A COMMENTARY UPON THE Third Book of MOSES, CALLED LEVITICUS.  
BY The Right Reverend Father in GOD SIMON Lord Bishop of ELY.  
LONDON: Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCVIII.   

A COMMENTARY UPON LEVITICUS.   

THE Third Book of MOSES, CALLED LEVITICUS.  

CHAP. I.  
THE Greeks and Latins give it this Name of LEVITICUS, not because it Treats of the Ministry of the Levites, properly so called, (of which the Book of NUMBERS gives a fuller account than this Book doth) but because it contains the Laws about the Religion of the Jews, consisting principally in various Sacrifices; the charge of which was committed to Aaron the LEVITE, (as he is called IV Exod. 14.) and to his Sons; who alone had the Office of Priesthood in the Tribe of Levi: Which the Apostle therefore calls a Levitical Priesthood, VII Hebr. 11.  
Verse 1. Verse 1 And the LORD called unto Moses.] That is, bade him draw near, and not be afraid, because of the Glory of that Light which was in the Tabernacle, (XL Exod. 35.) For this is a word of love, as the Hebrew Doctors speak: who observe, that God is not said to call the Prophets of the Gentiles; but we only read that God jikar met Balaam; not jikra called to him, as he did here to Moses. Who, as Procopius Gazaeus hath well observed, upon this word, appointed no Service of God, in his House which he had lately erected, without his order: whereas the Worship performed in the honour of Daemons, was without any Authority from him. Nay, there were Magical Operations in it, and Invocation of Daemons; and certain tacit Obligations which their Priests contracted with them. For which he produces Porphyry as a Witness.  
And spoke unto him but of the Tabernacle.] Hitherto he had spoken to him out of Heaven, or out of the Cloud; but now out of his own House. Into which, it is not here said he bade him come, (as he did afterwards when the Glory of the LORD dwelled only in the inner part of the House, over the Ark) but he stood, it is likely, without the Door of the Tabernacle, till the Sacrifices were appointed (as it here follows) and the High Priest entered into it with the Blood of Expiation. I can find no time, in which this can so probably be supposed to have been done, as immediately after the Consecration of the Tabernacle, as soon as the Glory of the LORD entered into it. And so I find Hesychius understood it, who observing this Book to begin with the word And, which is a Conjunction used to join what follows with that which goes before, thence concludes that the beginning of this Book is knit to the conclusion of the last; and consequently what is here related was spoken to Moses on the same day he had set up the Tabernacle, and the Glory of the LORD filled it. When Moses might well think (as the Jerusalem Targum explains it) that if Mount Sinai was so exalted, by the Divine Presence there for a short space, that it was not safe for him to approach it, much less come up into it, till God commanded him; he had much more reason not to go into the Tabernacle, which was sanctified to be God's dwelling place for ever, till God called to him by a Voice from his Presence: nay, he durst not so much as come near the Door, where I suppose he now stood, without a particular Direction from the Divine Majesty.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them.] The Tabernacle being erected, it was fit, in the next place, to appoint the Service that should be performed in it: which consisted in such Sacrifices as are here mentioned in the beginning of this Book. There could not be a more Natural order, in setting down the Laws delivered by Moses, than this which is here observed.  
If any man of you bring.] It is the Observation of Kimchi, that in the very beginning of the Laws about Sacrifices, God doth not require them to offer any, but only supposes they would; having been long accustomed to it, as all the World then was. To this he applies the words of Jeremiah, VII. 21. and takes it for an Indication, that otherwise God would not have given so many Laws concerning Sacrifices, but only in compliance with the usage of the World; which could not then have been quite broken, without the hazard of a Revolt from him. And therefore they are directed to the right Object, the Eternal God; and limited to such things, as were most agreeable to Humane Nature.  
An offering unto the LORD.] The Hebrew word Korban, which we translate an Offering, and the Greeks translate a Gift, is larger than Zebach, which we translate a Sacrifice. For as Abarbinel observes in his Preface to this Book; though every Sacrifice was an Offering, yet every Offering was not a Sacrifice. A Sacrifice being an Offering that was slain; but there were several Offerings of inanimate things (as those mentioned in the beginning of the second Chapter of this Book) which therefore were not properly Sacrifices; but were accepted of God as much as the Offering of Beasts, when they had nothing better to give. And therefore the same Abarbinel will have the Name of Korban to be given to these Offerings, because thereby Men approached to God. For it is derived from a word which signifies to draw near: from whence he thinks those words in Deuteronomy IU. 7. What Nation is there that hath God so nigh unto them, etc.  
Ye shall bring.] He speaks in the Plural Number, say some of the Hebrew Doctors, (who have accurately considered these things) to show that two Men might join together to offer one thing.  
Your offering of the Cattle.] I do not know what ground Maimonides had to assert in his More Nevochim. Pars III. cap. 46. that the Heathen in those days had brute Beasts in great veneration, and would not kill them (for it is no Argument there was such a Superstition in Moses his time, because there were People in the days of Maimonides, as there are now, who were possessed with such Opinions). But he thinks God intended to destroy this false Persuasion, by requiring the Jews to offer such Beasts as are here mentioned; that what the Heathen thought it a great sin to kill, might be offered to God, and thereby men's sins be expiated. By this means, saith he, men's evil Opinions, which are the Diseases and Ulcers of the Mind, were cured; as Bodily Diseases are by their contraries. Yet in the XXXII Chapter of that Book, he saith God ordered Sacrifices to be offered, that he might not wholly alter the Customs of Mankind, who built Temples and offered Sacrifices every where: taking care (it may be added) at the same time, that they should be offered only to himself, at one certain place, and after such a manner, as to preserve his People from all Idolatrous Rites. Which if they had considered, who contemned this Book of LEVITICUS (as Procopius Gazaeus tells us some did) because ittreated too much of Sacrifices, they would not have thought it unworthy of the Creator of the World, especially if they had looked further to the Wisdom hidden under these things; which were Examples, Shadows, and Patterns of heavenly things, as the Apostle speaks VIII Hebr. 4. IX. 13. And so was the Tabernacle itself, a Figure, (as we there read v. 9) for the time present, of a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with hands.  
Even of the herd and of the flock.] That is, Bullocks, Sheep, and Goats. For under the word tzon (which we translate Flock) both Sheep and Goats are comprehended. And so Moses expounds himself, v. 10. These were the principal Sacrifices, and most acceptable to God, as Abarbinel observes in the forenamed place. For though Doves and Turtles were accepted when Men were not able to bring the other; yet in Public Sacrifices these Birds were never allowed: but only the three sorts of fourfooted Beasts . Which were therefore chosen (as he proceeds) because these were the most-excellent of all-brute Greatures, on several accounts; and because they were not hard to be found, but easily procured: and therefore no wild Beasts were required to be offered, because God would not impose upon his People (as his words are) so great a Burden, as to bring him that which could not be got without some difficulty. For which cause also young Pigeons and Turtles were only offered among Birds. He gives other Reasons for this, which seem to me very far fetched, and therefore I shall not mention them. But this I may further add, That as they were the most ready at hand, and in common use among Men at their Tables, (which he should have noted as the plainest Reason of all) so they had been in most ancient use among Religious People in their Sacrifices. See XV Gen. 9 And it is very likely they were restrained peculiarly to these, that they might not follow the Customs of the Gentiles; as they would have done, had they not been abridged in their liberty. Now though we find in Homer mention made of Hecatombs (which were a Sacrifice of an hundred Oxen) and of perfect Lambs and Goats, whereby Achilles hoped Apollo might be appeased, and moved to cease the Plague he had sent upon the Greeks; yet there was no more ancient Sacrifice among the Heathen, if we may believe themselves, then that of Swine. Which made that Learned Roman Varro derive the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the Greek word for that Creature) from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. from a Sacrifice, because it was most anciently offered to their Gods; there being no more delicious Food at their own Tables than Swine's Flesh. See Petrus Castellanus de Esu Carnium, Lib. II. cap. 1. And afterwards they also sacrificed not only Hearts to Diana, but Horses to the Sun, Wolves to Mars, nay, Dogs to Hecate; whereby they destroyed the very Nature of Sacrifices, or at least of Sacrifical Feasts; in which People had communion with the Gods whom they worshipped, by partaking at their Table. For who could endure to eat of such Meat as Horseflesh, and the Flesh of Wolves, nay Asses, which were offered to Priapus?  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 If his offering be a Burnt-sacrifice.] Having prescribed what sort of Creatures should be offered, he first directs them about their Holocausts, as the Greeks call them, which were wholly burnt upon the Altar; and were the most ancient Sacrifices that had been in the World. They are often mentioned by the Greeks, particularly by Xenophon in his Cyropaedia, Lib. VIII. where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. they sacrificed whole Burnt-offerings of Oxen to Jupiter, and afterwards of Horses to the Sun. See Bochart. L. II. Hierozoic. cap. 33. P. I. Sometimes indeed the Heathen burnt only a part, and reserved the rest to feast upon, as he there observes: But among the Jews no Man ever partaked of these Offerings. For there being four sorts of Sacrifices prescribed by the Law (as Abarbinel observes in his Preface to this Book, cap. 2.) the whole Burnt-offerings, the Sin-offerings, the Trespass-offerings, and the Peace-offerings. There was this difference made between them; that of the first of these, whether it was a public, or a private whole Burnt-offering, no Body partaked, no not the Priests themselves; but it was entirely consumed, except the Skin. Of the second some part was burnt; the rest the Priests had, and were to eat it in the Court of the Tabernacle (though there was one sort of Sin-offering which was wholly consumed, as the Burnt-offerings were). The third sort, which were Trespass-offerings, were only offered for private Persons; some part of which, as in the former, were burnt upon the Altar, and the rest eaten by the Priests. As for the last (the Peace-offering) some part of such Sacrifices were burnt on the the Altar, the Priest had the Breast and the right Shoulder; and the remainder he that brought the Sacrifice eat with his Friends. I shall add no more, but that these whole Burnt-offerings seem to have been simple Acknowledgements of God the Creator of the World, and Testifications that they owned him to be their LORD, and continued in Covenant with him, and implored his Blessing upon them. And therefore with respect to the first and last of these Considerations, the Gentiles were permitted to bring these Sacrifices (as the Jews tell us) but no other whatsoever, to be offered unto God.  
