaimed this Edict; (Gen. 9 6.) He that sheddeth Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed: not by judgement of any Court of those times, but by Natural Right of Talion. Cum Lex haec lata est (saith the Incomparable Hugo Grotius, in locum) nondum constituta erant judicia: aucto humano genere, & in gentes distributo, meritò solis judicibus permissum fuit jus illud primaevum. From these places of Genesis therefore truly interpreted, no pretext can be drawn to excuse their error, who dream of I know not what Public Tribunals or Courts of Judicature constituted before Moses. Neither can any be drawn from either of these two Examples following.  
Simeon and Levi, 
4. Nor from the Example of Simeon and Levi, and of judah in the cause of Thamar.  in revenge of the Rape committed upon their Sister Dinah, by Sichem the Hivite, slew him and his Father and all the Males of the City. But this was done by War, not from any Sentence of a Judicial Court; nor is this revenge of a private Injury to be brought for an Example here, where the question is concerning Public judgements.  
It was told judah, Thamar thy Daughter in Law hath played the Harlot, and is with Child [per fornicationes] by whoredom. And Judah said, bring her forth, that she may be burnt. But this saying of judah, rashly pronounced, and in heat of anger, is by no means to be accepted for a juridical Sentence. For by the Law of Moses (Levit. 21. 9) the Priest's Daughter was for Fornication (the Masters understand Adultery, not Stuprum, Whoredom) to be burnt alive. But Thamar was neither Priests Daughter, nor Wife, but a Widow expecting to be Married to the Brother of her Husband deceased; and this Law was not then made. Others think, that there was such a Law peculiar to this Family, to which judah had respect: which is in truth repugnant to the Ius Noachidarum, by which it was accounted no Crime for an unmarried Woman, to humble herself to whom she pleased. Of which Right Maimonides being conscious, and speaking of this our Thamar, saith; Ante Legem datam, coitus cum Scorto erat sicut coitus hominis cum Vxore suâ; hoc est, licitus erat, nec homini fugiendus, [velut delictum] etc. Thamar then, by virtue of this ancient Right then obtaining, was not to be held guilty. Whence other Interpreters understand the Combustion or Burning mentioned in the Text, to signify, not burning to death, but a Stigmatising or Marking in the Forehead with an hot Iron, by which she might be known to be an Harlot. Again, when Thamar was brought forth (not ad poenam, as the vulgar Latin) the whole matter being detected, juda non cessavit eam cognoscere, that is, he took his Daughter in Law to be his Wife; such Marriages being not unlawful before the Mosaic Law. This place is (I acknowledge) Translated by the Seventy Seniors thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non adjecti ultrà cognoscere eam; vel, ultrà non cognovit eam: but the Hebrew verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying as well cessare, as adjicere; I am inclined to prefer the foremr Interpretation, and the more inclined, because the Genealogy of King David and of our Saviour Christ is deduced from one of the Male Twins she brought forth at that birth.  
These Examples therefore not sufficing to prove that for which they have been alleged by some Interpreters, 
5. The Right of a Gentile in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews, as to Judgements in foro.  otherwise of Profound Erudition and Solid Judgement, and it remaining still difficult to demonstrate, that there were any such things in the World, as Courts of Judicature more ancient than those erected by Moses: let us inquire what was the Ius Noachidarum in the Commonwealth of the Israelites, as to judgement. They that preside over the Tribunals of the Israelites (saith Maimonides in Hal. Melak● c. 10.) ought to appoint Judges for the Proselytes of the House, to hear and determine their causes according to the Rights of the Sons of Noah: lest humane Society should suffer any thing of detriment: and that they might constitute these Judges, either by electing them out of the Proselytes themselves, or from among the Hebrews, at their pleasure. In another place (viz. c. 9) he saith, a Noachid is put to death by the Sentence of one Judge, and upon the Testimony of one Witness; and that without Premonition and the Testimony of Neighbours: but not upon the Testimony of a Woman. Nor was it lawful to a Woman to give judgement upon them, [nor upon the Hebrews.]  
On the other side, by the Civil Right of the Hebrews, three Judges at least were to hear and determine Causes Pecuniary, and Twenty-three to judge of Causes Capital, not without Plurality of Witnesses, and Premonition. By the received Right of the Sons of Noah, the Violation of these Seven Precepts was punished in a Proselyte of the House, with death inflicted by a Sword: but an Israelite, by his own Right, was not to be punished with death, for Violation of the three latter. No Gentile that was under Age of discretion, or Blind, or Deaf, or Mad, was punished; because such were not reputed Sons of the Precepts, i. e. capable to observe them. A Noachid that was a Blasphemer, or an Idolater, or an Adulterer with the Wife of a Noachid, and after that made a Proselyte of justice, was not to be called into Judgement, but was free: but if he had slain an Israelite, or committed Adultery with the Wife of an Israelite, and were after made a Proselyte of justice; he was to be punished, with the Sword, for Homicide; with a Halter, for Adultery; that is with the punishments of the Israelites. By the virtue of Proselytism, which was Regeneration by the Hebrew Law, Crimes committed against Equals, yea also against God Himself, were purged away: those committed against an Israelite, not. All which nice differences betwixt the primitive Right of the Sons of Noah, and the Civil Right of the Israelites, punctually observed by Judges in hearing and determining causes, in Foro; have been with vast labour collected out of the Monuments of the Masters, and with exact Faith and Judgement recited by Selden the Great in lib. 7. de jure Nat. & Gent. to whom I owe the Knowledge of them, with many other remarkable things of good use toward the Interpretation of divers difficult Places in Holy Scripture.   

CHAP. X.  
Prints of the Six precedent Precepts observable in the Book of Job.  
THe same most Excellent Antiquary, to add the more of Credit and Authority to the Six foregoing Precepts of the Sons of Noah, hath also observed manifest Prints of them in the Book of job, a man (as St. Austin, de Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 47.) of admirable Sanctity and Patience; who was neither Native, nor Proselyte of the People of Israel, but an Idumean by Descent and Birth, and died there; and by consequence could not be Obliged to keep the Laws of Moses, of which perhaps, nay most probably, he never so much as heard. For this Just Man is said (job 1. 5.) to have offered up Victims, in the name of his Sons; not according to the Form and Rites ordained in the Mosaic Law, by which it was Enacted, under the penalty of Excision, that all Sacrifices should be Immolated at the Door of the Tabernacle: Whence some Learned Men infer, that he lived before the Law was given. Others affirm, that there never was any such Man, and the Book that bears that name, is not a true History, but a Parable, or Poem (for the Original is written in Verse) concerning Providence Divine. Which of these two Opinions is to be preferred, I pretend not now to inquire. Certain it is however, that this Book contains many remarkable things pertaining to Natural Law, principally these following.  
Of Idolatry. (Chap. 31. v. 26.) If I beheld the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness: and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth kissed my hand: this also were an Iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that is above.  
Of Blasphemy. (Chap. 1. v. 5.) In the Morning he Offered Burnt-Offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, it may be that my Sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.  
Of Homicide. (Chap. 31. v. 29.) If I rejoiced at the destruction of him that hated me, or lift up myself when evil found him. Neither have I suffered my Mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to his Soul. If the Men of my Tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his flesh! we cannot be satisfied.  
Of Adultery. (Chap. 31. v. 9) If my heart hath been deceived by a Woman, or if I have laid wait at my Neighbour's door: then let my Wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her; or, as the Vulgar Latin, Scortum alterius sit Vxor mea. To turn about a Mill, was among the ancient Services of Women.  
Of Theft, or the unlawful laying hands upon the Goods of another. (Chap. 31. v. 7.) If any blot have cleaved to my hands: then let me saw, and let another eat; yea, let my Offspring be rooted out.  
Of Judgements he speaks in Chap. 29. from v. 7. to the end, where he relates, that Himself had in the days of his Prosperity sat on the Tribunal, and been a Prince among the Judges of his Nation.  
Most evident it is then, that all these Precepts of the Sons of Noah obtained among, and were Sacred to the Idumeans, who lived not under the Laws of Moses.   

CHAP. XI. The seventh Precept.  
Of not eating any Member of an Animal alive.  
THis Precept was added after the Flood, 
Article 1. Eating of Blood Interdicted, first to Noah, and after to the Israelites.  according to the Traditions of the Rabbins; who say, that the eating of Flesh, which had been Interdicted to Adam, was permitted to Noah: and understand this Interdict to be comprehended in that of not eating Blood. God at first said to Adam (Gen. 1. 29.) I have given you every Herb bearing Seed, and every Tree, in which is the Fruit of a Tree yielding Seed: to you it shall be for Meat. After he said to Noah (Gen. 9 3.) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green Herb have I given you all things: but Flesh with the Life thereof, which is the Blood thereof shall you not eat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at carnem in sanguine animae non comedetis: where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anima, we are to understand the Life. The eating of Blood is, by the Levitical Law, forbidden in the same form with the Immolation of a Son to Moloch. (Levit. 20. 3.) I will set my face against him that eateth blood. 
2. The reason of this Interdict.  Nor is this manner of speaking to be found in any third Precept: which Maimonides well observes (in More Nebochim part 3. c. 46. pag. 484.) because the eating of blood gave occasion to the Worship of Devils, and he fetcheth the reason of the Interdict from Idolaters who thought blood to be the meat of Daemons. Hence also it is commanded (Levit. 17. 10.) that the blood of Victims be sprinkled upon the Altar; and moreover that it be covered with dust, or sprinkled upon the Ground as water. Some of the Zabii used to eat the blood; some others, who reckoned this to inhumanity, at the kill of a Beast reserved the blood, and put it into a Vessel or Trench, and then sitting down in a Circle about it, eat up the flesh, and pleased themselves with an opinion, that their Daemons fed upon the blood, and that this manner of sitting at the same Table with their Gods, would endear them to a nearer tie of Conversation and Familiarity; and promising to themselves also, that these Spirits would insinuate themselves in dreams, and render them capable of Prophecy and Predicting things to come. Now in reference to these absurd and Idolatrous ways of the Amorites it was, that God expressly forbade his People to eat blood, for so some of the Zabians did; and to prevent their imitation of others who reserved it in a Vessel, he commanded that the blood should be spilt upon the ground like water. And with the same respect to the Zabian Rites it seems to be, that it was also forbidden (Exod. 23. 19 and Deut. 14. 21.) to any man of Israel, to Seethe a Kid or Lamb in his Mother's milk, as our many-Tongued Mr. Gregory (in Posthum.) hath Learnedly asserted.  
The Law in another place (viz. Deut. 14. 21.) saith, 
3. The Law against eating of any thing that died of itself, and of any Member torn off from an Animal alive: and the reason thereof.  Ye shall not eat [morticinum ullum] of any thing that dieth of itself. Thou shalt give it unto the Stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it: or thou mayst sell it unto an Alien. Whence some collect, that the eating of blood was not forbidden to either Proselytes of the House, or the Sons of Noah; but only of flesh torn from an Animal alive; as the Stones of a Lamb cut out. Maimonides (More Neboch. part 3. cap. 48. pag. 496.) brings these reasons of the Interdict: both because that is a sign of Cruelty, and because the Kings of the Gentiles in that age were wont so to do, upon the account of Idolatry; namely they cut some Member from a living Creature, and eat it presently.  
Nor is this so strange a thing, 
4. Examples of such cruelty & carnage in Bacchanals.  since Clem. Alexandrinus (in Protreptico, p. 9) commemorates the same execrable cruelty and Bestial Carnage to have been practised in Bacchanals: Bacchi orgiis celebrant Dionysium Maenolem, crudarum carnium esu sacram insaniam agentes, & caesarum carnium divulsionem peragunt, coronati Serpentibus. Nay more inhumanity yet hath been Solemnly practised in the furious Devotion of the Adorers of the same drunken Deity. Prophyry (de Abstinentia l. 3. sect. 55.) saith; In Chio sacrificabant Baccho [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] crudis gaudenti, hominem membratim discerpentes. Idem in Tenedo obtinuit. Well therefore do they speak who call Idolatry Madness in the last degree.  
Jobus Ludolfus (in Historia Aethiopica lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 51.) saith of the Habessins', A Sanguine verò & suffocatis abstinent, non vigore Legis Mosaicae, sed Statuti Apostolici in Ecclesia Orientali semper, in Occidentali verò per mutla secula observati, & in Conciliis nonnullis repetiti: nosque reprehendunt, quòd id in desuetudinem passi fuerimus venire.  
To these Seven Natural Precepts, given (as hath been said) first to Mankind in general, and after revived in Mara (according to the doctrine of the Talmudists) in the recension and explication of which according to the sense of the most Learned Interpreters of the Hebrew Antiquities, I have hitherto exercised my unequal Pen; Some have subjoined another, of Honouring Parents. But of this, tho' equally Natural with the former, and among Moral Precepts principal, I defer to speak, until the Thread of the Method I have prescribed to myself in this disquisition, shall have brought me to the first Precept in the Second Table of the Decalogue: both because some of the Masters do not reckon it in the number of the Primitive and Genuine Precepts of the Sons of Noah, but affirm that it was not given until the Israelites were encamped in Marah; and because I would prevent repetition of the same things in divers places. Nor doth any thing more, concerning the Seven Precepts precedent, occur to my mind at this time, that seems of moment enough to excuse me, if by insisting thereupon I should longer defer to put a Period to this First Part of my present Province. ¶   
The End of the First Part.   

THE CONCORDANCE OF Natural and Positive Divine LAWS. PART II.  
Containing a Short Explication of the Laws of the DECALOGUE, and Reduction of Evangelick Precepts to them.  

CHAP. I.  
The Preface to the DECALOGUE explicated.  
FRom Primitive Laws merely Traditional, 
Article 1. The Mosaic Law, of all written Laws the most ancient.  or such as were delivered down from Generation to Generation, not in Writing, but only by voice or word of mouth, and seem to have constituted the most ancient Right of Mankind; we come now to the most ancient of Written Laws, such as were committed to Writing, and consecrated to the Memory and Observation of Posterity. Of this sort, the Mosaic Laws certainly are, as the best, so also the First of all known in the World. The Grecians indeed, ambitious of the honour of being reputed Founders of Government, by making good Laws for the regulation of Humane Societies; among many other benefits, wherewith they boast themselves to have obliged other Nations, put Legislation in the head of the Account. Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, and other ancient Sages, are great Names they glory in. But their Glory is altogether vain. For all the pretensions and brags of that arrogant Nation in this kind, have been long since refuted and silenced by the Jew Flavius josephus, in his Apology against Apion, full of admirable Learning. There he shows, that the Greek Legislators, compared to Moses, are but of Yesterday: for at what time their Father Homer lived, they knew not the name of Laws, nor is it extant in all his Poems; only the People had in their Mouth certain common sayings and sentences, whereby they were governed; to supply the defects whereof, the unwritten Edicts of Princes were upon occasion added. And he had reason. For the truth is, Moses, Senior to Homer by many Ages, was the first Writer and Publisher of Laws, teaching the People what was right or wrong, just or unjust, and by what Decrees the Commonwealth was to be established, which the Most High God had commanded to settle in Palestine. Before the time of this Moses, no Written Laws were known in the World. For although Mankind lived not altogether without Laws before, yet were not those Laws consecrated and kept in any Public Records or Monuments. Of this sort were the afore-recited Seven Precepts given to the Sons of Noah, concerning certain Rules of Righteousness necessary to humane life. Wherefore they were of so large extent, that whosoever knew them not, those the Israelites were commanded to destroy by War, and deprive them of all Communion with Mankind: and justly; for they that had received no Law, seemed worse than Beasts; and (as Aristotle hath Divinely spoken) Injustice strengthened with Arms and Power, is most cruel and intolerable  
It must then be acknowledged, 
2. Moses, the Wisest of all Lawgivers.  that of all Legislators Moses was the most Ancient: nor can it be with truth denied, that he was also the Wisest. For he ordained such a kind of Government, which cannot be so significantly styled, either Monarchy, or Oligarchy, or Democracy, as Theocracy; that is, a Commonwealth whose Ruler and Precedent is God alone: openly professing, that all affairs were managed by Divine Judgement and Authority. And of this he gave a full demonstration, in as much as although he saw all matters depending upon him, and had all the People at his Devotion; yet upon so fair an invitation he sought no Power, no Wealth, no Honour for himself. A thing whereby he showed himself more than Man. Then he ordered that the Magistrates should not be Lords and Masters, but Keepers of the Laws, and Ministers. An excellent Constitution this. For seeing that even the best Men are sometimes transported by passion, the Laws alone are they that speak with all Persons in one and the same Impartial Voice: which may well be conceived to be the sense of that fine saying of Aristotle, The Law is a Mind without Affection. To these Two undeniable Arguments of admirable Wisdom in Moses, may be added a Third no less considerable, viz. the Eternal Stability of his Laws: whereto to add, wherefrom to take aught away, was a most high offence. So that, neither Old Laws were abolished, nor new brought in; but the observation of the first was with rigour exacted of all, even in the declination of that Commonwealth. Which was not so in other Commonwealths, most of which have been ruined by Law-making. The reason of this diversity cannot be abstruse to him that considers, that the Laws of other Nations were the inventions of humane Wit, and enforced only by penalties, that by time, or remissness of Rulers, lose their Terror: but those of the jews, being the Decrees of the Eternal God, not enervated by continuance of time, or softness of Judges, remain still the same; men's minds being still kept in awe by Religion, as I have in the former part of this discourse intimated. Now if in these Three things (to which I might here subjoin others, if I thought it necessary) the excellent Wisdom and Prudence of Moses be not clearly visible; I know not what is so.  
Of these Mosaic Laws, 
3. The Writers design & method in the ensuing explication of the Decalogue.  upon which by Divine Wisdom both the Polity and the Religion of the Holy Nation are so established, as to be, not only connexed, but made one and the same thing; some are Moral, others Ceremonial. The Moral (which only belong to my present Province) are comprehended in that Sacred Systeme called the DECALOGUE, or Ten Commandments, in which the whole duty of Man, as well towards God as towards Men, is prescribed. These Ten Precepts therefore I intent (the Omnipotent Author of them assisting me) seriously and according to the best of my weak understanding, to consider, one by one, in the same order in which they are delivered in the Twentieth Chapter of Exodus. And that neither want of skill in the Hebrew Language, and in the Idiotisms or proper modes of speaking used by Esdras (or whoever else was) the Writer of the Pentateuch; nor the slenderness of my judgement, may lead me into errors, in the interpretation of the Sacred Text: I am resolved to resign up myself entirely to the conduct and manuduction of the most celebrated Interpreters of the Holy Scripture, and among them principally of the Illustrious Hugo Grotius (a Man no less admirable for the singular felicity of his judgement in difficult questions, than for the Immensity of his Erudition) in his Explication of the Decalogue, as it is extant in the Greek version of the Seventy Seniors; choosing rather to tread in his very footsteps, than to deviate from the right way, in an argument of so great moment. Not that I think it necessary to recite whatsoever he hath congested of this Subject in that part of his Theological writings, wherein are delivered many curious Criticisms concerning the various significations and uses of as well Greek as Hebrew Words and Phrases, that belong chiefly to the cognizance of Philologers: but that I design from thence to select only such things that seem requisite to my right understanding of the sense of all and singular the Precepts, that I am now about to consider. In pursuance therefore of this design I begin from.  