Of the herd.] As Burnt-offerings were the principal Sacrifices, and therefore mentioned in the first place, so those of Beefs, were the chief of all Burnt-offerings, both among the Jews and among the Gentiles. Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sacrifice Oxen, became a Proverb for a magnificent Entertainment.  
Let him offer a male.] These were accounted the best, and therefore principally appointed. And so they were among the Heathen; insomuch that the Egyptians offered only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Herodotus tells us Lib. II. cap. 41.) and thought it unlawful to offer Females. Which shows that Moses did not conform his Laws to their Customs. for he admitted the Sacrifice of Females, III. 1. Nay, it was particularly prescribed in some Cases, XIX Numb. 2.  
Without blemish.] Or perfect, as the Hebrew word Tamim signifies. Which word Homer expressly uses, when Achilles speaks about the Sacrifices to Apollo.  — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
For to the Gods (as Eustathius there observes) who are most perfect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most perfect things ought to be offered. The like passage a very learned Friend of mine, now with God (Dr. Owtram) observes out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes his Acharnenses, Lib. I. de Sacrificiis, cap. 9 sect. 3. where more may be seen to the same purpose. Now that is perfect, in which there is no defect in any part; and is not decayed by Age. For which reason Abarbanel observes, great care is taken in the Law, that this sort of Creatures were to be offered before they were three years old; and the other sorts, before they were two.  
He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.] In this Translation we follow the Opinion of the Jews, who refer this to the Persons that brought this Offering; which they might do when they pleased. The like expressions we read XIX. 5. XXII. 19 But the LXX. thought it hath respect to God; and so the Phrase may be interpreted, he shall bring it for his acceptation, i. e. that he may find a favourable acceptance with God.  
At the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] Where the Altar of Burnt-offering was placed, XL Exod. 6, 29. And this was so necessary, that it is required upon pain of death to be brought hither, and offered in no other place, XVII. 3, 4, etc. For which cause, it is likely, the Door of the Tabernacle is here mentioned rather than the Altar; that it might be understood to be unlawful to offer at any other Altar, but that which stood at the door of the Tabernacle.  
Before the LORD.] With their Faces towards that holy place, where the Divine Majesty dwelled: unto whom the Sacrifice was brought; and at the door of the Tabernacle received by the Priest, from the hand of the Offerer.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-offering.] Both his hands; as some gather from XVI. 21. and (as Maimonides saith) he was to do it with all his might. This was a Rite belonging to Peace-offerings, as well as to Burnt-offerings, III. 2. and to Sin-offerings also, IV. 4. The meaning of which in this sort of Offerings, seems to have been that he who brought the Sacrifice renounced all his Interest in it, and transferred it wholly to God, unto whose Service he entirely devoted it. It being like to the old Ceremony among the Romans, who laid their hands upon their Servants, when they gave them their Liberty, and abdicated their own Right in them, saying, Hunc hominem liberum esse volo, I will that this Man be free: which was called Manumission. In other Offerings it had another meaning, as I shall observe in due place: and it was imitated by the Gentiles, though not without the addition of impious Superstitions. For they wreathed back the Head of the Beast upward, when they sacrificed to the Gods above; and thrust down its Head towards the Ground, when they sacrificed to their Infernal Deities; as J. Brentius hath observed in his Preface to this Book.  
And it shall be accepted for him, to make an atonement for him.] It shall be so acceptable, as to recommend him to the favour of the Divine Majesty. For so the Hebrew word Capher seems here to signify, not properly to make an Atonement (which was the business of a Sin-offering) but to own him to be in a state of Reconciliation with God; unto whom, he was supposed to give up himself wholly, as he did this Beast. The Jews indeed, who stick to the literal signification of the word, fancy that these Burnt-offerings expiated evil Thoughts and Desires: but there is no ground for this in Scripture; and the most that can be made of it is, that God accepted his Prayers which he made in general, for the forgiveness of all his sins, when he laid his Hand upon the Head of this Sacrifice. For it must be here observed, that Laying on of Hands was always accompanied with Prayer, as appears by Jacob's laying them on the Head of Manasseh and Ephraim, XLVIII Gen. 14, 16, 20. and the Highpriest laying them on the Scape-goat, XVIth of this Book, 21. Insomuch that laying on of hands signifies sometimes in the New Testament to pray, XIX Matth. 15. V Mark 23. and other places. But if a Man had committed any sin, there are other Sacrifices peculiarly appointed by the Law for their Expiation; which he was bound to offer with confession of sin, and prayer to God for pardon.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And he shall kill the Bullock.] That is, the Man himself who brought it, as Rasi interprets it; or one of the Levites, as others understand it: For they killed the Paschal Lamb at that great Passover mentioned 2 Chron. XXX. 17. as Bochart observes. But he should have added the reason of it, which Rasi there gives; that a great many of the Congregation having not sanctified themselves, (as we read in that place) therefore the Levites had the charge of the kill of the Passover, for every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the LORD. Otherwise every Man might kill his own Passover, XII Exod. 6. as they might do all their other Sacrifices. For certain it is, this was none of the works of Priests, as Maimonides shows in a passage mentioned by Dr. Cudworth (in his Book concerning the Lord's Supper, p. 27.) out of Biath Hammik-dath. Where he quotes this very place to prove, That the kill of the holy things might lawfully be done by a Stranger; yea, of the most holy things: whether they were the holy things of private Persons, or of the whole Congregation. The common Objection to this is, That none might come into the Court where the Altar was, but the Priests. To which the Answer is plain, That upon this occasion other Persons might come so far within the Court, be cause it was indispensably necessary, that the Man who brought the Sacrifice should lay his hand upon the Head of it; which was to be done at the Altar, when it was to be slain.  
Before the LORD.] See v. 3.  
And the Priests Aaron's sons shall bring the blood.] Now gins the work of the Priests: the receiving of the Blood and that which immediately followed, belonging to their Office. They received it in a Basin (XXIV Exod. 6.) as the manner also was among the Heathen; which our learned Sheringham observes upon Codex Joma (p. 85.) out of Homer's Odyss. L. III. where Thrasymedes is represented as cutting the Ox asunder with a Cleaver; and Perseus as receiving the Blood in a Basin, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A word used in Crete, as Eustathius notes, for such kind of Vessels; which some think was originally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the receiving of the Blood.  
And sprinkle the blood round about upon the Altar, etc.] That this might be done readily, one Priest received the Blood; and another took it from him, and sprinkled it about the Altar; or, as the Jews understand it, on every side of the Altar; which they performed by two sprinklings, at the opposite Corners of it. Which was a Rite also used in Peace-offerings and Trespass-offerings: but in Sin-offerings the Blood was poured out at the foot of the Altar: See VII. 2. Thus the Heathen also themselves took care the Blood of their Sacrifices should not run upon the ground, but be received, as I said, in Vessels prepared for that purpose; and then poured upon their Altars, and so offered and consecrated to their Gods. So Lucian in his Book of Sacrifices, represents the Priest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as pouring the Blood upon the Altar. See Dilheirus Disput. Philolog. Tom. 2. p. 253.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he shall flay the Burnt-offering.] Next followed the taking off the Skin; which God ordered to be given to the Priests, VII. 8. Though the Heathen  Skin and all, in some places, as Bochart observes out of Plutarch and Lucian in the forenamed place, (Hieroz. P. I. L. II. p. 324.) But whose work it was to flay the Beast, is not here expressed. The Jews say it belonged not to the Priests to do this; but to the Man himself, who brought the Beast to be offered. For (to show in brief what belonged to the owners of the Sacrifice, and what to the Priests) it may be fit to note out of Abarbanel, that each of them had five things to do. The Owner of the Sacrifice laid his hand upon it, killed, flayed, cut it up, and washed the inwards: And then the Priest received the Blood in a Vessel; sprinkled the Blood; put fire on the Altar; ordered the Wood on the fire; and ordered the pieces of the Sacrifice upon the Wood And that the Beast might more easily be flayed, there were eight Stone Pillars (as the Jews tells us in Middoth, cap. 3.) and Beams laid over them: in each of which there were three Iron hooks fixed; That the greater Beasts might hang upon the highest, the lesser upon the middlemost, and the least of all on the lowest: and so be more commodiously stripped of their Skins. Concerning this Excoriation both Homer and Virgil speak, as the afore-named Dilheirus hath observed in the same Book, p. 255.  
And cut it into pieces.] This followed the Excoriation among the Gentiles also, as the same Author shows. And it was done with such accuracy, that Homer saith they dissected the Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: from whence some great Men have thought St. Paul borrowed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express the Care the Ministers of the Gospel should have, in dividing rightly the Word of Truth, 2 Tim. II. 15. These pieces were not the very same in Bullocks and Goats, that they were in Sheep, as will appear afterwards; and therefore the greater care was to be used in the cutting of them; especially, when besides those parts which were offered to God, the Priests and the People were to have their share also.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar.] This, as I said before, was one of the works of the Priests: who did not put fire daily upon the Altar (for being once kindled, they were to keep it always burning, VI 13.) but stirred it up, and blowed the Coals. Which is meant by giving fire, as the Phrase is in the Hebrew; that is, disposing it so, that it might burn quick. Yet, if the fire was taken off from the Altar, as when they removed the Camp, IV Numb. 14. none might lay it on again but the Priest. Or, if it were extinct, as it was in the days of Ahaz, who shut up the door of the House of God, which was not opened till Hezekiah reigned, (2 Chron. XXVIII. 24. XXIX. 34.) none but they might kindle it again.  
And lay the wood in order upon the fire.] This the Priests did every Morning and every Night, that the fire might be preserved from going out. And when the time of the Morning and Evening Sacrifice came, they brought new Wood, and laid it in such order upon the fire, that it might the better consume the parts of the Sacrifice, that were laid thereon.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the Priests Aaron's sons shall lay the parts, the head and the fat.] The Hebrew word Peder doth not simply signify the Fat, (for which they have another word cheleb) but that Fat which is separated from the rest of the Flesh. So it is to be understood here, and in III. 9 iv 35. Which being gathered together, and thrown into the fire, fed the flame, and made it burn more fiercely: by which means the other parts, into which the Sacrifice was divided, were the more easily and the sooner consumed. Particularly, St. Hierom takes it for that Fat which adhered to the Liver: and both Solomon Jarchi and David Kimchi observe that this Peder was thrown upon the Head of the Sacrifice (when it was cast into the fire) just in the place where the Head was cut off from the Body; because otherwise the Gore which issued from it, might have extinguished the flame. See XXIX Exod. 17.  
In order upon the wood, etc.] That they might lie upon the Wood, so as to have the same situation in the Altar that they had in the Beast, when it was alive. So Maimonides in Maase Korban, cap. 6.  
Verse 9 Verse 9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water.] These Parts were not to be burnt upon the Altar, till they were well cleansed by washing them in Water. For which end there was a private Room afterward, in the Court of the Temple, (as now it is likely there was in the Tabernacle) called the Washing Room, (as we find in Codex Middoth, cap. 5. sect. 2.) There they having washed them privately, and freed the Inwards from their filth, they brought them into the Court, where there were new Marble Tables between the Pillars  (v. 6.) and there they were washed more exactly, as we read in the same Book, cap. 3. sect. 5. Where Const. l'Empereur observes, out of R. Hobadia, the reason why they used to lay the Flesh upon such Tables, was, Because Marble made it cold and stiff, and preserved it from stinking in very hot weather.  
And the Priest shall burn all on the Altar.] From whence this Sacrifice is called ischeh, an Offering made by fire, (from isch, which signifies fire) because it was altogether consumed in the fire; and no part of it left, so much as for the Priest to eat of it.  
Of a sweet savour unto the LORD.] i. e. Most acceptable. For it is a form of Speech taken from Men, who are delighted with the good Scent and Taste of Meat and Drink. But none can reasonably imagine it was the mere Sacrifice that was pleasing unto God, but, as Conrade. Pellicanus well notes, the Devotion, Faith, Obedience, and Sincerity of their Minds who made the Oblation.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely of the sheep or of the goats, etc.] If a Man were not able to bring a Bullock for a Burnt-sacrifice, (which could not be so well spared, being of great use in Agriculture) he might bring one of these Creatures which were of less value; only perfect in their kind, as it here follows.  
He shall bring it a male without blemish.] See XII Exod. 5. What the Blemishes were, that made any Animal unfit to be offered on the Altar, Moses tells us in this Book, XXII. 22, 23, 24. where he mentions twelve, which shall be there considered.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And he shall kill it on the side of the Altar northward.] The greater Sacrifices, which the Jews call the most holy things, had this peculiar place assigned them, where they were to be killed, viz. all the Burnt-offerings, (whether of Bullocks, Sheep, or Goats) and all Offerings for sin, VI 25. and all Trespass-offerings, VII. 2. But all the other Sacrifices, which they call the lesser holy things, (such as the Peace-offerings of particular Men, the Paschal Lamb, the Firstborn, and that which was tithed) might be killed in any part of the Court, where the Altar stood; there being no peculiar place appointed by the Law for that purpose, but only at the Entrance of the Tabernacle. Yet a Peace-offering for the whole Congregation, was looked upon as belonging to the things most holy; and so was slain (as Maimonides tells us) at the North-side of the Altar: where there were certain Rings fixed, to which the Head, or, as some say, the Feet of the Beast, was tied, in order to its being killed. But they were not perfect Rings, as L'Empereur observes, being rather half-segments of Rings, one part of which was fastened to the Pavement, and by the other the Neck of the Beast was tied to it. See Codex Middoth, cap. 3. sect. 5. The reason of this difference seems to be, only to make a distinction between these and other Sacrifices. And all this is to be understood of the fourfooted Beasts , not of Birds; which were sacrificed after another manner, as appears from v. 15.  
And the Priests shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the Altar.] See v. 5. and VII. 2.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat, etc.] This Verse hath been sufficiently explained v. 5, 6, 8.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And he shall wash the inwards and the legs, etc.] See v. 9 where this also is explained.  
It is a burnt-sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.] As much as to say, this is as acceptable to the LORD, as the Sacrifice of a Bullock, when offered with a pious Mind.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if the burnt-sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls.] It is well observed by Maimonides in his More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46. that when a Man was not able to go to the charge of a Sheep or a Goat, (much less of a Bullock) God was so merciful, as to accept of a Bird; only he prescribes of what sort they should be. Nay, he that was not able to be at this expense, was accepted if he offered Bread, however prepared, whether in an Oven or a Pan, according to the custom of those Times. And he to whom this was too great a Burden, might worship God, by bringing only fine Flour, as will appear in the next Chapter.  