The Preface to the Decalogue.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And the Lord spoke. Here by the Lord, 
4. Why God is here called The Lord.  is meant the God of Gods. And the reason why the Greek Interpreters chose rather to use the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Lord, than [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] God, seems to be this; that writing to the Greeks amongst whom, are to be numbered the Egyptian Kings of the Macedonian blood, by the Hebrews called Kings of Graecia; and that among the Grecians also they who were reputed wiser than the rest, as the Platonics, of which order were the Ptolemy's Kings, used to give the appellation [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of God also to those whom they call [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Daemons, and sometimes, in imitation of the Hebrews, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Angels: they thought themselves religiously concerned openly to testify, that they spoke of that God only, who by supreme Right ruled and commanded all those that they honoured by the name of Gods: as among Mortal Kings, the King of the Persians was called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the King of Kings; and even at this day the King of the Habessins' in Ethiopia writes himself [Negûsa nagast Zaitjopja] King of the Kings of Ethiopia, with respect to some petty King's subject to him, or his Vice-Roys, who also are honoured with the Title of Negus, King; as the most Learned jobus Ludolfus observes (in Hist. Aethiop. l. 2. c. 1. Printed at Francfurt this present year 1681.)  
But although the Lord, 
5. That the Law was given, not immediately by God Himself, but by an Angel in the Name of God.  that is, the Highest God, be here said to speak these words that follow; yet ought we to hold for certain, that He spoke them not by Himself, or Immediately, but by an Angel sent as an Ambassador, acting in the Name of the Most High God: which ought to be understood also of other the like Visions, that have happened to Holy Men in old times. For it was an Angel that spoke to Moses and the People in Sinah; if we believe the Writer of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 7. v. 38.) And so thought the Grave josephus also, when (Antiq. l. 15.) he said, Cum nos dogmatum potissima, & Sanctissimam Legum partem per Angelos à Deo acceperimus.  
They err greatly, who here by Angel understand the Second Substance of God, or Second Person in the Trinity. For God spoke indeed in various and manifold manners to the Fathers of old; but in the last times He began to speak to us by His Son, (Hebr. 1. 1.) The Law was given by Angels by the ministry of [Internuncii] an Ambassador or Mediator (namely of Moses) that it might be of force, until the promised Seed should come (Galat. 3. 19) And the Writer to the Hebrews prefers the Gospel to the Law from this, that the Gospel was given by our Lord jesus Himself, the Law only by Angels. (Heb. 2. 2.)  
In which places Angels are named in the Plural Number, 
6. Why the Angel that pronounced the Law, said, I am the Lord, etc.  tho' St. Stephen saith Angel in the Singular; because such is the manner of Visions of that kind, that there is One Angel sustaining the Person and Name of God, and others present with him as Apparitors, or Ministers. As in Gen. 18. & Luke 2. 13. conferred with 1 Thess. 4. 16. and with Matth. 13. 39 41. 49. As therefore the Angel that pronounced the Law, saith, I jehovah, so also do other Angels, that have been likewise sent from God, as Ambassadors, to transact affairs of great Importance, speak in the first Person, just as the Crier of a Court pronounces the words of the Judge; as St. Austin (l. 2. de Trinitate c. 2.) makes the Comparison. So Moses (Exod. 3. 15.) saith, that the God jehovah spoke to him in the Bush: and he that then spoke to Moses, had newly said, I who am, which is an explication of the word jehovah, i. e. Existens, or Being; for Being without Beginning, without End, and without Dependence, is Proper to God alone. But St. Stephen (Acts 7. 30.) saith, that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a Flame of Fire in a Bush: and that from the Authority of Moses himself. (Exod. 3. 2.) Of which St. Athanasius (Orat. 6.) saith; Et vocavit Dominus Mosem exrubo, dicens: Ego sum Deus Patris tui: Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, & Deus Jacob: at Angelus ille non erat Deus Abraham, said in Angelo loquebatur Deus; & qui conspiciebatur, erat Angelus, etc. Of the same judgement was the Author of the Responses to the Orthodox Christians, when he said; Angelorum, qui Dei loco visi aut locuti sunt hominibus, Dei vocabulo nominati sunt, ut ille qui Jacobo, quique Mosi est locutus. Etiam homines Dii vocantur. Vtrisque ob Officium ipsis injunctum datum est, & Dei vicem & nomen obtinere. Expleto autem officio, desinunt vocari Dii, qui tantùm operae alicujus causâ id nomen acceperunt. We must acknowledge then, that the words recited in this place of Exodus, were pronounced by an Angel in the Name of God: but we are not obliged to believe the same of those that are in Deut. 5. For they were the words of Moses by memory rehearsing the former, and indeed with such liberty, that he transposeth some words, changeth some for others of the same signification, omitteth others, and addeth new for interpretation sake. For Deuteronomy, or, (as Philo speaks) Epinomis, is nothing else but the Law and History summarily repeated, in favour of those who were not present at the promulgation of the Law, and at the transactions of that time.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; All these Sermons, saying. 
7. Why the Writer of the Law saith, all these Words.  These very words; that no Man of Posterity might think; that aught had been added or taken away. In Deuteronomy 5. are not found these words so express: and therefore it sufficeth, that there the sense of the Reciter is signified, as we just now siad.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
8. God's peculiar Right to the Title of Supreme Lord of the Israelites.  I am the Lord thy God who hath brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of Servitude. By the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Septuagint have interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Empire is signified. The same word is attributed sometimes also to Angels, as in Psalm 82. v. 2. and sometimes to eminent Magistrates, as in Exod. 21. 6. & 22. 26. so that in Psalm 82. 1. & 131. 1. it is a great doubt among the most Learned of the Hebrew Doctors, whether Angels or Magistrates are to be understood. But whensoever the Plural is conjoined with the Singular [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by apposition, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] defective, no doubt is to be made, but that He alone is to be understood, who with Highest and most absolute Empire presides over all both Angels and Magistrates. But to that word, the Possessive Case is wont to be added, whereby it is signified, that to this Most High God, besides the Sovereign Right He hath of most absolute Dominion over all Angels and Men, there belongs also a certain peculiar Right of Dominion over some particular Men or Nation, by virtue of not common benefits conferred upon them. For such is the nature of benefits, that it always gives to him who hath conferred a benefit, somewhat of new Right over him that hath received it. And this is the cause, why here no mention is made of God's Creation of Mankind in the beginning, but of those things that properly belonged to the Posterity of jacob, nor of all those neither, but only of the most recent, the memory whereof sticks more firmly and efficaciously in the minds of Men. Compare with this, the cause of keeping the Law, which Fathers are commanded to deliver down to their Children, in Deut. 26. 10. and following verses.  
Now what is said in this place, 
9 The Preface to a Law ought to be brief and full of Authority.  is not Law, but a Preface to the Law, Seneca indeed approves not of a Law with a Prologue, because a Law is made, not to persuade, but to command. But Zaleucus, Charondas, Plato, Philo, and some other Philosophers were of another Opinion. Certainly the middle way is the best; let the Prologue be brief and grave, such as carries the Face of Authority, not of disputation.  
The Number Ten is to almost all Nations the end of numbering; 
10. Why God, in these Precept, chose the number Ten.  for the numbers that follow, are distinguished by compound names, either by the sound, as Vndecim, Duodecim, Eleven, Twelve; or by signification, as an Hundred, a Thousand, etc. and certainly the most ancient way of Numeration was by the Fingers, of which Man hath Ten. For which reason, also in these Precepts, which were above all other things to be imprinted upon the receivers memory, God was pleased to choose this number, wherein that all diversities of numbers, all Analogies, all Geometrical Figures relating to numbers, are found; Philo largely shows in his Enarration of the Ten Precepts. And Martianus Capella, where he saith; Decas verò ultra omnes habenda, quae omnes numeros diversae virtutis ac perfectionis intra se habet. Nor was it from any other reason, that the Pythagoreans, and after them the Peripatetics referred all kinds of things into Ten Classes, vulgarly called Categories: or that not only in the Law, but also before it, Tenths were devoted to God; as may be collected from the History of Camillus written by Livy and Plutarch, and from Herodotus, who speaks of that Custom as most ancient.  
The Place wherein the Law was given, 
11. Why the Law was given in the Wilderness.  also exacts our notice. It was given in a Wilderness barren and desolate; with design, that the People remote from the contagion of Cities, and purged by hardship and sore afflictions, and by Miracles taught not to depend upon things created, might be well prepared for that Commonwealth which God was about to found and establish.  
Nor ought we without a remark, 
12. Why it is here said, Thy, in the singular number.  to pass by the Particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Thy God. Which not only here in the Preface, but in the Precepts ensuing, is used; intimating, that the Law commanding and forbidding speaks to every individual Man in the number of Unity; to the end, that it may declare, that here the condition of the Prince, and of the lowest Hebrew of the vulgar, is one and the same, none, High or Low, being exempted from the Obligation thereof.    

CHAP. II. The First Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thou shalt not have other Gods beside me. 
IN the words, 
Article 1. Why it is here said, Other Gods beside me.  Other Gods beside me, seems to be a Pleonasm, or redundance of speech. For it had been sufficient even to men of common sense, to have said, other Gods. But the like speech occurs also in 1 Corinth. 8. 4. and 1 Corinth. 3. 1. and the meaning is, that other Gods are neither to be substituted in the place of the True God, nor to be assumed to him, which many did, as in 1 Kings 17. 33.  
Here by Gods are to be understood, 
2. God's distinguished into two Classes.  not only Angels and judges or other Magistrates of eminent Dignity, who are (as we have already hinted in the Preface) sometimes in the Scripture honoured with the Title of Gods, while they execute their Office; but also all those whom the Gentiles, tho' without just cause, called by that name; [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] who are called Gods (1 Corinth. 8. 5.) So some are called Prophets, who boast and Magnify themselves for such, (jer. 28. 1.) let us therefore consider, first the false Gods of the ancient Gentiles, and then those that are not without cause called Gods.  
That the first things which men worshipped as Gods, 
3. The Celestial Luminaries, the first false Gods.  were the Celestial Fires or Luminaries; is the opinion of the most Learned and Judicious of the Hebrew Masters, Abenesdras, Moses Maimonides, and others. And this opinion is highly favoured, both by the Tradition of Abraham, who is said to have abandoned his Native Country, and travelled into a strange Land, merely out of detestation of this kind of Idolatry; and from the History of job taken from times most ancient (Chap. 31. v. 26. 27. 28.) Whereto may be added that of Deut. (Chap. 4. v. 19 and Chap. 17. v. 3.) Now that the Sun, Moon, and other Lights of Heaven are false Gods, is most evident, not only from hence, that no great goods or benefits come from them to Mankind; but also from this, that they neither understand men's adoration and prayers, nor have the liberty of doing good more to one Man than to another: which two things are conjunctim required to fill up the true signification of the name God, (Heb. 11. 6.) No sooner had Men made to themselves Gods of the Stars, 
4. Kings and Queens deified after death, the Second false Gods.  but they began to make also Stars of Men, and to Worship them with Divine Honours. Kings and Queens (that there might be Deities forsooth of both Sexes) were after their decease, what by the cunning and pride of their Posterity, what by the adulation of the Learned of those darker times, Deified and Adored; and that too under the names of eminent Stars. And from this Antique Custom St. Chrysostom (ad 12. cap. Secundae ad Corinth.) derives the Worship of Idols: Sic enim Idolorum cultus primùm obtinuerunt, cum homines supra meritum in admirationem venirent. That Divine Honours were by the Syrians attributed to Azael and Aderus their Kings, josephus relates: and Athenaeus affirms, that this Custom came first out of Egypt. But the most ancient memoir of the thing is found in Sanchuniathon, who hath recorded for truth, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Kronos King of the Phoenicians was by them consecrated into that Star, which the Greeks, taught by the Phoenicians, called from his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latins Saturnus. And he is the same to whom, by way of excellency named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The King, the Phoenicians used to sacrifice their children: a most inhuman and execrable custom, that from them descended down to the Tyrians (a Colony of theirs) and from them to the Carthaginians and other peoples of Africa. Thus was Astarte also consecrated into the planet Venus; and not long after among the Egyptians, Osiris was stellified into the Sun, Isis into the Moon. Thus was Hammon translated into Aries, the Ram; Derceto into Piscis, the Fish. But of the Moors, a People of Mauritania, St. Cyprian saith; manifestè Reges colunt, nec ullo velamento hoc nomen obtexunt.  
From the deification of Stars, 
5. Whence it was that Brutes came to be worshipped as Gods.  and stellification of Men, in process of time they proceeded to yet a higher degree of madness, Idolising of Brute Animals. For, either because the Asterisms or Constellations of Stars had been before, by the curious observers of them, form into the figures of divers Animals, from some similitude they fancied in One or more Stars; or because some Animals were believed to have, I know not what, secret Natural Cognation with certain Asterism, and to receive a more vigorous influence and virtue from them; or perhaps for both these causes: therefore were those Animals supposed to have somewhat of Divine in their Natures, and accordingly numbered among Deities by the Egyptians, who adored them as such. Hence an Ox was called Apis, with relation to Luna, or Lunus rather (for a great part of the East called that Planet by a Masculine name;) the Phoenix (tho' probably there never was any such Bird in rerum natura) was worshipped as a favourite of the Sun; as also were the Lizard, Lion, Dragon, Falcon, for the same reason; the Bird Ibis, out of respect to Mercury; the Dog, in respect to Sirius, the Dog-Star: and in like manner other Animals also, betwixt which and the Asterisms (to which notwithstanding the Chaldeans gave Figures different from those the Persians imagined, and the Indians different from those that either of those two Nations had fancied) they conceived any resemblance of shape, or cognation of Nature to be. They proceeded yet farther. Without any respect at all to Celestial Bodies, they honoured as Gods all such living Creatures that were highly useful and profitable unto men; such as are reckoned up by Diodorus Siculus cited by Eusebius (in praeparat. Evang.) by Pliny (l. 8. c. 27.) Philo (ad Precept. Secun.) and Porphyry (de abstinentia l. 4.) Now of all these Brutal Deities of the Egyptians, we need say no more than what we said just now of the Host of Heaven, to prove them to be false Gods; viz. that they neither understand the prayers, nor have power to do good to one man more than to another of their stupid adorers, as wanting the faculties of reason and election.  
The same cannot be said of Angels, 
6. Honour due to good Angels, and what.  who are able, both to hear and understand prayers addressed to them, and from a certain liberty of mind to confer benefits upon those whom they are commanded to favour and assist. He therefore that honours them with due respect and reverence, also he that hopes to obtain some eminent benefit by their help and assistance; doth not sin against this Law: but he doth, who attributes to them the things that are proper to the Most High God. For the word God in this Precept, is to be understood in sensu summitatis, i. e. as signifying the God of Gods. Examples will illustrate the thing. They sinned not who as often as Angels appeared to them, showed great veneration of them by falling down upon their faces, as in joshuah (c. 5. v. 14.) since as much of honour as that comes to, was given also to Prophets, without sin; as to him that was thought to be Samuel (1 Sam. 28. 15.) to Eliah (2 Kings 1. 13.) to Daniel (2. 46.) Who forbids Offerings and Sacrifices, doth not forbid a sign of simple reverence. Nor did the Angel in the Revelation refuse that honour, because there was aught of unlawful in it, but because he would show that the Apostle was equal to him, both being Ministers of Christ, now head of the Angels, (see Coloss. 1. 16. 18.) and that an Apostolic Legation designed for men's salvation, was in no part inferior to an Angelic: and Equals are not wont to usurp such signs of submission one of the other. Nor is this explication of that place new, but delivered down to us by St. Ambrose and Gregory the Great. Nor do I think that Man would sin, who should beseech an Angel appearing to him, to recommend him before God; to the proof of which Point Maimonides brings what is in job (33. 23.) with whom Philo consents, often calling Angels [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Mediators. But in both exhibiting signs of reverence to Angels, and in imploring their commendation, it highly concerns us to see, that he that appears to us under the form or shape of an Angel, be not an evil Daemon come to delude and seduce us; a cheat not seldom practised by the Prince of Impostors Satan, as St. Paul observes (2 Corinth. 11. 14.) and Porphyry (de Abstinentia l. 2.) in these words; aliorum Deorum velut vultum induti, nostra imprudentia fruuntur; and jamblicus (de Myster. Egypt. l. 3. c. 32, & l. 4. c. 17.) Nor is it difficult to discern betwixt good and evil Angels appearing to us. For those that endeavour to seduce Men from the Worship of the True God, or pretend themselves to be Equal to Him; are most certainly Emissaries [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of the Devil, and to be resisted.  
True it is nevertheless, 
7. Signs of honour proper to God, not to be exhibited to good Angels.  that there are many signs of honour that cannot be exhibited even to good Angels, without manifest violation of this Holy Precept. First if those signs of singular veneration be exhibited to them, which the consent of Nations hath made proper to Divine Worship, as Sacrifices, Oblations, Incense, expressly declined by the Angel that appeared to Manoah, (judg. 13. 16.) and mentioned in Daniel (2. 46.) Secondly if we solemnly Vow or Swear by them, or beg of them those things, which by God's Command ought to be petitioned for from God alone, or now under the new Covenant from God and Christ, such are Remission of Sins, the Holy Spirit, Eternal Life. For this is, as Philo rightly observes, Aequalia dare inaequalibus, qui non est inferiorum honos, sed superioris depressio; nor is it less than crimen laesae Majestatis summae, High Treason against the Divine Majesty, to give His Honour to His Ministers.  
To petition Superiors, 
8. Civil Veneration of Kings, not unlawful.  principally Kings and Princes, who are Precedents of human Peace, and Conservators of every private Man's Right and Propriety, for such things as are in their power to grant; is not against this Law. Nor are we by the same forbidden to honour them by kneeling or prostrating our bodies in their presence, where Custom of the Place or Nation requires those signs of respect and reverence; for this is Civil, not Divine Honour. Nathan prostrated himself before David, only as he was King (1 Kings 1. 23.) and the Writer of Illustrious Lives saith (in Conon.) necesse est, si in conspectum veneris, venerari te regem, quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illi vocant. The Greeks instead of that word often put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, procumbere, to lie down flat upon the ground, in token of Submission and Veneration. Livy speaking of certain Ambassadors of the Carthaginians, saith; More adorantium (accepto credo ritu ex ea regione ex qua oriundi erant) procubuerunt. He means from the Phoenicians, Neighbours of the Hebrews, whose Custom of yenerating their Kings in this manner Euripides (in Phoeniss.) thus expresses; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Supplex te, Rex, venerans genibus  
Patrio advolvor de more tuis.  But if this prostration of the body be in any Nation used only in Divine Worship; then is the case quite altered, and to use it in honour of the King himself, will be unlawful. For this very reason the Grecians, who were not accustomed to prostrate themselves unless in Sacris, refused to venerate the King of the Persians in that manner: and some Macedonians, tho' eminent in the Army and Court of Alexander the Great, could not either by flattery or terror be brought to profane the Religious gesture of Procumbency, by using it before him even when he affected to be thought a God. Particularly calisthenes and Polypercon: the former of whom, in the close of his free Oration to Alexander, feared not to say; non pudet Patriae, nec desidero, ad quem modum Rex mihi colendus sit discere, the other openly derided one of the Persians that, from veneration of the same Mighty King, lay with their Faces upon the ground, jeeringly advising him, ut vehementius caput quateret ad terram, as Curtius (lib. 8. cap. 5.) relates. There were times when the Christians thought it not alien from their Religion, to humble themselves by such prostration before the Statues and Images of Emperors. But after julian had commanded, that Images of false Gods should be added to his own Images, the more Prudent of the Christians held themselves obliged in conscience to suffer the worst of torments, rather than to fall down before them; as Gregorius Nazianzenus hath recorded. And hither may we refer that of Tertullian to Scapula; Colimus ergo Imperatorem sic, quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit, ut hominem à Deo secundum, & quicquid est à Deo consecutum, & solo Deo minorem.  
Hitherto we have enquired, what Gods are falsely and without just cause so called; and who are sometimes not without cause named Gods; and how far these of the latter sort may, without offence of the Most High God, be honoured. It remains only, that we inquire, what is the Grand Scope or Principal Design of this first Precept.  
The most Learned jew, Philo, and the Christians following him, 
9 Extirpation of Polytheism, the principal design of this Precept.  rightly call this Precept [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of the Empire of One, or also [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the destruction of a multitude of Gods. For no doubt is to be made, but that the chief purpose of this Law is to extirpate Polytheism; and that too, as Maimonides wisely observes, not for God's sake (for what benefit can he receive from humane worship?) but for Man's, whose felicity consisteth only in this; that he be advanced from things sensible to that Insensible God, from things subject to decay and destruction, or such as had a beginning, to that Eternal Ens. Nor is any thing so useful, as the belief of one God, to conjoin and bind Men together in Peace and Mutual Amity. Whence that memorable Sentence of the Greek Author of the Book (de Monarchia l. 1.) Amatorium vehementissimum, & vinculum insolubile benevolentiae atque amoris, cultus unius Dei. Whereto he adds, for confirmation, or that he might inculcate the same as a Maxim of perpetual truth, and universal too; Causa concordiae & summa & maxima, de uno Deo persuasio, a quo velut fonte procedit amicitia firma & insolubilis hominibus inter se. To this great verity Tacitus seems to have had respect, when speaking of the Religion of the jews, he saith; Honour Sacerdotii firmamentum potentiae assumitur. For if the honour of the Priesthood be the Grand Sanction of the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate in all Commonwealths (as is confessed by that common Axiom, sublato sacerdotio tollitur simul & Lex) and Religion be the Basis upon which the honour of the Priesthood stands (which is by all Men acknowledged) and the persuasion of One God be the firmest fundament of Religion (which cannot be denied) than it will of necessity follow, that the persuasion of One God, is the firmament of Empire, because the strongest ligament whereby the minds of Men are combined and disposed to live, both in obedience to Governors, and in peace and mutual amity among themselves. Admirable therefore is the Goodness shown by God to the Israelites, in this: that having selected them before all other Nations to be his peculiar People, and being now about to constitute a new form of Government or Republic, wherein Himself was to preside: He gave them this first Precept, as the fundamental Law upon which the stability of their Empire, and their Felicity was to depend; and to which the Light of Nature or Right Reason would oblige them to assent. For the Agnition of One, Eternal, Infinite, Omnipotent God, is to a considering Man, without much difficulty of thoughts, inferrible from any one of these subsequent reasonings.  
1. He that from any natural effect whatever, 
10. The Unity of God, manifest by the Light of Nature.  which he hath seen, shall reason to the next cause thereof, and thence proceed to the next cause of that cause, and then immerge himself profoundly into the order of causes; will at length find (with the Philosophers of clearest understanding) that there is one first Mover, i. e. one Eternal Cause of all things, which all Men call God: and this without all cogitation of his own fortune, the solicitude whereof both begets fear of evil to come, and averts the mind from the inquisition of natural causes, and at the same time gives occasion of imagining many Gods.  
2. God is necessarily, or by Himself; and whatsoever is so, is considered, not as it is in genere, but in actu; and in actu things are single. Now if you suppose more than one God, you shall find in singulis nothing, wherefore they should be necessarily or by themselves; nothing wherefore two should be believed to be rather than Three, or Ten rather than Five. Add, that the multiplication of singular things of the same kind is from the fecundity of Causes, according to which more or fewer things are bred out of them: but of God there is neither original, nor any cause. And then again in divers singulars, there are certain singular proprieties, by which they are distinguished among themselves; which to suppose in God, who by his Nature necessarily is, is not necessary.  
3. Nor can you any where find signs of more than One God. For this Whole University makes One World; in the World is but one Sun; in Man also but One mind governs.  
4. If there were Two or more Gods; acting and willing freely; they might will contrary things at the same time, and consequently one might hinder the other from doing what he would; but to imagine it possible for God to be hindered from doing what He wills, is to imagine Him not to be God. Evident therefore and necessary it is, that there is but One God. Evident it is also, that the Israelites were under a double obligation to obey this Precept: One from God's express Command; the other, from the Light of Nature, which alone is sufficient to teach Men, both that there is but One God properly so called, and that to Him alone all Divine Worship is due.   

CHAP. III. The Second Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. 
IN Greek Writers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used to signify [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] an apparition or ostent: 
Article 1. In what sense the word Idol is always used in holy Scripture.  but in the Sacred Books we no where find it used in that signification, but always of the same with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] graven, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Image, or Effigies; and therefore St. jerom translates it sometimes Idolum, sometimes Sculptile, then Imago, and in other places Simulacrum. So the Calf made in Horeb is by St. Luke (Act. 7. 41.) called an Idol, and they that worshipped it are by St. Paul (1 Corinth. 10. 7.) called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Idolaters. And the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers exactly to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby is signified Worship alien from the Law: not that an Idol signifies any thing of evil per se, as some think; but because, after the Law, there was no more evident sign of distinction betwixt the Pious and the Superstitious, than this, that all these had graven Images, those had none. And therefore tho' the Greek version renders not word for word, yet the sense is plainly enough expressed.  
Nor did the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] worshippers of many Gods only make and set up Images to them, 
2. That Idolatry was founded upon an opinion that Images Magically consecrate were animated by Daemons, and therefore vocal.  but thought also that by Magical rites some certain Ethereal Spirit was brought down into those Images; as may be seen, both in the Dialogue of Trismegistus (whoever he was that imposed that mighty name upon himself) with Asclepius, and in Maimonides in many places of his Book entitled Ductor dubitantium, as also in Abenesdras upon this Precept. The same is noted by Tertullian (l. de Idololatria) in these words, Rapere ad se Daemonia & omnem Spiritum immundum per consecrationis obligamentum; and (in l. de spectaculis) he saith, that Demons operate in Images: and Minutius Felix, Isti impuri Spiritus sub statuis & imaginibus consecratis delitescunt. That such were the Images which in Iacob's History are named Teraphim, is the opinion of Abenesdras, Maimonides, and Kimchi: tho' the word itself be of good and bad signification indifferently, and is sometimes (as in judg. 17. 5. and Hosea 3. 5.) taken for Cherubins. Such also was the Gamaheu or little Image that Nero had, or at least was willing Men should believe he had, by the suggestions whereof, he pretended to be premonished of things to come, as Suetonius relates. That many Images, telesmatically made forsooth, and erected have been vocal, yea, and Oraculous too; many grave Writers have made no scruple to affirm; and Maimonides (part 3. cap. 29. Ductor dubitant.) tells us, That he had read two Books of speaking Images. These Authors perhaps had from others heard of such Statues, and believed what they had heard to be true: but to me (I freely profess) it seems more probable, that either they gave credit too easily to fabulous relations, or that the relators themselves had been imposed upon by frauds and impostures of Heathen Priests speaking in, and pronouncing enigmatick Oracles from the hollow of Statues, to delude the Credulous, and at the same time propagate the honour of the False Gods represented by those Idols; than that evil Demons should as it were animate a Statue, and cause it to express articulate Sounds, without vocal Organs. And as for Memnon's Statue or Colossus made of black Marble, set up in that magnificent Temple of Serapis in Thebes, and for the Music it made upon the striking of the beams of the Sun upon it, so much celebrated by ancient Writers as well Latin as Greek; certainly it was merely a piece of Art, a kind of pneumatic Machine contrived by the Theban Priests, Men of not vulgar skill in Astronomy and all other Philosophical Sciences. Athanasius Kircher (I remember) in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Tom. 2.) according to his usual credulity, conceives it was a Telesme, or made by Talismanic Art; and that the Devil was conjured within the hollow of it, to perform that Effect, because it continued Musical for so long a time, namely to the days of Apollonius Tyaneus, which from the first Erection of it was about Eleven hundred Years. But yet he shows, that such a Musical Statue may be made by Mathematical and Natural contrivance upon the ground of Rarefaction; saying, Magnam enim vim in natura rerum, rarefactionem obtinere, nemo ignorat; and subnecting various other pneumatical devices among the Egyptians in their Temples.  
But whether it were the Devil or the Priest that spoke in those Consecrated Statues; 
3. Teraphim used chiefly for Divination.  or whether the vulgar, in all Ages easy to be gulled by Men of more Learning and cunning, were only deluded into a belief that they spoke: certain it is however, that the opinion of some Spirit or other included within them, so far advanced their Reputation, that they were now no longer looked upon as Representations of Gods, but as real Gods themselves, and accordingly Worshipped and Consulted about future Events. From this Opinion it was, that Laban (in Genesis 31. 30.) expostulating with jacob about the Teraphim or Images that Rachel had secretly taken from him, saith, Wherefore hast thou stolen my Gods? That these Teraphim were framed by Astrologers, for Divination sake, and that they might Predict things to come; is the judgement of Rabbi Kimchi: and that they were also made of Human Form, so as to be the more capable of Celestial Influence, is observed to us by Rabbi Abraham Ben-Ezra, the greatest Theologue and Astrologue of the jews. Who adds, That Rachel stole the Images from her Father Laban for this reason alone, lest from the inspection of them he might learn what way jacob had taken in his flight, and so pursue him. And St. Austin (quaestion 94. in Genes.) grants that Laban consulted these Idols for Divination; saying, Quod Laban dicit, quare furatus es deos meos, hinc est illud fortasse quòd & augurari se dixerat. Capite enim praecedenti, ad Jacobum dixit, Auguratus sum, (not as our Translation, I have learned by experience) quod benedixerit mihi Deus propter te. So Mr. Selden (De Diis Syris syntagm. 1. c. 2.) assures us, the Ancients Interpret Nichasti; and the Hebrews understand that place (ver. 27.) of foreknowing or conjecturing. But whether or no these Teraphim were worshipped as Gods, though they were called so, is an old Controversy among the Masters, as appears from R. Simeon Ben-joachi (in libro Zohar fol. 94.)  
As for the dismal manner how these Teraphim were made, 
4. Teraphim, how made &  Mr. Selden (from R. Elias in Thisbi) describes it thus: They killed a Firstborn Son, twisted or wrung off his Head from his Body, then Embalmed it with Salt and Aromatic Powders, and wrote upon a thin Plate of Gold the Name of an Unclean Spirit; which Plate being put under the Embalmed Head, they placed it in a niche of the Wall, burning Candles, and adoring before it. And with such Teraphim as these Laban used to Divine. If this be a true Description, I wonder why the Author of it, and Onkelos too, in this place of Genesis Translate Teraphim by Tzilmenaia; when Tzilmenaia signify Figures, Effigies or Images; and a dead Man's Head is neither of these.  
Of Micha also we read (judg. 17. 5.) That he had a Temple of Gods, and made an Ephod and Teraphim, and Consecrated one of his Sons, (that is, filled his hand with Sacrifices;) which ancient Rite used in the initiation of Priests, we find mentioned in Exod. (29. 24.) and Levit. (8. 27.) and he became his Priest. Upon which Text Mr. Selden, according to his wont sagacity, well observes, That this Micah did ill to mix the Worship of the True God, with that of Idols and Demons; for doubtless he Consecrated the Ephod and Levite to the True God, but the Teraphim, the Molten, and the Graven Image to Demons: from which the Danites soon after obtained an Oracle, as if it had been from God Himself; as appears in the Chapter following. Nor did the Idolaters give credit to the Ephod, which they referred to God; or to the Teraphim of Demons, singly or apart: and therefore they foolishly and impiously thought, that both together were to be Consulted, both to be Worshipped, and conciliated by the same Divine Worship. It seems by the History, That the Molten Image, and the Graven Image of Micah were the Gods to whom the Teraphim were Consecrated. But yet the Teraphim also, in respect to their egregious use in Divination, were held to be Gods. Hence arises somewhat of Light to us for our clearer discerning of what is meant by that darksome place in Hosea (3. 4.) For the Children of Israel shall abide many days without a King, and without a Prince, and without Sacrifice, and without an Image, and without an Ephod, and Teraphim. For the Sacrifice and Ephod are referred to Divine Worship of the True God; the Statue or Image and Teraphim, to Idolatry: according to R. Kimchi's interpretation, who (in Radice) saith, Absque sacrificio, respicit Deum Verum; absque [matzebah] statue, cultum alienum sive numina Gentium; & absque Epho, item Deum verum; & Teraphim, cultum alienum.  
As to the matter whereof these [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Puppets or Idolillo's were made; 
5. Of what Materials  the most antique of Eastern Nations, the Zabii, or Chaldeans (out of whose Books R. Moses the Egyptian transcribed many Remarkable Memoirs) made them of Gold sometimes, sometimes of Silver, according to the rate of their fortunes. These they Dedicated to the Moon, those to the Sun: and they built Temples or Houses to receive them, as he, (More Nebochim. l. 3. c. 30.) Records; Et posuerunt in eyes imagines & dixerunt quod splendor potentiorum Stellarum diffundebatur super illas imagines, & loquebantur cum hominibus, & annunciabant eye utilia. Which quadrates exactly with their Doctrine who teach, That the Teraphim were always made according to the Precepts of Astrology, and to certain positions of the Stars, (as those which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and to the Figures, imagined to be in Heaven, that they might be, not only [Mechavi] Annunciantes, Fortune-tellers, but also [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Averrunci dii, drivers away of Evil. Nor do the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed, as to the Astrological reason, differ from the Teraphim, unless in this, That these were designed to Predict things to come, but those to drive away Evils; and the makers of the Talismans' were named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Much nearer to the nature of the Teraphim do those Images come, that were believed both to give Oracles, and to protect from Evil: not only from their having been Astrologically form and erected, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Daemoniorum] from the coming of Demons into them: and we are told by Michael Psellus, that Demons are said [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to make their intradas or entrances, when being invocated by their Adorers or Conjurers, they enter into Statues or Images Consecrated to them. Of this sort of Images the most ancient Memory is found mentioned by that Hermes Trismegistus in his Dialogue with Asclepius. Such was that wooden Seal by Apuleius called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by him under a secret name worshipped; of which Magical Practice being accused, he wrote an Elegant Apology. The same is to be thought of that Head of a Statue, which Gerebert Archbishop first of Rheims, and after of Ravenna, and at last Pope, by the name of Sylvester the Second, taught by the Saracens of Spain, to the satiety of Humane Curiosity, made into an Oracle for his own use; as our William of Malsbury (de gestis Regum Angliae, lib. 2. cap. 10.) relates. This Head, saith William, would never speak, but when interrogated; and than it failed not to speak Truth, either affirmatively, or negatively. For instance, when Gerebert asked, Shall I be Apostolic? the Head would Answer, Thou shalt. Shall I die before I have sung Mass in Jerusalem? No. But by this Answer, the Pope (as is well observed by Selden, de Diis Syris. l. 1. c. 2.) was deceived, as to the time of his Death: for he understood it of the City jerusalem; but the Oracle meant a Church so called in Rome; in which, immediately after his Holiness had upon the Sunday called Statio ad jerusalem, celebrated Mass, he ended his Life miserably. That the like Head was made of Brass, and to the same purpose too, by our Countryman Roger Bacon of Oxford, a Minorite (a Man of greater Learning than the gloomy Age wherein he lived, could well bear) is confidently reported by the vulgar; not without injury to his admirable skill in all parts of the Mathematics, which his Works now extant show to have been profound and pure, and of which the most Renowned University of Oxon hath, in their late History and Antiquities, given an honourable Testimony. Nor have our Annals any the least Ground, upon which this scandalous Fiction could be raised.  
Of what matter the Image of the Great Diana of the Ephesians was made, 
6. What were the Silver Shrines of Diana of the Ephesians.  is left to conjecture; no less uncertain than the Founder of her Magnificent Temple in that City: but that the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Silver Shrines made there by Demetrius a Silver Smith, and other Craftsmen, not for, but of Diana, and mentioned in Acts 19 24. were little Chapels representing the Form of the Ephesian Temple, with the Image of Diana Enshrined; hath been affirmed by the Great Erasmus, and sufficiently proved by our most Learned Mr. Gregory, (in Posthum. c. 11.) And to this agree the Heathen Rites of those times. For Ammianus Marcellinus (in juliano, l. 22. numb. 12.) relates, that Asclepiades the Philosopher was wont to carry about with him whithersoever he went, a little silver Image of the Celestial Goddess, or Urania: and Dion (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 40. fol. 81.) saith of the Roman Ensign, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it was a little Temple, and in that, the Figure of an Eagle set in Gold. Now that which moved Demetrius and other Workmen of the like occupation to stir up the Beast of many Heads to raise a Tumult against St. Paul, was not zeal for the honour of Diana, as they cunningly pretended, but fear lest their Trade should be ruined. For at this time there was a solemn confluence of all the Lesser Asians, to the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Holy Games celebrated at Ephesus, to the honour of other Gods, but of Diana in Chief. And it must have cut off the stream of profit from the Craftsmen, if the People had been convinced of the absurdity of their Devotion by St. Paul's Doctrine, that these Enshrined Idolilloes of Diana so much bought up by Bigots, were no Gods, because made with hands. In the Prophecy of Amos (5. 27.) is mentioned [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Tabernacle of Moloch, which probably was an Image of Saturn in a Shrine, like these of Diana here described. For that Moloch was Saturn, Selden hath rendered indubitable: and that the Egyptians Worshipped him under the name of Rephan, is evident from the Coptick Table of the Planets explicated by Athan. Kircher in Prodrom. Coptic. c. 5. pag. 147.  
But of what Materials soever the Idols of the Ancient Gentiles were made, 
7. Why graven Images of Animals were by God interdicted to the Hebrews.  still the Worshippers of them seem to have been possessed with an Opinion, That there was [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] some Numen or Divine Power latent in them. And this Opinion had been so diffused through all the Oriental Nations, before the Law; that God thought it necessary to the peace and felicity of the Hebrew Commonwealth now to be established, by this Precept to interdict all Graven Images of any Animal whatsoever, such being thought, by reason of their hollowness and secret recesses, more capable of Demons, than others. For we are to understand, that to the Hebrews, as it was expressly forbidden to Worship any such Image, so was the mere making of any not permitted; lest from the shape or form of the Image, the Israelites might perhaps take occasion to believe, as the Heathens did, That such Images were (to use the Phrase of the false Trismegistus, in Dialog. cum Asclepio) animatae sensu, & spiritu plenae; or (as jamblicus calls them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divino Consortio simulacra plena. Where that Consortium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of Angels or Daemons, whom they Conjured into the Images, by certain Magical Rites and Sacrifices. Nay more; God strictly commanded that all such Statues and Images should be destroyed and utterly abolished, Exod. 34. 13. Numb. 33. 52. Deut. 7. 5. Hence it was, That when Pilate had nailed up certain Shields or Bucklers in the Holy Temple, the jews were unquiet and mutinous, until he had caused them to be taken away; because there were in them [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Countenances or Faces of some of the Caesars embossed or prominent, perhaps in messo relievo. Hence also Herod having set up certain Trophies, was in danger of being outraged by the fury of the jews, until by exposing them uncovered, he showed, that no Images lay concealed under them. In like manner the Golden Eagle set up by the same Herod over the Gate of the Temple, was thrown down, as repugnant to the Holy Law; as josephus (Antiq. l. 17.) relates. Nor was this Law unknown to Tacitus, who speaking of the jews, saith, Nulla simulacra urbibus, nedum templis sunt. And he was in the right; for even Dion could tell his Readers, That to have Graven Images or Statues, not only in their Temple but in any other place whatsoever, was to the Jews unlawful. To endeavour to exempt himself from the obligation of this Law, while the Sanctity of it continued, was criminal to any Man, from the Prince to the meanest of the Vulgar: God reserving to himself alone, the Power of exception, as being the Lawmaker.  
He by his right commanded Cherubins, 
8. That God reserved to himself a right of exception to this Law; from the Instances of the Cherubims and of the Brazen Serpent Erected by His Command.  winged Images with Human countenances, to be set up in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple in that very place, into which none but the High Priest, nor he but once in the Year, upon the day of Solemn and general Expiation, was permitted to enter: as well knowing, that there was nothing of Divine in them; and designing, that by them should be signified, either (as Philo thinks) that the actions of God in rewarding Good Men, and in Punishing the Disobedient, are winged and swift; or (as Maimonides and others conjecture) that God uses the most ready and expedite Ministry of Angels to execute all His Commands. Of this His Prerogative Royal▪ He again made use, when He gave order, That the Brazen Serpent should be Erected in the Wilderness for the healing of the People bitten by Fiery Serpents; and therefore Tertullian (de Idololatria) saith, Extraordinario praecepto Serpentis similitudinem induxit. That the Fiery Serpents by which the mutinous Israelites were bitten, were ex genere Chersydrorum, a kind of Water Serpents, grown more venenous by heat and thirst, and so truly Seraphim, i. e. ardentes, and exurentes; and that they were not bred in the place called Phunon, where the Brazen Serpent was Erected, but brought thither vi quadam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Divine Power, to punish the Contumacious people; hath been amply proved by the Many-tongued Bochartus, (in Hierozoici parte posteriori. l. 3. c. 13.) to whom we owe all the knowledge we have acquired of the various kinds of Animals mentioned in the Holy Bible. As for Solomon's adding the Images of Oxen and Lions, to the Brazen Laver; either he did it by secret intimation or suggestion from God; or (as josephus judges, and other Learned jews) it was his first step toward the Idolatry to which after he arrived.  
When we said that Graven Images of Animals were by this Law forbidden, 
9 Images of the Stars, also interdicted by this precept; and that to prevent Polytheism. &  we comprehend also Images of the Celestial Luminaries, because they too have their Motions; not Animal indeed, but Regular and Periodick. For, that not the Celestial Orbs, but the Stars and Planets are moved in Caelo Liquido, in the AEthereal spaces or Firmament; is the most ancient Opinion of the Hebrews, as the Gemara teaches at the beginning of Genesis, saying, Orbs fixi, sed sidera mobilia. And they expressed in Figure, either the form of some single Planet, as of the Sun, Moon, Saturn, (called the Star of your God Remphan, or Rephan, in Act. 7. 43,) Lucifer, Jupiter, etc. or some whole Constellation made up of many Stars, and by men fancied to resemble a Man, or brute Animal, or Serpent, or other Living Creature. Wherefore Images of this kind also fall under the interdiction of this Law. It appears nevertheless, that the Images and Figures here interdicted, are in the number of things in their own Nature neither good nor evil, but indifferent, and consequently not unlawful; and which are prohibited only for caution of some Evil that may arise from the abuse of them. And that very many things interdicted in the Mosaic Law, are indeed by their own nature, or per se [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] indifferent; but directly opposed by God to the Institutes of the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabians, to the end that the Hebrews might be kept the more remote from Polytheism or the Worship of many Gods; is prudently observed by Maimonides.  
But besides this Caution, 
10. to admonish men, That the Invisible God cannot be represented by Images.  there is another excellent use of this interdict of Images, viz. to admonish men that God is most remote from our sight and other senses. The Invisible God is not to be Worshipped by Images, Symbols or Representations. Ye saw not, saith Moses, any similitude in the day wherein the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived ye might make to yourselves any graven Image. And Seneca (Nat Quaest 8. 30.) could say of God; Effugit oculos, cogitation visendus est. Also Antiphanes the Philosopher; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. God is not seen by Eyes, He is like to no man; whence no man can know him by an Effigies. And that this was the reason of this Law, is intimated both by Philo, when (delegatione) he said; Eum qui inaspicuus est, in simulacro aut fictili opere ostendere, nefas: and by Diodorus Siculus, when he said of Moses, Imaginem statuit nullam, quòd non crederet Deum homini esse similem: And by Tacitus, judaei ment solâ unumque numen intelligunt. Prophanos qui Deûm imagines mortalibus materiis in speciem hominum effingunt. For the same reason Halicarnensis and Plutarch Affirm, That Numa caused all Images to be removed out of the Roman Roman Temples; Quod non sanctum ratus, assimulare meliora pejoribus, neque ad Deum accedi aliter posse quam cogitatu. And Varro hath left upon Record, That the Romans for more than One hundred and seventy Years from the building of their City, Worshipped the Gods sine simulacro: adding, that if that wise Custom had been continued, to his days, the Gods would have been observed more Religiously; and alleging the Example of the Jewish Nation to attest that his Sentence; and at length concluding, That they who first set up Images of Gods for the People, took away fear from their Cities, and put Error in the place of it.  
What therefore shall we say of Pictures or Forms of Animals made in flats, 
11. What Pictures fall under this interdict.  or cut in hollows; are they also by this Precept forbidden, or not? Certainly this place cannot be interpreted to condemn them. That not all Pictures were Prohibited, may with good reason, and assurance too, be inferred from the Ensigns of the Hebrews bearing a Man, a Lion, a Bull, an Eagle, etc. Some Pictures are indeed forbidden, but in other places; namely all those which Idolaters used in their Superstitious and detestable Worship. Levit. 26. 1. To which may be adjoined the Figures cut or engraven upon Metals, and believed to be of Power, after their Consecration with certain Magical Words and Ceremonies, to defend Men and Cities from Invasion of Enemies, Scorpions, Lions, Serpents, and other hurtful Animals, commemorated copiously by Maimonides (Ductor Dubitant. part. 3. cap. 37.) Which Opinion the Grecians following, called such Magical Figures [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] perfect Works: whence comes the corrupt word of the Arabians Talisman signifying the same thing. Others call them (as we have before hinted) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Principles, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Traditions of Elements. Of these frequent Examples occur in the Constantinopolitan History, in the posthume Works of Scaliger, in Gaffarel, and in our Mr. Gregory's opuscula.  
That we may come now to the Christians; they have believed themselves to be obliged, 
12. That the Christians have not thought themselves indeterminately obliged by this Law.  neither by other Laws of the Hebrews indeterminately, nor by that of having no Graven Images of living Creatures. For such Images and Statues both of Emperors and of private Men renowned for Learning and Wisdom, have been in most Cities extant among them, and are so at this day, without danger of Idolatry; and therefore without offence. And as for Figures painted or engraven; since these were not without difference interdicted even to the Hebrews, they have used them more freely, as the Figure of a Shepherd in a Cup or Chalice mentioned in Tertullian assures us. Nay, they abstained not from the Figure of our Saviour Christ, after the Emperors became Christians: witness, these Three ancient Verses, written by Prudentius: 
Christus purpureum gemmanti textus in auro  
Signabat labarum, clypeorum insignia Christus  
Scripserat, ardebat summis crux addita christ is.  
Christ's Figure of bright Gold on Purple born,  
Did the Imperial standard long adorn:  
Drawn upon shields, for Arms his picture stood;  
And on their crests was raised a Cross of Blood.   
The same excellent Poet (in passione Cassiani) hath transmitted to Posterity, that in the Monuments of Martyrs was expressed in Figures, the manner of their Martyrdom, and what they had so gloriously suffered. Long it was notwithstanding before Pictures were admitted into Churches, as appears from the Eliberin Canon, and from that so celebrated fact of Epiphanius. Longer before Statues and Prominent Images were admitted, nor then without much dispute and opposition; not because they were prohibited by the Law, but only because they were thought to give occasion to Error; which Reason was indeed, while Paganism remained, of no little moment.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
13. What is here signified by Adoration of Images.  Thou shalt not adore them. So abundant was the Goodness and Favour of God towards the Israelites, that not thinking it sufficient to provide for their defence against the false Opinions, and impious Customs of that Age, for the time they were to live in the Society of their own People; he having a longer prospect, was pleased to superad cautions for those of their Nation, who should in future times travel abroad and reside among strangers. For there, since they could not hinder the making, and superstitious use of Graven Images of Animals or Stars; another preservative was requisite to prevent their Infection by the contagion of some evil and absurd Opinion and Institute: and the most powerful Antidote against all Contagion of that kind, was to prohibit to them the imitation of all such Gestures, by which that Error was nourished. The Hebrew Word here by the Septuagint translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is sufficiently general; signifying an Act, not of the Mind, but of the Body, whether done by bowing down the Head only, or by inclining the whole Body, or by bending the knees, or by sitting upon the Hams, or (which is a sign of the greatest honour) by falling prostrate upon the Ground. And yet notwithstanding the Greek Interpreters had reason on their side, when they rendered it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adorare, to adore. For, as among the People's of the East, Veneration was shown by various Forms of bending the Body; so among the Greeks, and some other Nations, Veneration was generally signified by putting the Hand to the Mouth; which properly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [in utero fero, & Suavior] whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, osculor, I Kiss.  
Nor doth the Latin Word adorare own any other signification, being in truth derived, not from orare, to pray or entreat, but ab ore quod manus admoveatur ori, from putting the hand to the Mouth, or kissing the Hand. Which was not unknown to St. Jerom, who (in Apologia contra Ruffinum) saith, Qui adorant, solent de osculari manum: nor to Apuleius, who interprets adoratio, adveneratio, to be, a putting the Hand to the Mouth, or kissing the Hand, in token of singular Honour and Veneration. What in an old Epigram is, Ingressus scenam populum Saltator adorat; is the same with that in Phaedrus, jactat basia tibicen. How ancient this manner of Veneration is, may be learned from that Expression of job (31. 26) If my Mouth hath kissed my Hand, i. e. If I have offended by extraneous Worship. But what hath happened to many other Words, that they remain not in the sense of their Original; nay that in process of time, and by long use, the adoptive sense comes at length to prevail over the Genuine; the same hath been the fate of this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It began to be used for any Gesture whatever testifying Reverence. And therefore what the Interpreter of St. Matthew (8. 2.) calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adorare; the same in St. Luke (5. 12.) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fall upon the face; and in St. Mark (5. 22.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fall at the Feet. sometimes for perspicuity of the sense, one is explicated by the other added, as in St. Matt. (2. 11.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, falling down they worshipped: and (Act. 10. 25.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, falling upon his Face he shall worship God. Hence it came, that an External thing being referred to an Internal, that word is sometimes, though not often indeed, to signify an act of the mind also, as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacrifice; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Oblation; and many other made by time Ambiguous. But in this place doubtless is signified, every act whereby Honour is wont to be demonstrated to Superiors. For as the Hebrews are in Exod. (23. 13.) forbidden to use the Names of false Gods, though in common talk: so here they are forbid to give any sign of Honour to Images, Quocunque tandem animo id fieret, as Moses de Cotzi (praecepto vetante 19) prudently noteth.  
But that by this interdict of bowing the Body to, 
14. Different Opinions of Christians about honour exhibited to Saints before their Images & Pictures.  or before Images, Strangers-born, how pious soever, are of right obliged; the Hebrews themselves deny, alleging the example of Naaman the Syrian.  
Nor did the ancient Christians believe themselves to be thereby obliged indistinctly, but only so far as there was in the Testimony of Honour exhibited before an Image, a Veneration of a false God, which is, per se & omni modo evil: which may be understood from the forecited place in Job, from that in the Acts (10. 25.) and from the well known History of Nazianzen. But in places of Prayer, whether it were lawful to bow their Bodies, in sign of Honour, before the Images of Christ, or of Saints, which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. a sign of Love and Reverence towards men eminent and honourable for Sanctimony; was a question long disputed and not without Seditions in the East. To Germany and France, this seemed not to be free from Evil, or an appearance at least of Evil: as appears from the Synods of Francfurt, and Paris, which were held in the times of Charles the Great and his Children. But yet it is to be remarked, that in those Synods the Greeks were more harshly treated, because the Western Bishops Interpreted the sentence of the Greeks expressed in the Second Nicen Synod, in a harder or more rigid Sense, than it was intended, or than the words could well bear: being deceived by the Acts of that Nicen Synod, translated into Latin so unfaithfully, as that sometimes they exhibited a sense contrary to the Greek; which may be observed, as in other places, so chiefly in those things which Constantine Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus had spoken about Images. The Errors of which Translation, so far as they concern this question, have been particularly detected, and by comparing the Latin with the Greek Copy Corrected by the incomparable Hugo Grotius (ad Exod. cap. 20.) of whom I borrowed much, and the best of what is here said. But to end this digression; that there was somewhat of danger in this Honour exhibited to the Images of Saints; St. Augustin in his time observed, when speaking of the Christians, he saith, Novi multos esse Sepulchrorum & Picturarum adoratores. At this day the Greeks prefer Pictures to Images, as thinking that in those is less of danger. The Armenians abstained from both. And as for the Habessines, the most Learned jobus Ludolfus (Hist. Ethiopic. Lib. 3. cap. 5. num. 82.) speaking of the singular Honour and Veneration they have for the Blessed Virgin Mother, saith, Eam tanto prosequuntur affectu, ut parum illis videatur, quidquid Ecclesia Romana in ejus honorem excogitavit: tantùm nullas ei statuas erigunt, Picturis contenti. So that being in all things true jacobites, they follow the example of the Greeks, who judged Pictures of Saints more innocent than Images. Of the Muscovites, who yet boast themselves to be the only true Christians in the world, since they only are baptised, whereas others are but sprinkled; Olearius assures us, That they Universally give their Saints and their Images the Honour due to God alone; and that the Vulgar among them place all Religion in the Honours and Veneration they exhibit to Images, teaching their Children to stand with profound respect, and to say their Prayers before those Images for which the Parents have most Devotion. Herein therefore they have degenerated from the Greek Christians, from whom they pre●end to have derived their Faith, Doctrine, and Sacred Rites.  
‛ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
15. The true sense of the Word Idolatry.  Nor Worship them. If by this Law God permitted not the Honour that was wont to be given to Eminent Men, to be exhibited, I do not now say to, but before Images, or in places where they stood; He thought it more unfit for his People to be permitted to do before Images any of those things, which the Custom of Nations had made proper to the honour of a Divine Numen, whether true, or only believed to be such. Here the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed of ample signification, but when spoken with relation to any thing, is wont to be, by the Greeks translated as well by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to serve, as by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to obey; and sometimes also by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Minister unto. But because, when the same is used of things Divine, the same Interpreters render the sense of it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thence sprung up that difference, with the Latin Christians, more than the Greek use. Otherwise, if propriety be considered, there is no more in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as appears from Psal. 2. 11. compared with 1 Thess. 1. 9 in both which places, what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the same that in Heb, 9 4. is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But where the Writer Treats of things Divine whether truly such, or only thought to be such; there the Hebrew Word here used, is wont to signify particularly those things, which by received Custom through all the East, and that which after was diffused through all Graecia, and wider too, were used in Divine Worship, whether true or false; namely, Sacrifices, Oblations, and Incense. For these properly are the things, which whensoever they are used in honour of any but the true God, the Hellenists or jews speaking Greek, and as well the Apostles themselves, as Apostolic Writers, following the Hellenists, express by ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Worship or Service of Idols. And in this Apostolic sense, Idolatry is, as Tertullian describes it, Quicquid ultra humani honoris modum ad instar divinae sublimitatis attollitur.  
Now both the Rites of which we have just now spoken, 
16. Private Men among Christians ought not to pull down Idols  and all bowing before Images are prohibited to the Hebrews, because the Precept of throwing down and breaking Images, in Countries not within their Jurisdiction or Dominion had no place; as the Hebrew Doctors rightly observe. With whom agrees that in the LX. Canon of the Eliberin Council; Si quis Idola fregerit, & ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in Evangelio non scriptum est, neque invenitur sub Apostolis unquam sactum, placuit in numero Martyrum eum non recipi. Of the same judgement was St. Austin, who (2. Contra literas Petiliani) saith, Non enim auferenda Idola de terra, quod tanto ante futurum praedictum est, posset quisquam jubere privatus: And the African Synod under Honorius and the younger Theodosius, which Petitions the Emperors to take away the relics of Idols through all Africa.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God. This clause belongeth, not only to this second Precept; but also, and principally to the First: to the Second, so far as that is inservient to the First. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is signified, The Supreme Lord; I who have Sovereign Right and Empire over thee. The other, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Strong, Mighty, Potent; appositely, because mention of Revenge immediately follows in the next Comma. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is properly impatient of a Rival, as appears in the Law concerning the Jealous Husband (Numb. 5.)  