Then he shall bring his offering of Turtle-doves, or of young Pigeons.] The same Author observes, that there was a vast plenty of these Birds in the Land of Canaan; and consequently they were so cheap, that it would put the poorer sort to no great charge to bring this Oblation. They were also very anciently sacrificed, XV Gen. 9 and of a gentle nature, (as Procopius and others observe). And Pigeons being best when they are young, and Turtles when full grown, accordingly they are appointed to bring them, when they were most esteemed. These are but seldom mentioned in the Sacrifices among the Gentiles, who offered Cocks to Aesculapius, and Geese to Isis, as we read in several of their Authors.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Priest shall bring it unto the Altar, and wring off his head.] Pinch it off with his Nail (as the Jews say) at one of the Corners or Horns of the Altar: viz. the whole Burnt-offering at the Southeast Corner, and the Sin-offering at the Northwest, as Maimonides saith in his Treatise called Korbanoth, cap. 5. But their Heads were so to be wrung or pinched, as not to be separated quite from the Body, but to be left still hanging to it. For so it is ordered in that Sacrifice mentioned V 8. and therefore they suppose it was so in all.  
And the blood thereof shall be wrung out, at the sides of the Altar.] This is the reason that the Priest alone might kill the Bird, (though others might kill the Beasts, See v. 5.) because the sprinkling of the Blood, which none might do but the Priest, was immediately conjunct with the wring off its Head.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he shall pluck away his Crop.] Or the Stomach; that the Sacrifice might be clean, and free from all filth.  
With his feathers.] Which were no more to be offered, than the Skin of the Beasts, v. 6.  
And cast it besides the Altar on the east part.] As far as might be from the most Holy Place, which was in the West.  
By the place of the ashes.] See IV. 12.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder.] The Wings were to be so cloven, as not to be quite separated from the Body, but still to remain hanging to it; and so Salt being sprinkled upon the whole Body, it was thrown into the fire. So Maimonides observes in the forenamed Treatise: where he takes notice also, that it was otherwise in Fowls offered for sin; of which nothing but the Blood belonged to the Altar; the Flesh of them being eaten by the Priests and their Sons. Whence it was, that no Sin-offering of Birds was accepted, unless it were accompanied with an whole Burnt-offering; that the Altar might not be without a Feast, when they that ministered there were entertained. Thus it is required in several Cases, mentioned V 7. XII. 6, 8. XIV. 22. XV. 15, 30. and VI Numb. 11. The same Maimonides likewise observes, that this Sacrifice of Birds, was one of the most difficult Works in the Sanctuary; whereby the Mind of the Priest was kept as intent upon the poorest Sacrifice, as upon the most splendid.  
And the Priest shall burn it upon the Altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire.] This was in part said before, but here repeated more distinctly, to show there was no difference to be made between the Sacrifices of the meanest and of the greatest.  
It is a burnt-sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.] The same is said of this, as of all other Holocausts, (v. 9, 15.) to show that whether the Oblation was of the greater Animals or the less, or only of Birds, it made no difference in its acceptance with God: Who graciously ordered these various sorts of Offerings, that the Poor as well as the Rich, might be capable to express their Devotion to him, and be confident to find favour with him.   

CHAP. II.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND when any will offer a Meat-offering unto the LORD.] Here is a merciful provision for those, who were neither able to offer Beasts of any sort, nor Birds, whom God ordered to bring Meal, (as was observed before on the first Chapter, v. 14.) which was called in the Hebrew Language Minchah, and by us translated a Meat-offering: For it was a Korban, or Gift, as well as the foregoing, though of a lower sort. And R. Levi Barcelonita thinks this sort of mean Present (as we may call it) had the name of Mincah, because such Offerings were very often merely voluntary; from whence whatsoever is not due among Men from another, is called Mincah, a Gift. Some of which were constant and stated, and also of a determinate quantity; being an Appendix to the daily Burnt-sacrifice, Morning and Evening, as we read XXIX Exod. 38, 39, etc. But these here spoken of were voluntary, when any Man's Devotion inclined him to acknowledge God, and implore his Divine Blessing. And no certain quantity was prescribed; only the Jews say, not less than an Ephah was accepted, but as much more as they pleased. See Dr. Outram in his excellent Book De Sacrificiis, p. 90.  
His offering shall be of fine flour.] Viz. Of Wheat-flour. For all the Offerings of this kind, whether for the whole Congregation, or particular Men, were of pure Wheat-flour, sifted from the Bran; except only the Omer of First-fruits of their Harvest, XXIII. 13, 14. and that which was called the Mincha of Jealousy, V Numb. 15. which were of Barley. Of these voluntary Offerings there were five sorts, as appears by this Chapter: for they were either of raw Meal, (mentioned in this Verse) or Meal made into Cakes, baked in an Oven, (which was of two sorts, v. 4.) or baked in a Pan, v. 5. or in a Frying-pan, v. 7. The first of which was the most ancient, as appears from IV Gen. 3. and from what the Heathen say of it; particularly Plato, L. VI de Legibus, and Pliny, L. XXX. Nat. Hist. cap. 5. where he saith Numa ordered the Romans Deos fruge colere, etc. And Pausanias in his Attica tells us, in the Porch of the most high Jupiter there was an Altar, where they did not offer the Sacrifice of Beasts, but only of fine Flour. The same he repeats in his Arcadia, and says this was ordained by Cecrops, that they should Sacrifice only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Athenians in his time called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And accordingly Triptolemus, another of their most ancient Lawgivers, enacted this as one of his principal Laws, that they should worship their Gods with the Fruits of the Earth. For these three Laws of his, Porphyry saith, were preserved to his days, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Lib. IU. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) to honour their Parents, Worship their gods with the Fruits of the Earth, and hurt no living Creature. Which last St. Hierom (L. II. contra Jovin.) translates, not to eat flesh.  
And he shall pour oil upon it.] Which was done to give this sort of Offering a grateful relish, as Maimonides observes, P. III. More Nevochim, cap. 46. The Heathen used Oil in their Sacrifices, but not mixed with Flour; but poured upon the Flesh of the Beast that was sacrificed, to make it burn the better upon the Altar. So that of Virgil shows, Aeneid. VI  Pingue superque Oleum fundens ardentibus extis. 
And put frankincense thereon.] To make a sweet Odour in the Court of the Tabernacle, which otherwise would have been offensive, by reason of the Flesh that was burnt there daily, as the same Maimonides speaks in the place beforenamed. When they came into the Land of Canaan, where they were required (XV Numb. 2, 3, etc.) to take care that this Mincha, or Meat-offering, should attend all the Freewil-offerings of Beasts, as well as the daily Morning and Evening Sacrifice, there is no Frankincense appointed; but a certain quantity of Wine, which perhaps was instead of it, (having a fragrant smell) and was not required in the Offering here mentioned. Both these were common in the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, as appears by this single passage in Ovid, L. V de Tristibus, Eleg. 5.  
Da mihi thura, puer, pingues facientia flammas,  
Quodque pio fusum stridat in igne merum.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 And he shall bring it.] In a silver Dish, or of some other Metal, (as R. Levi of Barcelona expounds it, Precept. CXVI.) wherein he delivered it to the Priest, who carried it to the Altar, and presented it to God by lifting it up over his Head; and, as the Jews generally say, turning it about to all the four quarters of the World, in token that it was offered to the Possessor of Heaven and of Earth.  
To Aaron's sons the Priests.] To one of them that ministered at the Altar that day, this Offering was brought, as appears by the next words.  
And he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof.] As much as he could take up between his fingers, saith the  R. Levi.  
And of the oil thereof.] Which was mingled, as I said before, with the Flour.  
With all the frankincense thereof.] None of which was to be reserved for the Priests own use; but entirely burnt upon the Altar. Which was contrary to the way of the Gentiles, who called Frankincense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as Diodorus Siculus speaks, L. II.) a thing most beloved of the Gods, but yet offered only so much as they could take up with two fingers, or, as others say, three. See Cuperus his Apotheosis Homeri, p. 74, etc.  
And the Priest shall burn the memorial thereof upon the Altar.] As a grateful Acknowledgement unto God, that they held all they possessed of him their Sovereign LORD; whom they supplicated also hereby, that he would still be mindful of them; that is, be gracious to them. For this Offering seems to have something of the nature of an Holocaust, or whole Burnt-offering; though others will have it to be an Expiatory Sacrifice, because part of it was eaten by the Priests. But it being said in the next words, to be an Offering made by fire (which is the phrase for a whole Burnt-offering, in the foregoing Chapter, v. 9, 13, 17.) I take the other to be the truer.  