* 17. That God revenges Idolatry only to the third and fourth Generation: and that by delivering up the Posterity of Idolaters into miserable Servitude.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children. The Hebrew word here Interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reddens, or rendering, signifies visiting, as our Translation rightly hath it; and is usually taken in the sense of vindicating: and accordingly by the Greeks very often expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Revenge. But here is not treated of all Sins, but of that Sin in particular which is committed about false gods; as appears from the antecedents and the consequents. This sin therefore, as committed against his Divine Majesty, God Revenges, not only in those who have Committed it, but also in their Posterity; namely, by delivering them up into miserable Servitude: which He, by the right of his Supreme Dominion over all Men, can do without any the least injustice. To give Authority to this Explication, we bring that place in Levit. (26. 39) And they that are left of you, shall pine away in their iniquities in your Enemy's Lands; and also in the iniquities of their Fathers shall they pine away with them. We bring also the example of Zion, (Lam. 5. 6.) We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. Our Fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have born their Iniquities, etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the third and fourth Generation. Even to the Grandchild's grandchildren. This is a proverbial speech; used also by Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he transmits' Revenge to the Fourth Generation: And by the Poets.  
Et nati natorum, & qui nascentur ab illis.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of those that hate me. 
18. Who are properly said to hate God.  Because properly the Evil touches the Posterity, the Punishment the Parents. St. Chrysostom (Homilia 29. ad 9 Genes.) Nulla poena plus adfert doloris, quam si quis ex se natos sui causâ in malis esse videat. And Tertullian: Duritia populi ad talia remedia compulerat, ut vel posteritati suae prospicientes legi divinae obedirent. In Sacred Writ they are said to hate God; particularly, who Worship false Gods: so that Maimonides denies, that that kind of speech is found in any other sense.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
19 Why God is here said to show mercy unto Thousands.  And showing mercy unto Thousands. God spoke in the plural Number, not to a Thousand, but to Thousands; showing how much larger God is in doing good, and conferring benefits, than in punishing. This is what the Hebrews mean when they say, That the Angel Michael [the Minister of God's Wrath and Vengeance] flies with but one Wing; Gabriel [The Minister of His Mercy, Love, and Blessing] with two.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
20. Who are by God called Pious, and who Righteous Men.  To those that love me. To those that Worship me, and that are therefore called Pious.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And keep my Precepts. Who are attended to observe all my Commandments, but chiefly those which pertain to the exclusion and extinction of Idolatry and all wicked Superstitions: and who are therefore called Righteous or Iust.   

CHAP. IU. The Third Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God, etc. 
IN the Hebrew, 
Article 1. Why it is here said, the Name of the Lord, not my Name.  thou shalt not bear or carry, namely in thy Mouth; which is the same with, Thou shalt not take, viz. into thy Mouth. Here also is, of the Lord; because by that Title the tremend Majesty of God is best understood. We may en passant observe, that here the manner of speech is changed. For according to the way of speaking used in the former Precepts, it should have been My Name; but to the Hebrews this is frequent, to put a Noun for a Pronoun; as in Exod. 23. 18, 19 Genes. 2. 20. Numb. 10. 29. and many other places, where the like Translation from the first person to the third occurs.  

* 2. Perjury interdicted chiefly by this Precept: and  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In vain, or (as Aquila) rashly, or (as Philo) to testify a Lye. But to omit all other interpretations of these Words, we have the sense of them compendiously expressed in St. Matthew (5. 33.) Thou shalt not forswear thyself: nor is it to be doubted, but our Saviour Christ in this place urged the very Words of the Law, where the Syrian hath put words that signify, Thou shalt not Lie in thy Oath or Swearing. Only this is to be accurately noted, That in this place is treated, not of an Oath taken for Testimony, of which the Ninth Precept was particularly given; but of an Oath Promissory, which the words following immediately in the same verse of St. Matthew sufficiently declare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths; (taken most certainly from Numb. 30. 2.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to forswear, taken in its proper sense, is (as hath been critically observed by Chrysippus) to make void what thou hast sworn, or not to stand to what thou hast by Oath promised. The weight or heinousness of this execrable Crime, Philo wisely showeth, where he saith; That he who commits it, doth either not believe, that God takes care of humane Affairs (which is an Abnegation of God's Providence, and the Fountain of all Injustice,) or if he doth believe that, he makes God less than any honest Man, whom none that designs to assert a Lie, would dare to call in for a Witness of what he knows to be false. Abenesdras adds, That in other sins somewhat of commodity, profit, or pleasure is looked upon, whereby Men may be tempted and carried away; but in this oftentimes there is not the least commodity or emolument: that other Crimes cannot always be committed, this always.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
3. Threatened to be severely punished by God Himself.  For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh the Name of the Lord his God in vain. Here according to the Greek custom, two Negatives are put for one in the Hebrew: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, to pass by one as innocent. So that the sense is, God will not leave him unpunished: which is a Figure called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] an Extenuation, such as is used in the Gospel of St. Matthew (12. 31.) Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men; that is, shall be severely punished; and in many other places of Scripture. And this sin is even by the Light of Nature so heinous and detestable, that the Heathens themselves believed, that it was always severely punished by God. Hesiod said, 
Et juramentum, clades mortalibus unde  
Adveniunt, quoties fallaci pectore jurant.  
Dire miseries pursue those men, that dare,  
Themselves with heart fallacious to forswear.  In Herodotus this Oracle is related.  
At juramento quaedam est sine nomine proles,  
Trunca manus & trunca pedes: tamen impete magno  
Advenit, atque omnem vastat stirpemque domumque.  
From Perjury a nameless issue springs  
With maimed hand and foot; which yet still brings  
Revenge with mighty force; and doth at last,  
Both the whole Race and Family devast.  
And the sweet-tongued Tibullus could say; 
Ah miser! Et si quis primo perjuria celat,  
Sera tamen tacitis poena venit pedibus.  
Ah wretch! though one his Perjury conceal,  
Vengeance with silent feet will on him steal.   
And he had reason; 
4. The Sanctity of an Oath.  for an Oath is a religious Affirmation, as Cicero defines it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Testimony of God upon a doubtful matter, as Philo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an affirmation with an assumption of God for witness, as Clement of Alexandria: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the strongest Seal of Human Faith, as Dionysius Halicarnensis: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the last and most certain pledge of Faith, as Procopius. Wherefore the Ancients, even wehre a specious excuse might be brought, held themselves religiously obliged to fulfil whatsoever they had by Oath promised. Concerning the sanction of an Oath or Vow, consult judges 20. 1. 1 Sam. 14. 24, 26, 27. joshua 19 15. Psal. 21. 2, 6, 7, 8.  
Now the reason why God threatens to 
5. Why God threateneth to revenge Perjury by Punishments inflicted by Himself.  send from Himself dire Punishments upon those who either worship False Gods, or violate His most Holy Name by Perjury, seems to be this; to let them know, that though men may perhaps be ignorant of, or neglect to vindicate these Crimes, yet they shall never escape the certain hand of Divine Vengeance in the end; which many times indeed is slow in lifting up, but always first or last strikes sure and home.   

CHAP. V. The Fourth Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Remember the Sabbath day, etc. 
IN Deuteronomy 'tis [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Observe the Sabbath day; and in the Hebrew is the like difference: in the latter place Moses expounds what is meant by Remember in the former, namely attend to the Sabbath.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sanctify it; 
Article 1. The precept of keeping holy the Sabbath, distinguished from the precept of resting from Labour upon the Sabbath; as by the causes, so also by the times.  viz. by a glad and grateful recordation of the World's Creation by God. For most true is the Sentence of Rabbi judah Barbesathel, and R. Ephraim in Keli jacar, that in these words one thing is Commanded, and another in the following. The keeping holy of the Sabbath day, hath for its true cause the Creation of the World: the Rest from Labour, the Egyptian servitude. That extends to all mankind: this to the Hebrews only, Exod. 31. 13. Which is the Judgement also of Irenaeus (Lib. 4. c. 30.) and of Eusebius (1 Histor. c. 4.) And thus may we best explicate that of Genesis 2. God blessed the Seventh day and Sanctified it; which the Hebrew Masters will have to be spoken by [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] anticpation, as if Moses should say, that this Cessation of God from His work of Creation was the cause, why after in the time of Moses the Celebration or Sanctification of the Seventh day was ordained. But the righter interpretation is that, which distinguishes the precept of keeping holy the Sabbath, from the precept of resting from Labour, as by the causes, so also by the times. And to this difference Moses himself seems to have had respect, when in Duternomy to these words, Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it, he adds, as the Lord thy God hath Commanded three; namely long ago from the very beginning of the World, as Grotius conceives; or, as Selden, from the time when the Israelites were encamped in Mara (a part of the Wilderness so called from the brackish bitterness of the Waters) where the observation of the Sabbath was first instituted, about forty days before that institution was renewed in the Decalogue. For he refers the first word of this Precept (Remember) to the first Sabbath there instituted. And true it is, that the first Sabbath was celebrated by the Israelites in their tenth Mansion or encamping in Alush, part of the desert of Sin. They came from Elim into the desert of Sin upon the Fifteenth day of the Second Month from their beginning to march. Six days Manna was gathered, and one the Seventh the People Sabbatized. So that the first observation of the Sabbath fell upon the 22. day of the same Month; which being the Second Month from their Exit out of Egypt, was after named jiar (for the names of the Hebrew Months were then unborn) and that 22. day of this Month answers to the 23. of May in the Julian year. The Seder Olam makes this Month Hollow, i. e. of but Twenty nine days; not Full, i. e. of Thirty days. Whence in computing the feriae or Holy days of these Months, there hath risen up a discrepancy of one day betwixt that Chronicon, and the Talmudist's. But that alternate distinction of Months, as our most Excellent Chronologist Sir john Marsham (in Chronic. Canon. pag▪ 184.) observes, doth not well agree with the antic Chronology of the Hebrews.  
How then shall we reconcile these two 
2. The different interpretations of Grotius and Selden, of the word Remember, reconciled.  different opinions concerning the respect of the word Remember, the one asserted by Grotius, the other by Selden? By granting, that the Precept de observando Sabbato, in commemoration of the Egyptian Servitude, was first given to the Israelites in Mara, and a little after renewed at the promulgation of the Decalogue, as pertinent particularly and only to them; and consequently that so far Selden is in the right: but that the institution of the Sabbath in grateful memory of the World's Creation by God, wherein all Mankind were equally concerned, was as ancient as the World itself, and extended to all Nations universally; and therefore Grotius, who seems to have considered this general institution and the cause of it, is so far in the right too. For,  
That some knowledge and veneration of 
3. Testimonies of the Sabbath observed anciently by Gentiles also.  the Sabbath was by Tradition of highest antiquity derived to other Nations beside the Hebrews, and remained among them for some ages; Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. l. 5.) and Eusebius (in Praepar. Evang.) have clearly shown, as by other Testimonies, so particularly by the Verses of Hesiod, where [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Seventh day is called Holy. And in josephus, Philo, Theophilus, and Lucan, are places that manifestly attest the same long-lived Tradition.  
And upon this account it was, 
4. Why the primitive Christians held their Assemblies upon the Sabbath day.  that the Primitive Christians, who believed that by Christ all things were reduced to the same State wherein they had been constituted from the beginning, Piously celebrated the Sabbath, and therein held their Solemn Assemblies, in which the Law was publicly read and expounded, as appears from that of the Acts 15. 21. Which Custom flourished until it was antiquated by the Laodicen Synod, which judged it more convenient and profitable to Christians, that instead of the Law, the Gospels should be upon that day read to the People assembled. So Sacred in those more Pure and Pious times was the memory of the Sabbath originally instituted, that Men might with glad and grateful hearts acknowledge and celebrate with Praises the Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness of God shown in the Creation of the Universe; that they equalled the Sanctity thereof to that of the Lord's day consecrated to the perpetual remembrance of that greatest Seal of our Faith, and pledge of our hopes, the Resurrection of our Redeemer from the dead. Hence Balsamo most appositely said; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. By the Holy Fathers the Sabbath days were held in all respects equal to the Lords days. Hence also Gregorius Nyssenus calls these two days Brethren, as worthy of equal Veneration and Solemnity: and the Ancient Book of the Constitutions of Clement (l. 7. c. 24.) gives this in Precept; Diem Sabbatti & diem Dominicam festas habete, quoniam illa Creationis, altera Resurrections memoriae dicata est. Nor was it from any other cause, That by the most ancient Church was introduced the Custom of not fasting upon the Sabbath, because it was a day of joy and gladness: as appears from the Epistle of St. Ignatius ad Philippenses, where he saith, Si quis aut Dominicâ aut Sabbato jejunet, excepto uno Sabbato, is Christum occidit. The same may be inferred from that memorable place in Tertullian (advers. Marcionem) meminerat enim & ille hoc privilegium donatum Sabbato à primordio, quo dies ipse compertus est; veniam jejunii dico. Where we cannot but observe, that this Custom is deduced from the beginning of the World. From the same reason it came, that Constantine the Emperor, permitting to Christians the free use of their Worship, at the same time forbade their being compelled to appear before any Tribunal or Court of Judicature upon the Sabbath, no less than upon the Lord's day: which Edict is yet extant in Eusebius.  
These things being known are sufficient 
5 The Lords day not Surrogated into the place of the Sabbath.  to refute those who think that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Lord's day was surrogated into the place of the Sabbath; of which mention is no where made by Christ, no where by any of the Apostles. And St. Paul, when (Colossi. 2. 16) he saith, that the Christians are not to be condemned for their Sabbaths and New Moons; showeth plainly, that they are free from that Law of resting from labour, which liberty would signify nothing, if, the Law remaining, the day were changed. That the Christians therefore appointed and held their Assemblies upon that day, wherein their Lord had risen from the dead; was not from any Precept either of God, or of the Apostles, but they did it by virtue of the liberty granted to them, and by voluntary consent among themselves. And to violate such Consent, after it hath passed into a Custom, is not the part of men living in Society. But this Custom obliged not to rest from labour, farther than was necessary to the holding their Assemblies.  
Having thus briefly shown the difference 
6. why the Greeks and Latins use the word Sabbata, not Sabbatum.  betwixt the Precept instituting a Sabbath in memory of the Creation, which was from the beginning given to Adam and his whole Posterity; and the Precept given particularly to the Hebrews, both in Marah, and soon after at the promulgation of the Decalogue, whereby they were obliged to celebrate the Sabbath, by resting from daily labours, in remembrance of their redemption from the Egyptian servitude; and assigned to each its proper cause and time: it will not perhaps be impertinent, if we subjoin a line or two concerning the Word Sabbata here used in the plural number. This Word among the Greeks is listed in the Catalogue of those, which tho' pronounced in the number of Multitude, are yet notwithstanding often contented with the signification of Unity. And so is it often found in the Greek Pentateuch; so also in Mat. 12. 1, 5, 10, 11, 12. and c. 28. 1. in Mark 1. 21. and 2. 23, 24. in Luke 4. 16. On the contrary St. john every where speaks it in the singular, as do also the Greek Interpreters of the other books extra Pentateuchum. The Latins often expressed it, as here, in the plural. So Horace, Sunt h●die tricesima Sabbata; and juvenal, Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata Patrem.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Six days shalt thou work, 
7. Labour upon Six days of the Week, not commanded, but only permitted.  and do all thy works. Here now begins that Constitution which is not common to all Mankind, but proper to the Hebrews. And what is here spoken in the Imperative, and in the Future, which is often taken from the Imperative hath not the force of a Command, but the sense only of suffering or permitting. For lest the Modes might be too much multiplied, it hath seemed good to almost all Nations to express the sense of Permitting, as also of Praying, with the same sound, with which they express the sense of Commanding: as, for Example, sequere Italian ventis, in Virgil; and ubi nos laverimus, si voles, lavato, in Terence; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vre haec cremaque membra, in an old Greek Tragedy. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are signified all sorts of Work, by Cicero (de ligibus l. 2.) called famula opera; Ferii jurgia amovento, eaque in famulis operibus patratis habento: and by Tertullian, Humana opera quotidiana, whatsoever men commonly do in their ordinary vocations or daily business.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; But on the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. 
8. Why God fixed the Sabbath upon the Seventh day.  The Seventh day is Dedicated to God from the beginning. And wisely do Maimonides and other Hebrew Masters distinguish the Cause why rest or quiet was commanded, from the cause why it was commanded upon this Day. The former cause is expressed in Deuteronomy plainly to be, because the Israelites lately freed from the Egyptian slavery by Divine help, aught to remember and consider how hard and grievous Servitude is, and therefore to treat their Servants and others subject to their Command with humanity and clemency; as Dido in Virgil, Non ignara mali miseries succurrere disco. The latter is declared in this place, where it is signified, that when any day might have been taken for rest or vacation for Labour, this was chosen by God, because from the beginning it had been dedicated to joy, and the grateful commemoration of the World's Creation by Him; and because upon the same day God had finished all things, and ceased from Creating, whence the Seventh day derived the Name Sabbath.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt not do every work therein. 
9 Why he by many words inculcated this Precept.  God by many Words inculcates this Precept concerning the Sabbath, that by the perpetual observation thereof might be impressed upon the minds of all, a firm knowledge that this World was not from Eternity, but made by God, which is a strong inducement to the Veneration of the Omnipotent Creator, as on the contrary, the belief of the World's Eternity, is the way to Impiety and downright Atheism.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Thy Son and thy Daughter. 
10. Who are to be understood here by Thy Son and thy Daughter.  He understands those, who by reason of their Minority have not yet attained to knowledge of the Law; whom their Parents ought to restrain from working upon the Sabbath. For they that are of more advanced Age and understanding, are by the Law bound for themselves; as likewise in the Law of Circumcision.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Thy Manservant and thy Maidservant. 
11. Humanity of Masters towards Servants here intimated.  This is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] a kind and courteous way of speaking, much used by the Greeks to their Servants, and in imitation of them by the Latins, who with like softness and humanity called their Man-servants, Pueros, as hath been of old noted by Servius upon that of Virgil, Claudite jam rivos pueri. Hence the names of Ancient Man-servants, Marcipor, Quintipor, etc. So Epicurus called his Servants Friends, as Seneca (Epist. 107.) observes, who in imitation of him, saith of them (Epist. 47.) Servi sunt? imò homines. Servi sunt? imo contubernales. Servi sunt? imò humiles amici. Servi sunt? imò conservi, si cogitaveris tantundem in utrosque licere fortunae. Than which he could have said nothing more becoming his great prudence and erudition. Hence also were Masters called Patres-familias, and Mistresses Matres-familias, that by the very Name they might be admonished of humanity. And this Precept obligeth Masters, not only not to enjoin labours to their Servants of either Sex, but not to suffer them to work upon the Sabbath.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Thy Ox, 
12. Some goodness and mercy to be exercised also toward Brutes, by this Precept.  and thy Ass, and every Beast of thine. Observable here is the great Clemency of God, who by this Law requires some goodness and mercy to be exercised even to brute Animals, that he might remove Men the farther from cruelty toward each other: and to confirm this mild Precept, the like is given in Deuteron. 5. 4. The same reason is urged by Porphyry [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of Abstinence from eating of the flesh of Animals. Hence also was the slaughter of a Ploughing Ox prohibited by a Law common to the Phrygians, Cyprians, Atticks, Peloponesians, and Romans, as we find Recorded by Varro, Pliny, Columella, Porphyry, Aelian, Vegetius and others. The Athenians made a Decree, that a Mule should be fed at the Public Cost, which worn out by Labour and Age, used to accompany other Mules drawing burdens: and banished a Boy for putting out the Eyes of little Birds, taking it for a sign of a mischievous and cruel disposition in him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are, besides Oxen, Asses, and Mules, which also were used to the Yoke. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beasts, as well Dogs as other quadrupeds. But these words are by the Greek Interpreters Translated hither from Deuteron. 5. for in the Hebrew is found only one general Name, signifying all mute Animals whatsoever: which the Greeks render sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beasts; sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fourfooted Living Creatures, and sometimes (from the sense of the place) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wild Beasts.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And the stranger that is within thy Gates. 
13. Who is here meant by The Stranger that is within thy gates.  Of Proselytes there are (as we have often hinted in the former part of this disquisition) two sorts; some, who subjected themselves to the whole Mosaic Law, that they might be participant of the right of Marriages and Honours among the Holy People: others, who though of foreign blood, were notwithstanding permitted to dwell among the Hebrews, so long as they Worshipped one God, and observed the perpetual and common Laws of all Nations, together with the additional Laws interdicting incestuous Copulation, and eating of Blood; of both which we have spoken professedly in the Precepts of the Sons of Noah. Now it is of this latter kind of Proselytes (as Abenesdras noteth) that the Precept here speaks, such as had not admitted the Seal of Circumcision, and whom St. Luke (Act. 17. 4.) rightly enough calls [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] devout Greeks, because the Hebrews used to call all Gentiles Greeks.  

* 14. Why the Stranger was by this Law obliged to abstain from Labour upon the Sabbath.  Here it may be enquired, Why such a stranger or Proselyte, though not obliged by other Laws of Moses, as appears from Deuter. (4. 2.) was yet bound to keep this of resting from Labours upon the Sabbath. The reason is this; if while the Hebrews rested, strangers had been permitted promiscuously to work and dispatch their businesses; they would have diverted the stream of gain and profit from the Natives; which was repugnant to Justice and Equity. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to the Latins Incola, a Sojourner, one that fixeth his Seat in a Soil not Native to him. Thus in the Gospel of St. Luke (24. 18.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou art a Peregrine or Stranger.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For in Six days the Lord made Heaven, 
15. Why God made the Universe in Six days.  and Earth, and the Sea, and all things that are in them. A brief description of the Universe, as in Acts. 4. 24. At first the Earth was rude and without Form, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mud, to the Phaenicians, intermixed and overwhelmed with waters, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the abyss or bottomless Gulf. Of these God made the Earth dry Land, gathered together the Seas, and distinguished the Air into two Parts, the Superior or Aetherial, wherein he placed the Stars; and the Inferior, which surrounds the Terraqueous Globe: then to this lower Air, to the Earth, and to the Waters he added their proper Animals; and particularly to the Earth he affixed Herbs, Trees, etc. and in fine, He made Man: And all in Six days, though He could have made them in one Moment, that He might by His Example, teach Men to act with counsel and deliberation, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to hasten slowly.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And he rested upon the Seventh day. 
16. What is to be understood by His resting upon the Seventh day,  The sense is taken from Genes. 2. 2. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, requievit, is signified, not that God was weary with working, whereof the Divine Nature is incapable; but that He ceased from Creating, or put an end to all His Works: converting Himself to the survey and contemplation of the most beautiful World He had newly raised and made out of Nothing; as Philo excellently observes. From God's Example the Hebrews also were commanded to devote this day to pious Contemplation, and the learning and commemorating Sacred things. Of which pious Custom there remains an ancient Testimony in 2 Kings, 4. 23. and the number Seven was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more anciently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worshipping.  