Of a sweet savour unto the LORD.] The very same being said of this sort of Offering, which is of the foregoing, that were more chargeable, (I 9, 13, 17.) Procopius Gazaeus had great reason here to observe (which cannot be too oft repeated) that true Piety is not demonstrated by the greatness of its presents. The way of Piety is open and easy unto all: For God's Commandment is exceeding broad. And he that maketh the smallest signification of it, if it be sincere, differs nothing from him, who shows it by the largest Gifts, etc. So vain were the reasonings of the Heathen, who disputed, which were the most acceptable Sacrifices to their Gods, those of living Creatures, or of Things inanimate. Julian contended that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the Sacrifices of living Creatures were more esteemed, than of those without life; because they were nearer of kin to the living God, and the Author of Life. But his great Doctors, Pythagoras and Porphyrius (as St. Cyril observes, L. X. contra Julianum) condemned these Sacrifices of Beasts, as hateful to their Gods; who they fancied were pleased only with those that were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Fruits of the Earth, and of Frankincense. But they might have learned from Moses, if they had pleased, (Julian and Porphyry being acquainted with his Books) that these things were alike acceptable, God having respect to the Mind of him that offered, not to his Gifts.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the remnant of the meat-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons.] To be eaten by them. But that Meat-offering which was offered for the Priests themselves, was to be wholly burnt, and no part eaten, VI 22, 23.  
It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.] Nothing is more known than the distinction which the Jews make between things most holy, and the lighter holy things, (as their phrase is) which I took notice of before. The most holy were such, as none whatsoever might eat of; or none but the Priests, and the Sons of Priests; and that only in the Sanctuary, and no where else, (See VI. 16, 26.) Such were all whole Burnt-offerings, all the Sin-offerings, and all the Peace-offerings for the whole Congregation. The lighter holy things were such, as might be eaten by those who were not Priests, in any place within the City of Jerusalem, (to which their Camp now answered) and such were all the Peace-offerings of particular Persons, the Paschal Lamb, the Tenth, and the Firstlings of Cattle.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baken in the oven.] This is the first sort of baked Mincha's for the preparing of which there was an Oven in the Court of the Tabernacle, as afterward there was in the Court of the Temple, 1 Chron. XXIII. 28, 29. XLVI Ezek. 20.  
It shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.] If the Cakes were thick, than the Oil was kneaded together with them: But if they were thin (like a Wafer) than it was only spread upon it, before it was baked, (See XXIX Exod. 2.) or, as some will have it, after it came out of the Oven. Concerning its being unleavened see below v. 11.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in a pan.] Or in a flat Plate, as we translate it in the Margin. For Maimonides says, this was the difference between Macabath (which is the Hebrew word in this place) and Marchesheth, that the former was a Pan or Plate without any Rim about it; and the other had one, as our Frying-pans have. And so Abarbinel, in his Preface to this Book, observes out of Jarchi, that there was a Vessel in the Temple, which was only flat and broad, but had no rising on the sides of it: So that the Oil being poured upon it, when it was set on the fire, ran down and increased the Flame, and made the Cake hard.  
It shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil.] This sort of Cake seems to have been both kneaded with Oil; and to have had Oil also poured upon it, after it was laid upon the Plate.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 Thou shalt part it in pieces, etc.] This, according to Abarbinel, was done as it lay baking upon the Plate. Or, if this Division was made after it was taken off, the reason was the same; because part of it was to be given to God, and the rest to the Priests.  
And pour oil thereon.] Upon the pieces; that they might by this new Addition of fresh Oil, be made more savoury.  
It is a meat-offering.] And therefore to be eaten with Oil, v. 1.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in the frying-pan.] This Vessel was not flat, but deep, (as Abarbinel observes, See v. 5.) because that which was baked in it was moist and fluid.  
It shall be made of fine flour with oil.] The Oil was not kneaded with this sort of Mincha, but put into the Pan, so that it mixed with the Flour; which might be shaken and moved up and down, as things are which are baken in Liquors. So Abarbinels words are in his Preface to this Book.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt bring the meat-offering, that is made of these things unto the LORD, etc.] This relates to all the bake Meat-offerings , which were to be brought to the LORD at his House, and there presented to the Priest; who was to bring them to the Altar, when they were prepared as before directed. See v. 1, 2. And this variety of Mincha's was allowed, that the Table of the LORD (i. e. the Altar) might be furnished, and his Ministers that waited on him entertained with all sorts of Provisions.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And the Priest shall take from the meat-offering a memorial thereof.] A part of the Cake (of whatsoever sort it was) was separated from the rest for the LORD's portion; to whom it was offered as an acknowledgement of his Supreme Dominion over them, and in commemoration of his goodness to them.  
And shall burn it upon the Altar.] Before the other parts were eaten by the Priests; as was directed before about the fine Flour, v. 2.  
It is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.] See v. 2.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And that which is left of the meat-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons, etc.] All this Verse hath been explained v. 3.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 No meat-offering which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven.] These words [which ye shall bring unto the LORD] seem to have a peculiar emphasis in this place; importing that no Meat-offering, part of which was offered upon God's Altar, should be leavened. For no part of that leavened Bread which was offered in Eucharistical Sacrifices, (VII. 13.) nor the two Loaves offered in the Feast of Pentecost, (which some mistake for an Exception to this Precept) were offered upon the Altar, but given entirely to the Priests, as their portion.  
Made with leaven.] There are many Moral Reasons given, both by Jewish and Christian Writers, why none of the Cakes  should have any Leaven in them, which I shall not here set down. There is some probability in their Opinion, who think this was ordered to refresh their Memory, by putting them in mind of their Deliverance out of Egypt. But Maimonides seems to me to have given the best account of this, in his More Nevochim (P. III. cap. 46.) where he saith, God prohibited this to root out the Idolatrous Customs in those days, as he found in the Books of the Zabijs, who offered to their Gods no Bread but leavened. Next to this, the Account which Abarbanel gives of it is not to be disregarded, who thinks it was forbidden, because it would have made delay, if they had waited at the Tabernacle till the fermentation was perfected.  
For ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey in any offering of the LORD made by fire.] Neither mixed with Bread, nor alone by themselves. For Honey was a kind of Leaven, and it is certain was used by the Heathen in their Religious Rites: As appears not only from Maimonides (who tells us in the place forenamed, that they chose sweet things for their offerings, and anointed their Sacrifices with Honey) but from a great number of other Authors, who make mention of it: Particularly Plato, who saith (in his VI de Legibus) that anciently Men did not Sacrifice living Creatures, but only fine Flour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Fruits moistened with Honey. And so Phylarchus tells us (in Athenaeus his Deipnos. L. XV.) that the Greeks sacrificed Honey to the Sun (which was the great God among the Gentiles) but poured no Wine upon his Altars. Which Polemon (in Suidas) calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sober Sacrifice; because there was no Wine in it, but Honey and Water mixed together. Nay, there was scarce any God among the Heathen, to whom Honey was not offered, as Bochartus hath shown at large in his Hierozoicon P. II. L. IV. c. 12. But one Testimony may serve for all, which is from Pausanias (in his Eliaca) where having reckoned up at least fifty Altars in the Temple of Jupiter Olympius unto several Deities, and some of them common to them all, he saith, They sacrificed upon every one of them once a Month, after an ancient manner, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Frankincense and Wheat mingled with Honey. Which being so common and ancient a thing among the Gentiles in their Idolatrous Worship, was the reason, it is likely, that God forbade it to be used in his Sacrifices. And under the name of Honey the Jews think Figs and Dates, and all other sweet Fruits are comprehended. For the famous Composition among the Egyptians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was burnt every day, Morning and Evening on their Altars, consisted of such things, as well as of Myrrh, Calamus, and Cardamum. So Plutarch tells us (in his Book de Iside & Osir.) and mentions Honey in the first place, with Wine and Raisins: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 As for the oblation of the first-fruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD, but they shall not be burnt on the Altar for a sweet savour.] There were several sorts of First-fruits (as I observed XXIII Exod. 19) That which is here spoken of, was of the Corn unground, only a little parched at the fire, which was to be presented unto God; but not burnt on the Altar, because they belonged to the Priests.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt.] All the forenamed Mincha's, which were Korbans, (as they are often here called) were to be thus seasoned, because Salt was a thing never wanting at any Table; and all Meat is unsavoury without it.  
Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offerings.] It is called the Salt of the Covenant of God, as some think, because required by this Law, which they covenanted with God to observe, as much as to offer Sacrifices; which were not acceptable without Salt, as appears from the Repetition of it three times in this one Verse. But there is a plainer reason than this, which is, That the Sacrifices being God's Feasts, and they that did partake of them being his Guests, who did in a manner eat and drink with him at his Table; the Salt that was cast upon all Sacrifices (as appears by the words following) is called the Salt of the Covenant, to signify that, as Men were wont to make Covenants by eating and drinking together, (where Salt is never wanting at their Tables, but a necessary Appendix at every Feast) so God by these Sacrifices and the Feasts upon them, did ratify and confirm his Covenant with those that did partake of them. For Salt, as is commonly observed, being a constant concomitant of all Feasts, and Covenants being made by eating and drinking at the same Table, where Salt was ever used; thence Salt itself was counted by the Ancients to be the Symbol of Friendship, and proverbially used among the Greeks to express it. By which other places may be explained, about which some have bestowed vain labour, (XVIII Numb. 19 2 Chron. XIII. 5.) where the same words are used, but inverted; it being called a Covenant of Salt (instead of the Salt of the Covenant) because Covenants, as I said, were established by eating together, where Salt is never wanting.  
With all thine Offerings thou shalt offer salt.] Not only with the Minchas, or Meat-offerings, mentioned in this Chapter, but with all other Sacrifices whatsoever. Which is so solemnly enjoined, (as Maimonides says in the place beforenamed) because the Heathen did not use any Salt in their Sacrifices. Which is not unreasonable to think, since Honey (with which Salt doth not well agree) was in such constant use among them. And therefore saith he, God prohibited us to offer Leaven or Honey, and commanded us with great seriousness, to use Salt in all our Sacrifices. That is, as R. Levi of Barcelona explains it, (Precept. CXVI.) the Flesh of all Sacrifices was to be salted; and the Meal of all Minchas. For which he gives these two Reasons; because nothing is grateful to the Palate without Salt; which also preserves things from Corruption, as the Sacrifices did their Souls from perishing. Abarbanel saith the same. And therefore whatsoever the Custom might be in ancient time among the Heathen; in after Ages they learned from Moses to use it in all their Sacrifices: As appears from Pliny and Ovid (and many other Authors) the first of which says, That Salt was so necessary, that no Sacrifices were offered sine mola Salsa: which every one knows the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And among the Jews this Salt was not brought by him that offered the Sacrifice, but was provided at the Public Charge; there being a Chamber in the Court of the Temple (as we read in Middoth, cap. 5. sect. 2.) called The Chamber of Salt. Which was one of the three Rooms on the North-side of the Court (as there were three other on the Southside, for other uses) where the Flesh of the Sacrifices were powdered, as the Mincha's were seasoned at the very Altar. And this was so necessary, that though a Sacrifice was not looked upon as null, if the Priest neglected to salt it; yet the want of it in the Mincha's (as the Hebrew Doctors say) made them void; because it is here so expressly required in this Verse, Thou shalt not suffer the Salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking in thy Meat-offering. And whosoever offered any Sacrifice without Salt, or with Honey or Leaven, was beaten, as Mr. Selden observes, L. II. de Synedr. cap. 13.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if thou offer a Meat-offering of thy first-fruits unto the LORD, thou shalt offer for thy Meat-offering, etc.] This is very different from the Oblation of First-fruits mentioned v. 12. For there they are called Resith, which signifies the First-fruits at Harvest time: but here Bichurim, which properly imports the first ripe fruits before the rest were ready. And therefore the manner of their Oblation was different from the former, which follows in the Conclusion of this Verse. And first he describes what he means by the First-fruits, which he calls Abib, i. e. full Ears of Corn, but as yet green and moist: which he saith therefore in the next place must be dried by the fire; and then bruised and beaten in a Mortar, or with a Mill: and they were to be brought out of the richest or fattest of their Fields: for so the last words seem to signify Geresh Carmel, (which we translate Corn beaten out of full Ears) for Carmel sometimes signifies a fruitful Field, XXXII Isa. 15. and therefore may very well be thought in this place to import, the largest Ears of tender Corn. And the intention of its Contusion seems to have been, that it might be reduced into Flour; as it might easily be after it had been dried by the fire. And therefore differed from that Meat-offering mentioned v. 1. only in this; that the former was Flour of old Corn, this of new: and that was fine Flour sifted from the Bran; this had nothing taken out of it, but remained as it came from the Mortar or the Mill. And so the LXX. seem to have understood it. There are those indeed, who think it was only thrashed out of the Husk, and so offered; and fancy also that from this word Geresh, the Goddess, called Ceres, had her Name among the Gentiles. Which last Conceit is the stranger, since they endeavour to have it thought, that the Jews derived this Custom of offering First-fruits from the Gentiles; and not the Gentiles from the Jews. Whereas the Gentiles had no such Custom, that I can find, as this, to offer the First-fruits of Green Corn; but only the First-fruits of their Harvest, which they called Novas fruges: of which the Romans thought it unlawful to taste, antequam Sacerdotes primitias libassent, before the Priests had offered the First-fruits, as Pliny tells us, Lib. XVIII. cap. 2. and Censorinus saith the same, cap. 1. de Die Natali. Or if they did offer any First-fruits before Corn was ripe, they boiled them in a Pot; but did not roast them in the fire, as is here directed. For so Hesychius seems to say, that in the Feast called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which was in the Month that Answers to our April) they offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the First-fruits that appeared out of the Ground, which they carried about, i. e. in Pots, as other Authors tell us. And Hesychius himself saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Pot, full of Sacred Decoction.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt put oil upon it, etc.] See v. 1.  
And the Priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil, and all the frankincense. All the rest that was not burnt, was the Priest's portion, except the Frankincense; which is here ordered to be entirely offered to God, (See v. 2.) and made this, and such like Offerings, be called an Offering of a sweet savour unto the LORD, v. 2.9, 12.  
It is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] See upon v. 9   

CHAP. III.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering.] Having given orders about whole Burnt-offerings, in the first Chapter, and Meat-offerings (which had something of that Nature in them) in the second; he proceeds to Peace-offerings, which in the Hebrew are called Schelamim, from the word Schalam, either as it signifies Retribution, or Peace and Concord. They that take it in the first sense, think the reason of the name to be from this; That God, the Offerer, and the Priest, had each of them their portion assigned to them of this Sacrifice. And they that follow the second sense do not much differ, when they say, That these Sacrifices were Symbols of Friendship between God, and the Priests, and those that brought them; for all these feasted at a Common Table, as R. Levi been Gersom expresses it. For part being offered on the Altar, and the Priest having taken his share, the rest was given to him that offered the Sacrifice. So that it was called a Peace-offering, saith Abarbanel (in his Preface to this Book) because it made Peace (or rather declared Peace) between the Altar, the Priest, and the Owner. But they seem to me to have given the best account of this, who, because Peace in their Language signifies Prosperity and Happiness, think these were called Peace-offerings, because they were principally thankful Acknowledgements of Mercies received from God's Bounty. For there being three sorts of them mentioned VII. 15, 16. that of Thanksgiving is the first, called Totheh, Acknowledgement of some Benefit received.  
The Gentiles called such Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as appears from many places of Dionys. Halicarn. L. VI & L. VIII. where there are these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, particularly in the Life of Agesilaus, where he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a perfect Description of such Sacrifices as are here appointed; with part of which they entertained their Friends. They are also called by those Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, especially when they had respect to any great Danger they had escaped; for which they offered these thankful Acknowledgements. The LXX. calls such Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
If he offer it of the herd, whether it be a male or female.] A whole Burnt-offering was to be only of a Male: for being wholly Gods, and offered purely for his Honour, it was to be of the very best, I. 3. But Peace-offerings being also for the profit of him that offered them, who had the greatest share of them; it was at his liberty whether he would offer a Male or a Female. Directly contrary to the Egyptian Customs, if they were the same now, that they were in the time of Herodotus, who saith expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was not lawful among them to sacrifice Females, L. II. cap. 41.  
He shall offer it without blemish, etc.] See I 3.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering.] The Man who brought the Offering was to lay his hand upon the Head of it; as was ordered in the whole Burnt-offering and Sin-offering, (See Ch. I. v. 4.) It might not be done by a Deputy, unless he was Heir to one that had vowed this Sacrifice, and died before he had performed it; in which case the Heir was to do what the Man himself should have done, if he had been alive, as Maimonides observes. In this Sacrifice, laying on of hands, seems to have been done, not only with Prayer to God, that he would accept the Oblation (which the Jews say always accompanied this Action) but with acknowledgement of those Mercies which were the occasion of it. So Conradus Pellicanus well glosses upon I. 4. (which may be best applied to the use of this Rite in Peace-offerings) Laying on of Hands signifies Devotion and Faith, with acknowledgement of the Divine Benefits; for which we cannot offer any thing of our own, but rather return and restore to him what we have received; that we may understand giving of Thanks to be the greatest of our Sacrifices.  