* 17. How the true Seventh or Sabbatical day was first made known to the Hebrews.  Concerning this Seventh day, by Philo (Lib. de vita Mosis) called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] The Worlds Birth day, various are the Opinions of the jewish Masters. Some think that the Septenary period of days was first Instituted by Adam, and began from the six days of the Creation. Others affirm, That Seth found out the way of computing the flux of time by Weeks, Months, and Years. But however disputable this Question be, highly probable it is, That Philo hit the white of Truth, when he observed, that the true Seventh or Sabbatical Day came first to be known to the Hebrews from the Miraculous cessation of Manna to rain upon that Day: whence 'twas easy for them to understand, what day in the weekly Circle of Seven Days ought to be reckoned the Seventh from the Creation, which was altogether unknown to them before.  
The same most Learned and wise jew, 
18. The honour of the number Seven, derived from the Egyptian Mathematicians.  treating [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Of the Making of the World, and of the Number Seven, saith, That this Number hath been held of singular honour by the more Illustrious of the Greeks and Barbarians; who were versed in Mathematic Studies. And certainly the Egyptians were the most Ancient Masters of the Mathematics, by whom, both Pythagoras and Plato being taught, have very subtly Philosophised concerning the power and dignity of the Septenary Number in general, which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Number (saith A. Gellius from old Varro) makes in Heaven the Septentriones or Charle's wain, and lesser Constellation of the same Name; also the Pleyades, and the Seven Planets. Nor doth the Zodiac want Characters of that noble Number. For in the seventh sign is made the Solstice from Winter, or the shortest Day in the year, and again, from the Summer Solstice in the seventh Sign is made the Winter Solstice. Both Equinoxes are confined to a Seventh Sign. Whence in the Sacred Rites of Osiris, a little before the Winter Solstice, Plutarch tells us (in Iside. pag. 372.) the Egyptians used to lead a Cow Seven times about the Temple, because the Course of the Sun from Solstice to Solstice is finished in the Seventh Month. And they affirm, That all the great dangers of the Life and Fortunes of Men, which the Chaldeans call Climactericks, happen in Septenaries: of which abstruse Argument Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. l. 6. pag. 685.) and Macrobius (in Somn. Scipionis) have written copiously, and with no less assurance, than if they had certainly known that there are such Climacterical Mutations of human Life. In Sacred things also, in Purifications, Invocations, and other religious Rites, the Septenary Number hath been esteemed of singular virtue and solemn observation. Whence Apuleius describing the manner and ceremonies of his preparation for the Worship of Isis (Metamorphos. l. 9 Initio) saith, Me, purificandi study, marino lavacro trado, septies submerso fluctibus capite; quòd eum numerum praecipuè Religioni aptissimum divinus ille Pythagoras prodidit. And Virgil (Aeneid. 6. verse. 645.) testifies that invocations also were to be Seven times repeated.  
— Longâ cum veste Sacerdos  
Obloquitur numeris Septem discrimina vocum.  
Of the Septenary Number of Days, 
19 The Septenary number of days observed by Gentiles in their Feasts  they observe, That the monthly Course of the Moon is performed in four times Seven, i e. in Twenty eight days; that the Birth of Infants depends very much upon the power of this Number: and they observe the first Seven days, the Fourth week, and the Seventh; as A. Gellius. And from the Scholiast upon Aristophanes we learn (in Plut. p. 107.) that by the Athenians some certain days of every Month, besides other Feasts or holidays, were Consecrated to some Gods particularly; as the New-moon, and the Seventh to Apollo, The Fourth to Mercury, the Eighth to Theseus. The same was long before taught by Hesiod in this distich: 
Primùm prima, quarta, & septima dies sacra est:  
Hâc enim Apollinem auri-ensem genuit Latona.   
In the Mosaic Rites also the Septenary Number is solemnly respected. 
20. The Number Seven of solemn respect in the Mosaic Rites & in other Mysteries.  In the Consecration of the Altar, Oil is Seven times sprinkled upon it: in Seven days the Consecration of Priests is Consummated: in the Expiation of Sin committed through ignorance, the blood of the Bullock is sprinkled by the Priest Seven times before the Mercy-seat (Levit. 16. 15.) A woman that hath borough forth a Male Child, is unclean Seven days: She that hath brought forth a Female, is unclean twice Seven. A man unclean by touching a dead Corpse, is expiated upon the Seventh day. In the purification of a Leprous Man, Seven aspersions, and Seven days are Ordained: and accordingly Naaman washed himself Seven times in jordan. job offered for his friends Seven Bulls, and as many Rams. Balaam built Seven Altars, and prepared Seven Bullocks, and Seven Rams. Seven Priests sounding Trumpets went Seven times round about jericho, and on the Seventh day the Walls thereof fell down. Just so many Priests sounded with Trumpets before the Ark, and an equal number of Bulls and Rams were offered in Sacrifice. Ezechias also offered Seven Bulls, Seven Rams, Seven Lambs, and Seven Hee-goats (2 Chron. 29. 21.) In Ezechiel (39 9) Arms and Weapons are commanded to be burnt with fire Seven years: and the Land purged in Seven months; and (Chapt. 43. 25.) the Altar is in Seven days expiated. Daniel numbers the times by Hebdomadas. In the Apocalypse, the Book is sealed with Seven Seals, the Lamb hath Seven horns, Seven Eyes, which are the Seven spirits of God; and to the Seven Angels are given Seven Trumpets, and Seven Phials. In a Word, in Mysteries this Number as the most perfect; hath always been preferred to all other.  
But the most celebrated, 
21. The weekly Circle of Days, derived by the Egyptian Astrologers from the Seven Planets.  and to our present enquiry the most pertinent, is the Septenary Cycle or round of days, or the Seventh day in the weekly periods of days perpetually recurrent; such as is the Sabbath of the jews. The Egyptians, the most ancient computers of times, are reported by Authors of good Credit, to have derived the weekly Circle of days from the number of the Planets, and to have propagated that account of time, together with their Astrological Discipline. For Herodotus recounting the noble Inventions of that mighty Nation, saith (in Lib. 2. c. 82.) Alia etiam ab Egyptiis inventa sunt: quis Mensis, & quis Dies cujusque sit Deorum: & quo quis die genitus, qualia sortietur, & quam mortem obiet, & qualis existet. Quibus rebus usi sunt two qui è Graecis in poesi versabantur. Where Dies Deorum are the days of the Week, denominate from the VII Planets: for in the Genethliac Art of the Egyptians, they obtain the name of Gods, and every Planet hath his peculiar Holiday assigned to him: and therefore Dio Cassius the Greek Historian (lib. 36. pag. 37.) said truly, Quòd verò dies assignantur Septem Planetis, id certè inventum est Egyptiorum.  
But in the denomination of the Seven days, 
22. Bede's reason why in the planetary denomination of the Seven days of the week, the natural order of the Planets was not observed.  they have not observed the order of the Planets, that is in the series of the celestial Orbs. Whereof various Writers have excogitated various causes. Of all these, the reason given by our Venerable Bede seems to be the most simple, and therefore the best. The Gentiles (saith he, the Tempor. ratione cap. 6.) though that they by good right consecrated the first day to the Sun, because it is the greatest Luminary; the second to the Moon, because it is the second Luminary. Then by an ordinate alternation, they made the first Planet from the Sun, Mars, precedent of the third day, the first from the Moon, Mercury, Lord of the fourth; the second from the Sun, jupiter, ruler of the fifth; the Second from the Moon, Venus, Lady of the sixth; and the third from the Sun, Saturn, governor of the Seventh.  
Now because this Saturn was by Astrologers imagined to be a sad, 
23. Why Saturn was made Lord of the Seventh day.  ill-natured, and malignant planet; therefore the Seventh day, in which he ruled, hath been accounted a black and unlucky day (forsooth) and unfit for business and the performing of any work, and so set apart for leisure and rest. Nor have Orpheus and Hesiod doubted to propagate this precarious and superstitious Doctrine. To which Tacitus, writing of the Jews, seems to have respect in these lines: Septimo die otium placuisse ferunt; quia is finem Laborum tulerit. Alii honorem eum Saturno haberi; seu quòd è septem sideribus (queis mortales reguntur) altissimo orbe, & praecipuâ potentiâ, stella Saturni feratur; ac pleraque coelestium vim suam & cursum per septenos numeros conficiant.  
But whatever was the reason that induced the Egyptians to assign the Seventh day to Saturn, 
24. The Antiquity of the planetary denomination of the Seven days: and conclusion of this chapter.  we have none to doubt but that this Planetary denomination of the days, though not received into use by the Grecians till many Ages after, is originally of remotest antiquity, equal to that of Astrology itself, and to the age of Mercury the first, who taught the Egyptians the art of computing the year and times. For beside the authority of Herodotus and Dio Cassius above-cited, we have that of Plato also; who (in Phaedro) introduces Socrates speaking of the Egyptian Theuth, i. e. Mercury; these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that is, That he first invented numbers and computation, and Geometry and Astronomy, and the Games of Cockle-blanck and Dice. Nor are there wanting some of the Rabbins themselves, who have granted that this denomination of the days was in use among the Gentiles before the Decalogue was given. And Chaeremon in Porphyry (de Abstinentia) affirms, that the Egyptian Priests, in their purifications observed the Seventh days. We may therefore acquiesce in this persuasion, that the weekly Cycle of days was taken from Mathematic discipline, and from the most secret treasury of Egyptian Antiquity: but that the sacred observation of every Seventh day, and the Feast of the Hebdomadical Sabbath, constituted by this Mosaic Law, in memory of the Egyptian servitude, was now first received into the Religion of the Hebrews; as also that this their Sabbath was by the miracle of Manna ceasing to rain down upon that day, fixed upon the true Seventh day from the Creation, which God had from the beginning sanctified. Nor is it to be doubted but that this Precept of keeping holy the Sabbath day, was peculiar to the Israelites. For God himself was pleased to say (Exod. 31. 13.) it is a Sign betwixt me and you in your Generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord who sanctify you. Ye shall therefore keep the Sabbath; for to you it is holy. Nor will the Masters allow it to have pertained to the Gentiles. Some exempt even Proselytes of the House from the obligation of this Precept; but how that exemption can be brought to consist with those words of the Law [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and the stranger that is within thy Gates, I see not.   

CHAP. VI The Fifth Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Honour thy Father and thy Mother, etc. 

Article 1. That this Precept was anciently observed by the Egyptians, the Pythagoreans, and  THat this Precept (among those that are as it were imprinted upon the mind of man by Nature, and Legible by the light of right reason, not the least) was first given to the Israelites in Marah; we have the Authority of the Babylonian Gemara, where (in titulo Sanhedrin. cap. 7. sect. 5.) we read; Decem praecepta acceperunt Israelitae, in Mara: Septem quae Noachidarum fuere; jam vero adjecta sunt judicia, Sabbatum, & parentum honos. That it obtained among the Egyptians also, and was by them placed next after the Precept of divine Worship; is evident from the funeral Apology used among them, wherein the Libitinarius personating the defunct, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, I have ever honoured those who begat my body. And that the same was taught also in the School of Pythagoras, who learned all his Doctrines from the Egyptian Priests; is equally manifest from the Golden Verses, where immediately after the precept of Worshipping the Godsfollows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and honour thy Parents.  
But long before the days of Pythagoras was this Law placed in the Temple of Ceres Eleusinia, 
2. the Athenians.  if we may confide in the testimony of Porphyry, who (from Hermippus) in De Abstinentia, p. 1. and 399. saith, as St. jerom hath translated the place (jovinian. l. 2. p. 528. Xenocrates Philosophus de Triptolemi legibus apud Athenienses tria tantum praecepta in templo Eleusinae residere scribit: honorandos Parents, venerandos Deos, carnibus non vescendum. And Socrates in Xenophon. (Memorabil. l. 2. p. 743.) saith, Civitas ingratitudinis alterius rotionem non habet, neque datur actio in eam: verùm si quis Parentes non honorârit, & actio adversùs eum scribitur, & Magistratum capessere non permittitur. For, in the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] inquisition made into the manners and life of those who were to be admitted to Magistracy, they were interrogated first, if they were descended for three generations at least on both sides from Athenian Citizens? and Secondly, if they had duly honoured their Parents? Because he that is impious toward his Parents, cannot be judged pious toward his Country. Nor toward God neither, saith Menander in this distich, 
Qui patrem incilat, voce maledicit patri:  
At in hoc se parat at ipsi maledicat Deo.   
To return to the Egyptians; 
3. Honour and reverence given by the Egyptians even to the dead bodies of their Parents.  doubtless the Sons among them showed all Signs of filial respect and honour to their Father's while they lived, since they piously venerated them even after their decease, and paid a kind of religious reverence to their dead bodies, to that end preserved by precious Embalmments; as if death could not cancel their bonds of gratitude, nor fate extinguish their Sentiments of natural piety. Whence that honourable testimony given of them by the Prince of Antiquaries, Diodorus the Sicilian (lib. 1. pag. 58.) Sanctissimè receptum est inter Egyptios, ut appareant Parentes aut Majores, ad eternam habitationem translatos, impensius honorasse. Whereto he adds, that it was Lawful for them, in case of necessity to pawn the dead bodies of their Parents: but those who redeemed them not, were punished with highest infamy and contempt during life, and after death with privation of Sepulture.  
Nor were the Egyptians the only Nation that taught and urged obedience and honour to Parents, 
4. Other Nations also honoured Parents.  from the dictates of Nature. For the grave Plutarch (de Philadelphia) saith, Omnes dicunt atque canunt, primum ac praecipuum honorem post Deos, Parentibus destinasse & Naturam, & Naturae legem. Nor is there is the whole World any People so Barbarous and Savage, but by mere natural instinct they understand, that honour and reverence are due to Parents.  
Wisely therefore did Philo judaeus account this Precept now confirmed at the 
5. Excellency and usefulness of this Law.  promulgation of the Decalogue, the last of the first Table, and placed in confinio utriusque His reason this; Natura Parentum videtur esse confinium immortalis & mortalis essentiae. Immortal, because a Father by begetting resembles God the Genitor of all things: and in the violation of it he puts the highest inhumanity, most detestable to God and man; feritatis primas ferunt, qui Parentes negligunt. And in truth this Law is the cement of human society. For he that loves and reveres his Parents, will requite their care with good education of his Children, love his Brethren and Sisters as branches of the same Stock with himself, cherish and assist all his kindred as descendent from the same progenitors: whence flows that whole Series of consanguinity and natural relation; and whence was the most ancient Original of Nations, Cities, and Towns, when Tribes and numerous Families conjoined themselves into Societies under the Government of their Heads. After this, when men convened from many places, they began by common consent to constitute Kings and Governors, by the example of Parents, to whom the ancients therefore gave the most proper and obliging name of Fathers. For which reason in the Roman Laws, and in those of other nations, the crime of Majesty, which we call High Treason, is put before all other crimes, as most pernicious to the peace and safety of the Commonwealth: and for the same reason is this Precept of Honouring Parents put before the rest that respect human society.  
Here God hath been pleased to name (and certainly as He is the Author of Nature, 
6. The right of Mothers to honour and reverence from their Children.  and maker of all Children in the Mother's Womb, so is He the most equal Judge) the Mother as well as the Father. Whereas the Laws of this kind made by Men, provide almost for Father's only; as the Persian Law commemorated by Aristotle, and the Roman described in the Digests and Institutions, mentioned first by Epictetus, then by Simplicius, and Philo (de legatione) And though (in collisu) the right of the Father be the better, by reason of the prevalency of his Sex, for which God gave the Husband dominion over the Wife: yet certainly obedience and reverence, which are here signified by the word Honour, are from Children due to both. In the same word is comprehended also the duty of Thankfulness and a grateful requital, as much as in Children lieth; for indeed a full requital can never be made to Parents for the great blessing of existence and life given by them to Children; as both Aristotle and Philo have observed: quomodo enim ab aliquibus genitus eos vicissim generare possit? And as God was pleased, for man's imitation, to impress upon mute Animals visible characters of almost all virtues, of justice, clemency, chastity, fidelity, friendship, etc. not of all in all, but of each in particular species: so hath He given for an example of filial love and piety, to men the Storks which sustain and nourish their Parents, when they are grown old and weak.  
For this also is comprehended in the first word of this Precept [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Honour, 
7. Children by this Law obliged to relieve their Parents in want.  which in its chief sense signifies to nourish, as appears from the 1 Timothy 5. 3. Honour Widows that are Widows indeed, i. e. relieve their wants, and contribute to their maintenance. And so the Hebrews interpret that text in Numbers 22. 17. I will promote thee unto very great honour. So Cicero (Officior. 1.) treating of duties to Kindred and near relations, saith, Necessaria praesidia vitae debentur his maxim. And Hierocles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: i. e. We shall highly honour Parents, if we most readily serve them with the Ministry of our body, and the help of money.  
Here I cannot but take notice of a strange distinction made betwixt Sons and Daughters, by the Egyptians in their Law of nourishing Parents labouring of old age or poverty, and recorded by Herodotus (l. 2. 35.) Nulla est necessitas filiis alendi parents, nolentibus: sed filiabus summa, etiamsi nolint. Sons are under no necessity to feed and sustain their Parents, against their own will: but Daughters are most strictly bound to nourish them, though against their will. An odd Law this, to impose the burden upon the weaker Sex, and exempt the stronger; and the more admirable to me, because no reason is added to it by Herodotus, nor can I fix my conjecture upon any that is probable.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it may be well with thee. This is here added out of Deuteronomy, for explication sake; or perhaps ascribed on the margin from that place in Epist. to the Ephesians, 6. 1. 3. many such additional clauses being found in the Scripture.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That thou mayst live long. 
8. Longaevity, the reward of filial reverence.  Here Abenesdras noteth, that God is wont, when He forbids any thing, to annex the penalty; where He commands, the reward, as in this place. But St. Paul in the just now cited place to the Ephesians, noteth this more, that this is the first Commandment with promise. The Law in direct words promiseth only temporal felicity, as St. jerom observes (l. 2. Commentar. in Epist. ad Galat. & 1. Dialog. contra Pelagium,) and St. Austin (de Civit. Dei l. 10. cap. 15.) And of temporal felicity the principal part is long life. Which is generally promised to those that keep the Law, as in Levit. 18. 5. and 25. 18. and in Deuter. 6. 17. 18. and in Ezech. 20. 11. some expound the Hebrew words, That they may prolong thy days, namely thy Parents by their favour and prayers to God. But I fear lest this interpretation be too Subtle, and adhere rather to the Seventy and other Interpreters, who take the Hebrew word, though of an active form, in a passive sense; viz. That thy days may be prolonged. To Absolom violating this precept, his days were cut off or shortened.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Upon the Earth, or in the Land. Life in exile, is not life, but a long death. Therefore God promiseth to obsequious and dutiful Children a long life, and that too at home in their own Country. And Ezechiel enumerating the causes of deserved exile, puts the contempt of Parents in the head of the Catalogue; chap. 27.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The good Land. This also hath been added from Deut. 8. 7. but deservedly. For that Land was in those days truly good and singularly fertile, abounding with Milk, Honey, and Corn, and other Fruits; and the only Land that produced Balsam, which it continued to do in good plenty down to the days of Pliny, who therefore praised it, and doth even at this time though in less quantity.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which the Lord thy God will give thee. 
9 The Penalty added to this Law.  The present for the future, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who will come, Matth. 3. 2. It must be something great and highly estimable, that God confers as a donative upon the posterity of those whom he loved above all others, and to whom he promised to give it. But as God promises great blessings to those that observe this Precept: so on the contrary He threateneth grievous punishment to those that contemn and revile their Parents, namely death by decree of the Judge, if the matter be by sufficient testimonies proved against them, Exod. 21. 15. 17.) and if the matter be not brought to public notice, divine wrath (Deut. 27. 16.) than which nothing is more dreadful, and from which Good Lord deliver us.   

CHAP. VII. The Sixth Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt not commit Adultery. 
IN the Hebrew this Precept is placed next after that against Murder, and the Greek Copies also now keep the same order in the rehearsal of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy. But lest any should think this transposition of these two Precepts a thing recent, I must observe, that Philo in his time read them, as we now do; and that he gives this reason for it [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that among unjust facts Adultery is the greatest. And again after he hath with admirable eloquence described the many evil consequents of this crime, he saith, Meritò Deo & hominibus exosa res adulterium inter crimina ordinem ducit, meaning the crimes that are injurious to men. Nor did the ancient Christians read them otherwise, following the Greek Codes; as appears from Tertullian (de pudicitia) who saith, Eo amplius praemittens, Non maechaberis, adjungit, non occides. Oneravit utique maechiam, quam homicidio anteponit, etc. Wherefore whenever the Ancients bring in these Precepts in another order, they bring them out of Deuteronomy, not out of this place of Exodus. Let us then, since we may do so without injury to the diligence of the Masorets, follow the Greek Edition, which we have taken into our hands, and which may be defended not only by its antiquity, but also by this probable reason, That many of the Hebrew Women preferred Chastity to life; and that in the judgement of Aristotle, the crimes that proceed from the desire of pleasure, are more heinous than those that come from anger.  
Abenesdras thinks, that by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath committed Adultery, all unlawful Venery; and simple Fornication is signified: but we find, that among the Hebrews that word is everywhere taken only in the sense of Adultery, and so translated in this and other places, by the Greek, Latin and other Interpreters. True it is indeed, that in the Mosaic Law there is an interdict, that there should be no Whores in the People of Israel; and that Incests, and Marriages with strange Women that worshipped false Gods, and the Portenta Veneris or unnatural lusts, are also strictly prohibited. But there was nothing of necessity that in so brief a Decalogue all the crimes that were afterward to be interdicted, should be mentioned, when it was enough that those were touched upon, that might most hurt either piety, or human society. So there is no mention made of wounds inflicted, but of murder, which of all kinds of violence offered to the bodies of men is the greatest. In these words therefore is properly comprehended both the Wife that yields the use of her body to any other man besides her Husband, and the man that polluteth another's Wife. Both are condemned to suffer death, Levit. 20. 10. Which punishment the Christian Emperors, Constans and Constantius long after introduced into the Roman Empire, as appears from the Theodosian Code. Nor is this capital punishment to be thought more severe than Equity requires, if we well consider that Commonwealths arise from, and are conserved by marriages, that their very foundations are shaken by Adultery, that conjugal love is converted into mutual hatred, that inheritances are alienated to a spurious issue, while the right Heir is supplanted; that whole houses are filled with reproaches and feuds, which descend to posterity; and not seldom break forth into public miseries and destruction. Of these dire mischiefs, and a hundred other (too many to be here in this brief and desultory discourse particularly mentioned) sad and tragical examples occur in almost all Histories, whether ancient or modern: and the consideration of them made Epicurus, in the Moral Sentences ascribed to him, to say, What evil doth it not draw upon a man, to desire to have to do with a Woman, whose company is interdicted to him by the Laws? Doubtless a wise man must be deterred from admitting such a design into his thoughts, if not by the manifest injustice thereof, yet at least by the great solicitude of mind requisite to obviate the many and great dangers that threaten him in the pursuit of it: it being found true by daily experience, that those who attempt to enjoy forbidden Women, are frequently rewarded with wounds, death, imprisonment, exile, and other grievous punishments. Whence it comes, that for a pleasure which is but short, little, and not necessary to nature, and which might have been either otherwise enjoyed or wholly omitted, men too often expose themselves to very great pain, danger, or at best, late and bitter repentance.   

CHAP. VIII. The Seventh Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt not Kill. 
THat in the Books of our time this Precept hath been unduly placed after that against Theft, 
Article. 1. Murder a Crime against God, Nature, and Civil Laws.  Philo, Tertullian, and others clearly show. Philo saith truly, That he who commits Homicide, is guilty also of Sacrilege, in that he violates the Image of God: and then he most heinously sins against Society, to which all Men are born, and which cannot consist, if Innocency be not safe from Violence. Since Nature hath instituted a certain Cognation betwixt us, it is a genuine consequence, saith Florentinus most wisely, that for one man to lie in wait for the blood of another, is a high Crime against the Law of Nature. Then again, he that assumes to himself that power over the Life of another, how nocent soever, which the Law attributes only to the Judge, violates the Civil Laws. So that Homicide is a Crime against the Majesty of God, against the Law of Nature, and against the Laws of Humane Society, or Civil Government.  
But by the Verb [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to Kill, is here signified, 
2. Exempts from this Law.  not every act by which the Life of another is taken away, but the unlawful Act, which is wont to be the sense of the Hebrew word, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] He hath Murdered. What therefore is done in defence of Life or Chastity, is exempt from this Law, by that of Exod. 22. 2. and Deut. 22. 26. So are other Killings that the Law permits, as the Killing of him that attempts to seduce to the Worship of strange Gods, Deut. 25. 6, 7, 8. And the Killing of an Homicide is permitted to the Revenger of Blood, who was the next of Kin to the person slain. The same is to be said also of those who have received from God a special mandate to Kill some People's or Men. For there is no injury in what God commands, who hath by highest right most Absolute Dominion of the Life and Death of all Men, even without cause Given. Of the Right of Zealots, derived from the Example of Phineas the Son of Eleazar (Numb. 25. 11.) we have formerly spoken in Art. 6. of Chap. 6. of the former part of this Disquisition.   

CHAP. IX. The Eighth Precept explained.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thou shalt not Steal. 
UNder the Name of Theft is comprehended all subduction or taking away of the Goods of another, 
Article. 1. Theft, injurious to private Men, and hurtful to the Public.  whether it be done by force, or by fraud. Society, to which (as was just now said) all Men are born, cannot subsist, unless every Man's Possessions be in safety. He therefore that either by open Violence, or by privy Stealing, takes any thing from a private Man; at the same time both wrongs him, by invading his Propriety; and hurts the Commonwealth, by dissolving the common Ligament or bond of it, which is the safety of every Man's private Right or Propriety. Nor is it to be doubted, but he that indulges to himself that licence, would, if he could, invade all things of all Men, and by open Force make the Commonwealth his own. For Injustice strengthened by Power, becomes Tyranny. Therefore,  

* 2. The necessity and utility of this interdict.  The Seeds of so great and pernicious an evil were to be early oppressed, and the diligence of all Men to be excited to Labours, by Faith made to them, that they should quietly keep, possess and enjoy whatsoever they by their honest Pains, Art, and Industry acquired. To admit Theft, saith Paul the learned Roman Lawyer, is prohibited by Law Natural. And Ulpian saith, that Theft and Adultery are by Nature shameful and odious. 
3. Theft of a Man, capital among the Hebrews.   
By the Mosaic Law, the Panishments of Theft were various, according to the quality and valour of the things stolen, and some other Circumstances. But Theft of the most precious thing, of a Man, which the Latins call Plagium, was punished with Death. Exod. 21. 16. and Deut. 24. 7. Which Abenesdras, in his Notes upon this Precept, will have to be understood only de Puero, of a Boy or Child that cannot speak. Theft of a Man was interdicted also by the Roman Law, F. F. de furtis 37. 60. So it is by our Law, which makes it Felony.   

CHAP. X. The Ninth Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thou shalt not speak against thy Neighbour a false Testimony. 
NEighbour here is, 
Article 1. Who is here to be understood by Neighbour.  an Israelite of the same Country; as appears from Exod. 11. 13. and Levit. 19 18. Where it is said, Thou shalt not stand against the Blood of thy Neighbour. Which according to the Interpretation of the Masters is, Thou shalt not stand an idle Spectator when an Israelite one of thy own Nation, is Assaulted, and his Life in danger, but help to deliver him from the Aggressor. And to this Neighbour is opposed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] an Enemy. But in the Gospel, Neighbour is every Man of whatsoever Nation or Country, as in St. Luke 10. 33. Where the good Samaritan is by Christ Himself declared to be Neighbour to the jew that was wounded by Robbers: and before the Law of Moses, all men were Neighbours, as is hinted in Genes. 11. 3. And they said one to another, i. e. in the Hebrew, A Man said to his Neighbour.  
The Hebrew word here Englished speak, 
2. The form of Adjuration used by the Hebrew Judges to Witnesses and to the Accused.  properly signifies to give answer to an Interrogation; and in that sense we take it, for Witnesses were wont to be solemnly Sworn or adjured, i. e. By an Oath Administered and taken by the most Holy Name of God, excited to give true Testimony in the matter under enquiry before the Judge, who Administered the Oath: and then to answer the Questions by him proposed. So are we to understand that of Levit. 5. 1. And if a Soul sin, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] hear the Voice of Adjuration, and is a Witness, etc. The Party Accused was also Adjured by the Judge in the Name of God: of which ancient Custom we have an Example in joshua 7. 19 and in Matth. 26. 63. And the form of Interrogating and Adjuring the Accused was, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Give Glory to God; as in the Examination of Achan by joshua, My Son, give Glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make Confession unto him, and tell me now what thou hast done. Hence some Learned Men with good Reason Collect, That Achan was not without hope, That the Souls of Men survive their Bodies, and remain after Death to Eternity. For by what other hope could he be brought to confess himself guilty of a Crime, which he knew to be capital without Pardon? nor could he be ignorant of the common persuasion of the Hebrews, that by Confession and Death, full forgiveness of such Crimes might be impetrated or obtained from God. This form of Adjuration was used by the Prophets and Judges of the Great Sanhedrin constituted by God, as hath been rightly observed by Grotius (ad joannis cap. 9 verse. 24.) and in the Thalmudic Digests (titulo De Synedrio) Simeon one of the Senators thus spoke to King jannaeus; Non stas coram nobis, sed coram eo qui dixit, Fiat & factus est Mundus. Sometimes this form indeed was expressed in other words, but the same sense was still retained: as in 1 Kings 22. 16. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] I Adjure thee to speak to me the Truth in the Name of the Lord.  
Now this Crime of bearing false Witness, which is here prohibited, 
3. False Testimony, a heinous Crime.  is also heinous and execrable in various respects. First because Verity, which is as it were another Sun among Men, is thereby violated and brought into Contempt. Then because the Guilty are helped and Absolved, and the Innocent hurt and oppressed; both which are against the rules of Justice. In fine, because a false Witness deceives and mocks the Judge, who is God's Vicegerent; and doubtless would do the same to God Himself also, if he were not above all Illusion.  
The Punishment appointed by the Law of Moses for a false Witness, 
4. The Punishment of a False Witness among the Hebrews.  was most apposite, namely what the Latins call poenam talionis, i. e. an Evil equal to that which the Person against whom the false Witness gave Testimony, might have suffered, in case the Testimony had imposed upon the Judge: so that the Punishment might reach even to death, if the Party accused were upon Trial for Life.   

CHAP. XI. The Tenth Precept explicated.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's Wife, nor his House. 
BY the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to desire, 
Article 1. What is here meant by Concupiscence, according to the interpretation of the Hebrew Masters.  here most fitly used by the Greek Interpreters, is signified, not every sudden motion of the Mind, or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Phantasie exciting the Mind, as Philo speaks, but the Passion or disease of the Mind called Lust, when a Man resigns up the conduct of his Will to that sensual desire, and pursues the Object of it; or as the Poet pathetically expresses the Passion, Vulnus alit venis, & caeco carpitur igne. Seneca (de ira Lib. 2. cap. 4.) calls the former, a Motion not voluntary, a stroke of the Mind that cannot be declined by Reason: the latter he saith, arises from judgement, and is by judgement to be taken away. Of this moreover he makes two degrees; one, that is not yet obstinate, but vincible by reason; the other, that already Triumphs over the Understanding, and leads the Will captive in Chains of impotent desire.  
In the Old Testament also we find the 
2. Acts indirectly tending to the gratification of lusts, interdicted by this Precept.  Hebrew words here used to express Concupiscence, most frequently to denote, not those first and indeclinable Motions alone, but the permanent study and fixed purpose to obey, cherish, and gratify them; as in Michaea 2. Yea, more in this place seem to be noted, the Acts by which the Wife or House etc. of another man is indirectly coveted; such are the sowing or fomenting of discord and animosities betwixt Husband and Wife, whence follows Divorce; promoting Suits at Law, and other Artifices of concealed iniquity. And this to me seems to be the reason why St. Mark (10. 19) expounds this Precept by [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] ne fraudem feceris, defraud not: which both the order of the Laws there recited shows, and because [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Thou shalt not Steal, went before.  
But although this may seem to be the sense of this Precept [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in a grosser Interpretation; 
3. As also the simple purpose to fulfil them.  yet have Philosophers of the soundest judgement always held, that the mere purpose in Lust or Coveting, though it never proceed to act, is sinful. Aelian said wisely, non solùm malus est, qui injuriam fecit, sed & qui facere voluit, me quidem judice. Nay, Ovid himself, though no example of Chastity, could say; 
Quae quia non licuit, non facit, illa facit  
Vt jam servaris benè corpus, adultera mens est.   
Seneca the Father saith the same thing, and with equal Elegancy; Incesta est etiam sine stupro, quae cupit stuprum. The Son; Non immeritò in numerum peccantium refertur, quae pudicitiam timori praestitit, non sibi: and in another place, of Crimes in general; Omnia scelera etiam ante effectum operis, quantum culpae satis est, perfecta sunt. So Typhoninus the Lawyer Affirms, That a Man is called an Adulterer Ex animi propositione sola, though he hath never actually corrupted any Mother of a Family. So also Porphyry (de Abstinentia lib. 1.) Postquam factis abstinueris, abstinendum & motibus, ac maximè ipsis animi morbis. Quid enim prodest factis absistere, si causis unde ea proeedunt astrictus maneas.  
These Philosophers than saw farther into the Nature of concupiscence, 
4. Concupiscence without effect, no Sin, according to the judgement of the Rabbins.  and required greater purity of mind, than the jewish Masters that were in our Saviour's time, and a little before and after; who finding in the Mosaic Law no penalty ordained for thoughts and desires of interverting the Wife or Goods and possessions of another man, therefore deny that any sin is committed by the Will alone, without any overt Act, unless in the case of worshipping false Gods, because to such thoughts, Counsel, and purpose, a penalty was assigned, and to no other. And that this was the judgement of most Rabbins, Abenesdras noteth at the beginning of the Decalogue: and josephus certainly was of the same, when treating of the Sacrilege designed by Antiochus, he said; non erat paenae obnoxium consilium sine effectu. Nor would St. Paul, educated under such Masters, have believed otherwise, had not a more exact and more Spiritual consideration of the Law convinced him, and brought him to write (Romans 7. 13.) that the Law being Spiritual, makes concupiscence in thought, though it proceed no farther, sinful.  
But what shall we Christians say of what our Saviour prescribes to us in the Gospel of St. Matthew (5.) that this Law, 
5. But condemned by the Christians, who are obliged to purity of mind.  which we now consider, was thereby only vindicated from an erroneous interpretation; or that somewhat was aded unto it? The latter is more probable; viz. that Christ prohibited not only a firm purpose and design to gratify our lusts, but also the assent or yielding to the motions of them; which He commands us to suppress and extinguish so soon as they are felt and perceived within us, and to avoid all occasions that may foment them, which He teacheth very significantly, though in parable, by the casting away of Hand, Eye, and Foot, i. e. by the loss of those things that are dear to us. Nor content to have taught this purer Doctrine, He addeth a more grievous penalty to offenders, than any found in the old Law, namely that of Hell; whereas for such delicts the Law of Moses prescribes no punishment at all, as the Masters rightly observe. Certainly the ancient Christians held, that in the Gospel somewhat more perfect is exacted, than what the Law expressly treats of. Witness Tertullian. Nos ergo soli innocentes? quid mirum, si necesse est? Enimvero necesse est: innocentiam à Deo edocti, & perfectè eam novimus, ut à perfecto Magistro revelatam; & fideliter custodimus, ut ab incontemptibili dispectore mandatam. Let us for example take that Precept of not lusting after a Woman, which the Ancients thus explicate. justin writing to Zena and Serenus, saith that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the first fume of this appetite is interdicted by Christ. Athenagoras saith; we are so far from thinking such things indifferent, that it is not permitted to us to look upon a Woman with desire. Tertullian (de velandis virginibus) a Christian beholds a Woman with safe Eyes: in mind he is blind toward lust. And Minutius; ye punish wicked Acts; to us, but to think an ill thought, is to sin. This more refined precept delivered by Christ, with some other of like perfection, seemed so new, and so heavy withal to the jews, that Tryphon, the most learned and eloquent among them, doubted not to say to justin; Your Precepts in the Evangel I know to be so great and admirable, that no man is I think, able to observe them: not considering what had been taught by Christ (Matth. 19 26.) With men this is impossible; to God all things are possible. Namely Christ hath obtained for those that believe in him, a more certain faith of eternal life, and a Spirit much greater, than had ever before been given to men: and then by His sufferings upon the Cross He gave us an example most absolute; and that nothing is so hard at first, which may not by exercise and a willing mind be made easy and familiar; as most of the Fathers have noted upon that in St. Matthew (12. 30.) By this custom of repugning it comes to pass, that those lustful motions by degrees subdued, dare no more rise up within us. This is that noble and glorious victory by faith, of which St. john speaks in his Epistle. c. 5. v. 45.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Nor his field, nor his Manservant, 
6. Not to covet any thing that belongs to another, the Sum of all Moral Precepts.  nor his Maidservant, nor his Ox, nor his Ass, nor any Beast of his, nor any thing that is thy Neighbours. Nor his Field, hath crept hither from Deuteronomy; and, nor any Beast of his, from the Precept of the Sabbath: for neither is found in the Hebrew of this place. But these differences are of little moment. Tertullian spoke all in a word, when he said, alienum non concupisces, thou shall covet nothing that belongs to another; not the least things ought to be excepted, lest by degrees men should go higher; nor the greatest, because in such the virtue of justice is most resplendent. And Aristotle being asked what was [To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Justiniano, answered, as became the Prince of Philosophers, [To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] none concupiscere aliena; in which all Moral Precepts are reduced to one.   

CHAP. XII.  
Evangelick Precepts conferred with those of the Decalogue.  
IT was wisely observed by Philo, that the Masters of his Nation were wont to refer to these ten Precepts of the Decalogue, which we have endeavoured briefly to explicate, whatsoever was contained in the whole Law of Moses: not that all the Mosaic Institutes were comprehended in the words of the Ten Commandments, but that these all pertain to certain kinds of actions, to which the rest may be, for help of the memory, referred; as all things are by Philosophers referred to Ten Categories or Predicaments, for more facility of teaching. This very thing have the Christians also done, referring all Evangelic Precepts to their respective places in the Decalogue: but they have done it much more fully and perfectly, as being both endowed with a greater Spirit, and obliged by their most noble faith and profession to exercise sublimer virtues.  
Thus to the First head, which is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of God's Unity and single Government, they congruously refer, not only all those Doctrines of the Gospel that forbid the least show or appearance of Worship exhibited to false Gods, delivered in Acts 15. 20. and 29. in 1 Corinth. 8. 10. in 1 john 5. 21. and particularly expounded by Tertullian (in Apologetico) and the Ancient Canons: but also those that Command the Unity of the Church most strictly to be observed, taught in john 17. 3. and 21. in 1 Corinth. 8. 6. and 12. 2. 18. 19 and 25. and in Ephes. 4. 5.  
To the Second, which interdicteth Idols or Images, they refer all the Evangelic; Precepts by which we are prohibited to addict ourselves to, or fix our affections upon things subject to sense, so as to prefer them before, or equal them to God: such as are given in Matth. 6. 24. in Ephes. 5. 5. in Coloss. 3. 5. in Philip. 3. 19 and in Romans 16. 17. Of which argument we may read excellent things in St. Chrysostom, upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians.  
To the Third, of not swearing or vowing by Gods holy Name in vain, they refer whatever we are taught in the New Testament concerning the great Reverence due to the Divine Name, in Matth. 6. 9 so great, that out of respect thereunto we ought to abstain from all swearing, unless in matters highly pertaining to the honour of God; as in Matth. 5. 34. and james 5. 12.  
To the Fourth, of keeping holy the Sabbath, they refer the Christians certain hope of a most tranquil and happy life to come, assured by that in Hebrews 4. from the First verse to the 11 th'. Whereof a certain taste is in the mean time given in that peace of Conscience which St. Paul so justly prefers to all other enjoyments in this transitory life, when (Romans 5. 1, 2.) he saith, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, etc.  
To the Fifth, commanding honour to be given to Parents, the Christians refer all the Evangelical Mandates of giving civil honour and obedience, within the limits of Divine Commands, to Kings and Governors, and all that are put in Authority under them. Such are given in Rom. 13. from verse 1. to 8. in 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, and 3. in 1 Pet. 2. 13. Of obedience to Masters, in Ephes. 6. 3. and Coloss. 3. 22. Of honour and obedience to Husbands, in 1 Corinth. 11. 3. 1 Coloss. 3. 18. in 1 Pet. 3. 1, and 2. in 1 Tim. 2. 12. in Tit. 2. 9 Also to Pastors or Ministers of the Gospel, in 1 Tim. 5. 17. in Hebr. 13. 17. and in 1 Pet. 5. 5. and to others of Eminent quality, in Rom. 13. 7, and 8.  
To the Sixth, by which Adultery is prohibited, are accounted the Evangelic Interdicts against all sorts of unnatural lusts, all scortation or whoring, all uncleanness and pollution Venereal of whatsoever kind or degree: such as are promulged in St. Matth. 15. 19 in Mark 7. 21. in Acts 15. 20. in Rom. 1. 19 in 1 Cor. 6. 13. and 2 Cor. 12. 21. in Gal. 5. 19 in Ephes. 5. 3. in Coloss. 3. 3. in 1 Thess. 4. 3. and 2 Thess. 2. 3. Also all Divorces, unless in the case of Adultery, as in Matth. 5. 32. and 19 9  
To the Seventh, interdicting Homicide, are referred all animosities, anger, hatred, and malice, the seeds of fights and murders, condemned and forbidden in Matth. 5. 22. 43, 44, 45. and the following commas; in Eph. 4. 31. in Coloss. 3. 8. in 1 Tim. 2. 8. in james 1. 20. in 1 Ep. of john 3. 15. and in other places of the New-Testament.  
To the Eighth, against Theft, are reduced those most equitable Precepts by which Christians are, not only forbidden to infer any damage, loss or detriment upon others, but obliged on the contrary to do good to all men, even to their enemies, to the best of their faculties and power. Such we find in Matth. 5. 44. in Luke 6. 35. in 1 Cor. 6. 7. and 8. in 2 Cor. 7. 2. in 2 Coloss. 3. 25. in Ephes. 2. in 1 Pet. 4. 18. in Rom. 5. 14. in Galat. 5. 22. in 2 Thess. 1. 11.  
Under the Ninth by which it is made criminal to give a false Testimony, are listed the Precepts by which we are commanded to shun all falsehood, lying, and deceit in speech, and to be highly studious of veracity and faith in all conversation, and transactions. Such are recorded in john 8. 44. Ephes. 4. 24, 25, 26. 1 john 2. 21. Coloss. 3. 9 Rom. 3. 4. 1 Tim. 1. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 8.  
The Last prohibiting Concupiscence, is by Christians so far extended, as that no permission is to be indulged to the motions of the mind that seed to unlawful counsels, designs and actions; but that they ought to be checked and extinguished, so soon as we perceive them to arise within us, as appears both from the places already cited in 5 th'. Art. of the Chapt. next precedent, and in Mark 4. 19 Gal. 5. 24. 1 Pet. 2. 11. And this Mortification of our sensual appetites, is what the Holy Scripture intends by crucifying, kill, and putting off the old man; in Coloss. 3. 5. and 9 Rom. 6. 6. Ephes. 4, 22. and what Lactantius (l. 6. c. 18.) adviseth when he saith, prius tamen quam commotio illa prosiliat ad nocendum, quoad fieri potest maturius sopiatur. The Three allurements of these sensual Motions are, Pleasure, Pride, Riches; in the judgement of St. john (1 Epist. 2. 16, and 17.) To whom Philo consenting, deduceth all Sins and Mischiefs [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] from one fountain, viz. the desire either of Money, or of Honour, or of pleasure.  
To conclude; the Sum of all the hitherto. recited Precepts, of the Mosaic somewhat more obscurely indeed, and with many shadows intermixed; but of the Evangelical most openly and brightly, is no more but this, that God be loved above all things, and that every man be loved as ourselves. This is the sole scope, as of the Law and the Prophets, so also of the Gospel. Witness Psal. 15. Esai. 32. 15. Mich. 6. 8. Matth. 22. 37, 38, 39, 40. Mark 12. 30, 31. Luke 10. 27. Rom. 13. 8, 9, 10, and 11. 1 Cor. 8. 3. and 13. 2. Gal. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 22. jam. 2. 8. 1 john 2. 10. and 3. 17. and 4. 7, 8, 9 and 2. 12. 20. By this Love faith is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] operating, Gal. 5. 6. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and perfect, jam. 2. 22. Without it, and the works thereof, it is a dead Faith, jam. 2. 20. This Love therefore let us pray to God to give unto, and increase in us, for His Son's sake, by the Holy Spirit. Amen.  
From this Harmony of the Mosaic and Evangelic Laws, I might take occasion to inquire also into the things in which these differ from and excel those; and thence to show, how incomparably more noble in itself, and more agreeable to the Spiritual Nature and proper affections of a Rational Soul, the Christian Religion is, than the judaic, or any other hitherto known in the World. Which would not be difficult to me to do, since various Arguments offer themselves to every considering man, from the excellency of the Reward by God Himself promised and infallibly assured to all true and sincere Professors of Christianism, viz. eternal Life and immutable Felicity after a joyful Resurrection: from the singular Sanctity of its Doctrine and Precepts, as well concerning the true and most congruous Worship of God in Spirit, and from pure Love, as concerning all the Offices of Humanity due from us to our Neighbour, though our Enemy; the Mortification of all sensual Lusts and unjust desires, nay the contempt of all temporal goods in comparison with eternal; from the Divine Virtues, inculpable life, miraculous works, patient sufferings, and certain Resurrection of Christ the Author of it: and in fine,- from the wonderful Propagation thereof, whether we consider the infirmity, simplicity, and obscurity of the Men that in the first times taught and diffused it, or the mighty impediments that retracted their Hearers from embracing, or deterred them from professing it. From all these Heads I might (I say) fully evince the Excellency of our Religion. But because this matter is alien from my present Theme, and principally because the same hath been already treated by many others of much greater ability than I can pretend unto, more professedly with Philosophic subtlety by Raimundus de Sebunde, with variety of Dialogues by Ludovicus Vives, with solid erudition and charming Eloquence by Mornaeus, and with inimitable gravity of judgement by Grotius: therefore I restrain my unworthy Pen from profaning a verity so Sacred, and as well from its own splendour as from the Light it hath received from those Illustrious Writers, so conspicuous; and acquiesce in the full persuasion thereof, wishing equal conviction of mind to all Mankind.    