And kill it.] See ch. I. v. 5.  
At the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] These being the lesser holy things, as the Jews call them, were not offered as the whole Burnt-offerings and Sin-offerings were, on the North-side of the Altar, (See ch. I. v. 11.) but any where else, near to the Entrance of the Tabernacle; which was in the East, where the others were thrown out, and therefore a less holy place. Only in laying on of hands, every Man was bound, wheresoever the Sacrifice was killed, to turn his Face Westward, toward the Sanctuary; because then, as I said, he made certain Prayers and Acknowledgements to the Divine Majesty, which was always to be done in that posture.  
And Aaron's sons the Priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the Altar round about.] See ch. I. v. 5.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And he shall offer.] One of the Priests then in waiting at the Altar.  
Of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, etc.] After the Sacrifice was flayed and cut up, as is directed I 6.  
The fat that covereth the inwards.] That is, the Omentum, as the Latins call it, and hath much fat in it. See XXIX Exod. 13.  
And all the fat that is upon the inwards]. All the Fat which adheres to the Mesentery, and other Entrails.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them.] The Kidneys are noted by Aristotle to have more Fat about them, than any of the other Bowels: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. L. III. the Animal. cap. 9 Being so covered with it, that in dissecting of a Body, the Kidneys at first sight, are not to be perceived, as Anatomists observe; particularly our own Countryman Dr. Highmore.  
Which is by the flanks.] The Hebrew word Cesilim signifies the Loins (as Bochart hath demonstrated in his Hierozoicon, P. I. L. II. c. 45.) which have collops of fat upon them, as Eliphaz speaks, XV Job 27.) and thence are easily inflamed, XXXVIII Psal. 7.  
And the cawl above the liver.] The Hebrew word jothereth signifies the greatest Lobe of the Liver. See XXIX Exod. 13.  
It shall he take away.] Separate from the rest of the Flesh, to be offered on the Altar. For all the Fat, here mentioned, was God's portion of the Sacrifice: the Priest had the Breast and the right Shoulder; and he that brought the Offering had the rest; as will appear more fully VII. 15, etc. 31. 32, etc.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And Aaron's sons.] Some of those that Minister that day.  
Shall burn it on the Altar upon the burnt-sacrifice.] By the Burnt-sacrifice seems here to be meant the daily Sacrifice, which was burnt every Morning: after which this was to be offered, but not before it.  
Which is upon the wood that is on the fire.] The same wood, upon which the Burnt-sacrifice had been offered, would serve to burn this Fat. Which being entirely consumed, as the Holocausts were, it is called in the following words, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. See ch. 1. v. 9 That is, God was pleased graciously to accept of their pious Acknowledgements: the Offerings of these Inwards being, as if he that brought them had said, I will pour out my Soul unto the LORD in Thanks and Praise for the Benefits he had received. So Abarbanel explains it in his Preface to this Book.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And if his offering, etc. be of the flock.] i.e. Of Sheep or Goats, which are both comprehended under the word Flock, (as was noted before ch. 1. v. 2.)  
Male or Female.] See v. 1. Where I observed a difference between these Sacrifices and whole Burnt-offerings, in this respect; that either Male or Female were accepted for Peace-offerings, but Male alone for the other. To which may be added, that Birds were allowed for whole Burnt-offerings (I. 14, 15, etc.) but not for Peace-offerings: which were only of the Herd, or Flock; i. e. of Bullocks, Sheep, or Goats. The reason seems to be plain; because Peace-offerings being to be divided between God, the Priest, and him that brought them, the portion of each would have been so small, that it would have made the Feast upon it so very meager and jejune, that it would have been contemptible.  
He shall offer it without blemish.] It was at his choice whether he would bring it from the Herd or the Flock: but in its kind it was to be perfect. See chap. I. 3, 9  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 If he offer a lamb for his offering.] Though a Bird was not accepted for a Peace-offering, yet a Lamb was; though not of such value as a fat Sheep, or a Goat.  
Then shall he offer it before the LORD.] This seems to be meant of the Man's presenting it to be offered at the Altar.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, etc.] This whole Verse is only a direction to do with a Peace-offering of a Lamb or Sheep, as they were to do with that of a Bullock, v. 2.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And he shall offer of the Sacrifice of the Peace-offering, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] As was directed in the Offering of a Bullock, v. 3.  
The fat thereof, and the whole rump.] The whole Fat being to be offered (as was ordered also before) he enumerates the particulars; because in this was more Fat, than in other Sacrifices of this kind. For the whole Rump of a Sheep was to be offered to God, though not of a Bullock, nor a Goat. And the reason was, because in those Countries the Tails of their Sheep are so vastly big, that (as Golius and others assure us) the least of them weigh ten or twelve pound; and some exceed forty pound weight: and they are so very fat, that they melt the Fat and keep it to butter their Rice, and for other uses, as Bochartus observes in his Hierozoicon, P. I. L. II. cap. 45.  
It shall he take off hard by the backbone.] The Hebrew word Atzah, which we translate the Backbone, denotes that part which is next to the Tail or Rump; and therefore must signify that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which is a Bone at the extremity of the broad Bone, called Os Sacrum; consisting of three Cartalaginous parts, as he describes it.  
And the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards.] See v. 3.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, etc.] This Verse is explained above, v. 4.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the Priest shall burn it upon the Altar.] As he did the Fat of the Bullock, v. 5.  
It is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD.] That which was offered upon the Altar, was accounted God's Mess, as appears from I Malachai 12. where the Altar is called his Table, and the Sacrifice upon it his Meat: as here it is called his Bread or Food. To represent in a lively manner to them, that God dwelled, and (as we say) kept House among them; and that they who partaked of these Sacrifices, feasted with him upon his Provision. See upon XXV Exod. 8, 30.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And if his offering be a Goat, etc.] The Law concerning this Sacrifice, is the very same with the former (except what is ordered about the Rump of a Sheep) and this and the following Verses (13, 14, 15.) need no farther Explication.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Priest shall burn it upon the Altar, it is the food of the offering, etc.]. See before v. 11.  
All the fat is the LORDS.] That is, all the Fat ; which may more properly be translated the Suet. For that Fat which was a part of the Flesh might be eaten (as appears from many places, particularly XXXII Deut. 14.) but not that which only lay upon it, and might be separated from it; which was burnt upon the Altar, when they sacrificed either Bullock, Sheep, or Goat. And when they killed any of these, or other clean Creatures, for their Food at home, still they were to forbear to eat the Suet; partly out of reverence to God, whose portion it was at the Altar; and partly, because it was heavy and too strong a Food, as Maimonides takes it, More Nevochim P. III. cap. 48. And it seems therefore to have been offered upon the Altar, because it was so unctuous, that it would easily burn, and make the Flesh also consume the sooner. But from its being God's part, it came thence to signify, the very best and most excellent of any kind of thing. As the best of the Tithe is called the Fat of the Tithe, XVIII Numb. 17. and the best Corn, is called the Fat of the Wheat, LXXXI Psal. 16. and rich and powerful Men, are called the Fat upon Earth; as the chief and principal part of the People, XXII Psal. 29.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 It shall be a perpetual statute.] In force as long as this Law about Sacrifices shall last.  
For your generations.] For their Posterity, as well as them who received this Law, in all succeeding Ages.  
Throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.] This confirms what was said before, that they might not eat such Fat, as is , at home, as their ordinary Food; because it is said, throughout all your dwellings ye shall eat no fat. And Fat being joined with Blood is another argument, that they might no more eat the Suet of Beasts that were killed at home, for common use, than the Blood of such Beasts. From which they entirely abstained, for the foregoing reasons, as Maimonides observes in the Book forenamed; and for another also which he mentions in the XLVIth Chapter of it. Where he saith, The ancient Idolaters, called Zabijs, were wont to eat the blood of their Sacrifices, because they imagined this to be the Food of their Gods; with whom they thought they had such Communion, by eating of their Meat, that they revealed to them things to come. And in this R. Moses bar Nachman concurs with him, as Dr. Cudworth observes in the conclusion of his Treatise of the Right Notion of the Lord's Supper. For though he saith, that Blood was forbidden, because it served for Expiation, (in which he differs from Maimonides) yet he adds also, that it was used superstitiously by the Heathen in their Idolatrous Worship; where they partaked of the Blood with their Daemons, as being their Guests, and invited to eat with them at their Table. And so were joined in faederal Society with them; and by this kind of Communion enabled to prophecy, and foretell things to come.   