APPENDIX. A short History of the jews TALMUD.  
Collected out of Josephus, Philo Judaeus, Bishop Walton's Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglotta, the Chronicus Canon of Sir John Marsham, etc.  
HAving in the precedent shadow of a Book often cited the TALMUD or Pandects of the jews; and now presuming it to be possible, that those Papers, of how little value soever in themselves, and however secretly kept by me in my life time, may yet, after my Death, come into the hands of some men, who are not perhaps so conversant in those Greek and Latin Authors who have written of the Civil and Canonical Laws, and Traditions of that Nation, as to know from what Original, of what Antiquity, and of how great Authority among them that Talmud is: therefore I am inclined to hope, that the more Learned will not condemn me, either of Vanity or Impertinence; if for Information of the less Learned, I here add a brief History thereof, not without somewhat of diligence and Labour, Collected from Writers of excellent Erudition and undoubted Faith.  
After the Macedonians had spread their Victorious Arms over the East, and the Hasmoneans with equally successful Courage asserted the Liberty of their Country; there arose out of the School of Antigonus Sochaeus two mighty Sects among the jews: the Pharisees, so called from their Separation; and the Sadduces, who derived their name from Sadocus their Head and Ringleader. The former delivered to the People, many Precepts received by Tradition from their Ancestors, which were not written in the Pentateuch among the Laws of Moses; the Latter directly opposing the admission and sanction of those Traditions, maintained that the Precepts recorded in the Books ascribed to their Legislator Moses, were all of Sacred Authority, and therefore to be diligently observed; but those taught by the Pharisees, from tradition only by word of Mouth, were not obliging; as josephus relates (Antiquit. l. 13. c. 18.)  
From this division of the disciples of Antigonus, in a short time it came to pass, that the whole Nation of the jews also was divided into Sects; of which there is no memory in any of their monuments, before the Government of jonathan, who succeeded his Brother judas Machabaeus, (whose History we have in the Books of the Maccabees) in the year of Nabonassar 588. and of the julian Period 4553. At which time, as the same josephus commemorates (Antiquit. l. 13. c. 9) there grew up three Sects or Heresies of the jews, which delivered divers Doctrines, not of religious duties, but of human affairs, principally the Fato; one, of the Pharisees; a Second, of the Sadduces; a Third of the Essens, who lived an active life, different from the others. So Philo (de vita contemplativa) distinguishes them from the Theoretics, whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and so Photius (in Bibliothec. n. 104.) interpreting Philo, saith; Lectae sunt philosophantium apud judaeos vivendi rationes, & Contemplativa, & Activa: quorum hi Esseni, illi Therapeutae appellantur.  
These Esseni [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] denominated from their Sanctity, retiring from the noise and crowds of populous Cities into solitary Villages, affected solitude; gens sola, sine ulla faemina, sine pecunia, socia palmarum, etc. No wonder then, if all the Four Evangelists be silent concerning them, since they lived strangers; and unknown even to the inhabitants of jerusalem, nor is any mention of them to be found in the writings of any Rabbins before Zacuthius, a late writer, and living in the year of our Lord 1502.  
But the Pharisees, and their Antagonists the Sadduces made a great bustle and noise in the Court of jerusalem where they lived in mutual Emulation, drawing mighty parties after them: the rich for the most part patronising the Sadduces, and the common people adhering to the Pharisees; as we read in josephus (Antiquit. l. 13. c. 18.) And in truth those [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] unwritten traditions asserted by the Pharisees, grew more and more Authentic in the Schools, were openly taught by the Rabbins by word of mouth to their disciples, and studiously propagated as sacred verities; but not published in writing. Yet at length, after the City of jerusalem had been sacked and demolished by Titus, and repaired by Hadrian in such sort, that the poor jews retained neither their name, nor nation, nor religion; while by the sedition of one Barchocebas, almost all judea was reduced to a desert, as Xiphili● (in vita Hadriani) reports; and while the jews were dispersed, and in exile, prohibited to set a foot upon their native soil; and the Schools that had been designed to promote the Pharisaic discipline failed; one Rabbi jehuda, whom they call Hakadosh, i. e. the Saint, with vast Labour collecting all the Traditions, Judgements, Opinions, and Expositions, that the Synagogues of all age's precedent had delivered upon the whole Law; composed of them the Book of the MISHNA, and read it publicly. And this he did, lest the Traditions of their Ancestors might otherwise be lost and forgotten. He lived under the three Antonins, Pius, Marcus, and Commodus, and finished this Syntagm of the Mishna, in the Reign of the Last, and (as De Gantz computes) in the year 120. from the destruction of the Temple, but of the Christian Aera 190. This Mishna is their [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Second La, so called to distinguish it from the first, which was written.  
Of Christian writers, the first that remembers this Book of the Mishna, seems to be the Emperor justinian (a greater Collector of Ancient, but civil Laws and Constitutions) who in the year of Christ 551. gave leave to the jews to read the Holy Scriptures publicly in their Synagogues; but interdicted the like use of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Second Edition of their Law, the Mishna, as neither conjoined to the Pentateuch, nor delivered down from the old Prophets, but invented by men that had nothing of the Divine Spirit in them: as appears from Novel 146. pag. 295. But since neither Origen, nor Epiphanius, nor St. jerom (who all make mention frequently of the Judaic traditions) takes notice of any such Book as the Mishna; and since St. Austin (contra adversarios Legis & Prophetarum l. 2. c. 1.) saith expressly, Habere, praeter Scripturas legitimas et propheticas, judaeos quasdam Traditiones suas, quas non scriptas habent, sed memoriter tenent, et alter in alterum Loquendo transfundit, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant: it seems probable, that the Mishna was, either not written, or at least not well known in the world, in the year of Christ 400. as the Modern Rabbins would have it to have been.  
Among these Maimonides (in praefat. ad Mishnam) affirms, that about 300 years from the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi jochanan, Head of a Synagogue in Palestin added the GEMARA [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] or Compliment, called the jerusalem Gemara. Which joined with the Mishna of judas, makes the jerusalem TALMUD.  
And this Maimonides well deserves our belief. For his extraordinary Wisdom and Learning are to this day so much admired by the jews, that they commonly say of him. à Mose usque ad Mosem nequaquam fuisse hactenus talem Mosem: and Mr. Selden (de Diis Syris syntagmate 2 cap. 4.) prefers him to all other Rabbins, saying, primus Rabbinorum fuit, qui delirare desiit.  
The jews at length passing from the Subjection of the Romans to that of the Persians, about 100 years after, Rabbi Ascanio in the Land of Babylon composed another Gemara or Compliment of the Mishna; which from thence was denominated the Babylonic Gemara, and which contains many ridiculous fictions, and fables incredible. And this, with the Mishna, makes the Babylonian Talmud, which is now most in use; nay doctrinal to all the jews, as if all their discipline, all Law both Divine and Human were therein comprehended: in which notwithstanding the Sadduces are never remembered, but under the name of Heretics or Epicureans.  
In the Mishna if self were contained, not only the Judgements, Ordinances and Decrees of all precedent Consistories, but also a Collection of all the Traditions which they call the Law Oral, and pretend to have been originally received from the mouth of Moses himself. And to give more credit and authority to these traditional Precepts, Rabbi Eliezar (in Pirke cap. 49. editionis Vorstianae pag. 123.) tells us, that during the 40 days absence of Moses on the Mount, he spent the days in reading the Scripture, and the nights in composing the Mishna: and in the Babylonic Gemara is a formal story of the very manner (forsooth) how Moses communicated and explained the Oral Law to Aaron and his Sons and the Elders. The Elders (saith the Pirke Aboth, i. e. capitula Patrum, a Talmudic treatise) delivered the same to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue, and they again handed it down to their Successors. But these things being too compendiously spoken, to evince the succession through so many ages, the more recent Rabbins have put their wit upon the Rack to explicate the matter more particularly.  
After the finishing of the Talmud, for an age or two, there is nothing but thick darkness in the Histories of the jews: but then they being expulsed out of Babylon, and their Schools left empty and desolate, about the year of our Lord 1040. a great part of the Rabbins and People came for refuge into Europe, and chiefly into Spain: there appearing to us no Memorials of European jews before that time. Since that, innumerable Rabbins men of great Learning & skill in all Sciences, nor addicting themselves and studies to the extravagant and absurd dreams of the Talmud, as their predecessors had done; have written copiously: and the succession of the Cabbala hath been sought for in the East. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, vulgarly Maimonides and Rambam, born at Corduba, in the year of Christ 1135. died at the age of 70. after he had written Commentaries upon the Mishna; in the preface to which he gives a long series or list of those who had propagated the Oral Law successively. Which yet appearing imperfect and interrupt to Rabbi Abraham Zacuth of Salamanca, who wrote juchasiin in the year of Christ 1502. he and his contemporary Don Isaac Abarbinel an exiled Spaniard, and after them, David Ganz (who brought his Chronology down to the year of Christ 1592. in his Book entitled Tzemach or Germane Davidis) found, or made that Catalogue of the Propagators of the Traditional Law more perfect and continued. Herein Zacuth indeed followed Maimonides; and Ganz trod in the steps of Abarbinel: but Guitiel. Vorstius (in observat. in Ganz, pag. 213.) comparing these successions each with the other; from the diversity of computation from the interruption and gaping conjunction thereof, argues the Catalogue to be plainly fictitious. There are nevertheless even among our Christian Divines some, who lay hold upon that continuation of Traditions, and use it to serve their turn: how prudently, let others judge. For I have not undertaken curiously to examine that series and the nine classes of jewish Doctors: contenting myself at present with these few collections concerning the Original and Antiquity of the Talmud.  
FINIS.    

Books Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard.  

H. Mori Opera Theologica, & Philosophica, Fol. Three Vol.  
Dr. More's Reply to the Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry. With his Appendix. Octavio.  
— Remarks on Judge▪ Hales, of fluid Bodies, etc. Octavo.  
— Exposition on the Apocalypse. Quarto.  
— Exposition on Daniel. Quarto.  
— Confutation of Astrology, against Butler. Quarto.  
Dr. Sherlock's Discourse of the Knowledge of Jesus Christ. With his Defence. Octavo.  
— Answer to Danson. Quarto.  
— Account of Ferguson's Common-place-Book. Quarto.  
Dr. Falkener's Libertas Ecclesiastica. Octavo.  
— Christian Loyalty. Octavo.  
— Vindication of Liturgies. Octavo.  
Dr. Fowler's Libertas Evangelica. Octavo.  
Mr. Scot's Christian Life. Octavo.  
Dr. Worthington's great Duty of Self-Resignation. Octavo.  
Dr. Smith's Portrait of Old Age. Octavo.  
Mr. Kidder's Discourse of Christian Fortitude. Oct.  
Mr. Allen's Discourse of Divine Assistance. Octavo.  
— Christian Justification stated. Octavo.  
— Against Ferguson, of Justification. Octau.  
— Persuasive to Peace and Unity. With a large Preface. Octavo.  
— Preface to the Persuasive. Alone. Octau.  
— Against the Quakers. Octavo.  
— Mystery of Iniquity unfolded against the Papists. Octavo.  
— Serious and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists. Octavo.  
— Practical Discourse of Humility. Octavo.  
Mr. Lamb's stop to the Course of Separation. Octa.  
— Fresh Suit against Independency. Octavo.  
Mr. Hotchkis Discourse of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, and our Sins to him. In two Parts. Octavo.  
Mr. Long's History of the Donatists. Octavo.  
— Character of a Separatist. Octavo.  
— Against Hales, of Schism. With Mr. Baxter's Arguments for Conformity. Octavo.  
— Non-Conformists Plea for Peace, Impleaded against Mr. Baxter. Octavo.  
Dr. Grove's Vindication of the Conforming Clergy. Quarto.  
— Defence of the Church, and Clergy of England. Quarto.  
— Defensio suae Responsionis ad nuperum Libellum, qui Inscribitur Celeusma, etc. in Quarto.  
— Responsio ad Celeusma, etc. Quarto.  
The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the Mouths of Fanatical Protestants. Fol.  
Dr. Hicks' Sermon at the Act at Oxford. Quarto.  
— Before the Lord Mayor. Peculium Dei. Quarto.  
— Notion of Persecution. Quarto.  
Dr. Hicks, Sermon before the Lord Mayor, jan. 30. at Bow-Church. 1682.  
Dr. Sharp's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.  
— Sermon at the spital, & Yorkshire Feast. Quar.  
— Sermon before the House of Commons. April 11. 1679.  
— At the Election of the Lord Mayor. 1680.  
Dr. William Smith's Unjust Man's Doom, and Discourse of Partial Conformity. Octavo.  
— Two Assize Sermons. Octavo.  
— Two Sermons, on the 3 d. of May, & 29 th'. of May.  
— Lent Sermon. Quarto.  
Dr. Thorp's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.  
Dr. Woodrof's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. Quarto.  
Mr. Williams' Sermon before the L. Mayor. Quarto.  
— Christianity abused by the Church of Rome, and Popery showed to be a Corruption of it: Being an Answer to a late Printed Paper given about by Papists. In a Letter to a Gentleman. Quarto.  
Remarks on the Growth and Progress of Nonconformity Quarto.  
Baxter's vindication of the Church of England in her rites and ceremonies, discipline and Church Orders.  
Mr. Lynford's Sermon. Quarto.  
Mr. Bryan Turner's Sermon. Testimonium jesu. Quarto.  
Mr. john Turner's Sermon of Transubstantiation. Quarto.  
Dr. Butler's Sermon before the King at Windsor.  
Mr. Lamb's Sermon before the King at Windsor.  
Mr. Brown's Visitation Sermon. Quarto.  
Dr. Fowler's Sermon at the Assizes at Gloucester. Quarto.  
Mr. Cutlove's two Assize Sermons at St. Edmunds-Bury. Quarto.  
Mr. Inet's Sermon at the Assizes at Warwick. Quar.  
Mr. Edward Sermon's Sermon before the L. Mayor.  
Mr. Resbury's Sermon before the Charter-House Scholars. Quarto.  
— Sermon at the Funeral of Sir Allen Broderick.  
Mr. Needham's six Sermons at Cambridge. Octavo.  
Dr. Eachard's Dialogue against Hobbs. 2 d. Part.  
Mr. Hallywel's Discourse of the Excellency of Christianity. Octavo.  
— True and Lively Representation of Popery: Showing that Popery is only new-modelled Paganism. Quarto.  
— Account of Familism against the Quakers.  
— Sacred Method of saving Humane Souls by Jesus Christ.  
— Discourse of the Polity, and Kingdom of Darkness. Octavo.  
Dr. Goodall's Vindication of the College of Physicians. Octavo.  
Mr. L' Emery's Course of Chemistry. With the Appendix.  
Dr. Grew's Anatomy of Trunks. With nineteen Copper Plates. Octavo.  
D. Sydenhami Observationes de Morbis Acutis. Octau.  
— Epistolae duae de Morbis Epidemicis, & de Lue Venerea. Octau.  
— Dissertatio Epistolaris de variolis, nenon de Affectione Hysterica & de Hypochondriaca. Octavo.  
Lossii Observationes Medicae. Octavo.  
Mayow Tractatus. 5. E. Med. de Sal. nitro. etc. Octau.  
Burnetii Telluris Theoria Sacra de Diluvio & Paradise. Quarto.  
Spenseri dissertat. de Urim, & Thummium. Octavo.  
Speed Epigrammata juvenilia. Encomia, Seria, Satyrae & jocosa. Octavo.  
Lord Bacon's Essays Octavo.  
Gage's Survey of the West-Indies.  
Mr. Claget's Reply to the Mischief of Impositions. In Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon. Quarto.  
The True Englishman Humbly proposing something to rid us of the Plot in the State, and Contentions in the Church. Quarto.  
A Persuasive to Reformation and Union, as the best Security against the Designs of our Popish Enemies. Quarto.  
The Roman Wonder: Being Truth confessed by Papists, etc. Being the Jesuits Morals Condemned. Fol.  
Essex Freeholders' Behaviour, etc. Folio. Two Sheets.  
The Country Club, A Poem. Quarto.  
Amyraldus Discourse of Divine Dreams. Octavo.  
Dr. Arden's Directions about the Matter and Style of Sermons. Twelve.  
Protestant Loyalty fairly drawn. In Answer to a Dialogue at Oxford between a Tutor and Pupil, etc. And an Impartial Account of the late Addresses, etc. Quarto.  
Mr. Tho. Smith's Sermon concerning the Doctrine, Unity, and Profession of the Christian Faith. Preached before the University of Oxford. With an Appendix concerning the Apostles Creed. Quarto. 1682.  
Mr. Lamb's Sermon before the Lord Mayor, Feb. 5. 1682.  
Dr. Calamy's, Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor, aldermans and Citizens of London, at Bow-Church on the 29. of May. 1682.  
Prosecution no Persecution: or, the Difference between suffering for Disobedience and Faction, in a Sermon upon Phil. 1. 29. Preached at Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk, on the 22. of March, 1681. by Nath. Bisbie. D. D.