CHAP. IU.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Having directed him about whole Burnt-offerings, and Meat-offerings (which constantly attended some of them) and Peace-offerings, which supposed Men to be in a state of favour with God; he now proceeds to give order about the Expiation of their Sins, when they had offended him, by doing contrary to his Commands; which he continues to the 14th Verse of the Vth Chapter. And this Law about Sin-offerings, seems to have been delivered to Moses at a different time from the former; being about a different matter; but by a Voice speaking to him out of the Tabernacle, as before, ch. I. 1.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance, etc.] There are three Conditions expressed in this Verse, of the Sin for which the following Sacrifice was admitted. First, It was to be committed ignorantly; not wittingly and presumptuously. Secondly, It was for Sin against a negative Precept (as the Jews call them) i.e. such a Commandment as forbade something to be done. So it is said here expressly [Concerning things which ought not to be done]. As for the omission of such things as were commanded to be done, they might be performed some other time when Men had better bethought themselves; which was much more acceptable to God, than offering Sacrifice for the omission. And thirdly, It was for Facts committed, not for Words or Thoughts; so the last words are, and shall do against any of them. As for the sins which Men might imprudently commit in word and in thought, they were so many, that the whole Flocks and Herds would not have sufficed for their Expiation, nor the Altar contained all such Sacrifices. The Jews add a fourth Condition, That the Sacrifice here appointed was for such Facts, as if they had been committed wittingly, a Cereth, i. e. cutting off, was threatened to them by the Law: which they gather from XV Numb. 30. But that phrase with an high hand seems not to signify any sort of sin, but a certain manner of sinning: as when a Man despised God's Commandments, and brought Contempt upon the Law by his sins, as a very learned Friend of mine, now with God, hath observed. And therefore it is probable all sins committed ignorantly were expiated by the following Sacrifices, save only those which are appointed to be expiated by other Sacrifices, or after another manner. See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis, L. I. cap. 12. n. 2, 3, 4.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 If the Priest that is anointed do sin.] And first he prescribes the Sacrifice, which he who was to make the great Expiation for all the People, should offer for himself, viz. the Highpriest: who only, of all the Priests, was constantly anointed at the entrance of his Office. And if after he was put out of his Office, he committed any such sin as is here mentioned, he was to make this Offering for his Expiation, as much as if he had continued in it. So Mr. Selden observes out of the Misna, L. II. de Synedr. cap. 15. n. 14.  
According to the sin of the people.] In the manner . Or, as R. Solomon interprets it, if he hid any thing from the People, whereby they err. For so the words run in the Hebrew, if he sin to the guilt of the people, (or, to the making them guilty) either by misinforming them, or drawing them into Error by his Example; so that they take a thing to be clean, which is indeed unclean, or the like.  
Then let him bring for his sin which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish.] It is observed by some, that in great Offences the Sacrifices were small; lest they should imagine their Pardon was procured by their great expense. For here the word is Par ben bachur, a young Bullock, that was but a little bigger than a Calf. And so this Sacrifice is called (Par) in the following Verses. Whereas that of the Peace-offering is called v. 10. Shor, an Ox, (though we translate it also, Bullock) one that was grown to its full bigness, and consequently of greater value.  
For a sin-offering.] How Chattah, which we translate Sin-offering, differs from ascham, which we translate Trespass-offering, I shall examine afterward, when Moses comes to speak of the latter. And now only observe, that Chattah is the name both for Sin, and for the Sin-offering; as the word piaculum was among the Heathen; which signified both a great Crime, and the Expiatory Sacrifice for it. By which those words in the New Testament may be explained, Christ was made sin for us; that is, a Sacrifice to expiate our sins. And so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sin, certainly signifies, VIII Rom. 3.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.] This, as I take it, was to be done by himself; who was to present the Sacrifice to the Divine Majesty, and desire it might be accepted for the purpose to which it was to be offered.  
And shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head.] As every one that brought other Offerings were bound to do, (See ch. I. 4. III. 2, etc.) but here for another purpose; viz. to confess their sins unto the LORD, and beseech him to forgive them. See V 5. There is a good Gloss upon this, in a very bad Book called Nitzachon, not long ago published by the Learned Wagenseil: where that Author saith, (p. 11.) When a Man sacrificed a Beast he was to think in his mind, I am more a Beast than this here present. For I have sinned, and for the sins I have committed, I offer this: but it were more just that he who hath sinned should suffer death, than this Beast (which hath not offended) Therefore thus a Man, by the help of this Sacrifice, began to repent.  
And kill the bullock before the LORD.] This seems to have been done by him that laid his hand on the head of the Bullock, that is, by the Highpriest himself. For the greatest Men, in old time, did not think such work below them; but rather esteemed every thing that served to the Worship of God, to be noble and honourable. So Homer represents King Agamemnon as killing the Lambs himself; by the Blood of which he was to Seal the Treaty he made with the Trojans, Iliad. 3. yet in this case it is likely the Highpriest himself did not kill the Sacrifice, but some of the other Priests that then ministered. For he that did this, seems to be distinguished, by the next words (v. 5.) from the Priest that is anointed; i. e. the Highpriest. Nor was this Sacrifice killed in the ordinary place where Sin-offerings were killed, (See 24.) being an extraordinary sort of Offering, as that which follows also was.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And the Priest that is anointed.] Whosoever killed the Sacrifice, the Highpriest himself, for whom it was offered, did what follows.  
Shall take of the bullock's blood.] In a Basin.  
And bring it to the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] Into the very Sanctuary; where, as it follows, he was to dip his finger in the Blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Priest shall dip his finger in the blood.] Or rather, dip it into the blood.  
And sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD.] This was peculiar to his Sacrifice for Sin, and done in no other but that for the whole Congregation. To signify perhaps, that their Offences were more heinous, and could not be so easily expiated, as those of other Men. The number seven, every one knows, was of great account, and thought most powerful in Religious Actions, even among the Heathen. For as Elisha bade Naaman go and wash seven times in Jordan, to cure him of his Leprosy; so Apuleius in the beginning of the XIth Book of his Metamorphosis, speaks of dipping the head seven times in the Sea for Purification, and gives the reason for it; Quod eum numerum praecipuè religioni aptissimum divinus ille Pythagoras prodidit; because the Divine Pythagoras (as he calls him) taught this number to be above all other most proper in Religion. Which in all probability, Pythagoras learned from the truly Divine Moses: to whom God revealed the Creation of the World in six days, and his Consecrating the seventh day, on which he rested; which made the number seven so much used in Sacred Matters. For not only in this Sacrifice, but in making the Water of Separation by burning a red Heifer, this Rite was used, (XIX Numb. 4.) and in purging a Leper, (XIV Leu. 7.) in dedicating the Altar (XXIX Exod. 37.) when the Oil was sprinkled on it seven times, (VIII Leu. 11.) and at the Consecration of the Priests, (XXIX Exod. 35.) and, to say no more, as every seventh day of the Week was holy, so every seventh year the Land rested; and after Seven times seven there was a Jubilee, XXV Levit. They that would see more of this number, and of its Sacramenta, as St. Hierom speaks, may read him upon V Amos 3. and Drusius on this place, and on VI Josh. 4. And Wolfius upon Nehemiah VIII.  
Before the vail of the Sanctuary.] Which parted the holy place from the most holy. For that is peculiarly called by the name of Parocheths, which is the word here used (XXVI Exod. 31, 33, 35. XVI Leu. 2, etc.) as the other Veil, which was before the Door of the Tabernacle, is constantly called Masach, XXVI Exod. 36, 37.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the Priest shall put some of the Blood upon the horns of the Altar of sweet incense, etc.] This also was peculiar to his Sacrifice; and to that for the whole Congregation, v. 17.  
And shall pour out all the blood of the bullock.] That is, all the rest of the Blood which remained after the sprinkling before the Mercy-seat; and the tipping of the Horns of the Altar with it.  
At the bottom of the Altar of the burnt-offering.] Where, after the building of the Temple, there were two holes; one on the Westside of the Altar, the other on the South, (as the Jews tell us in Middoth, cap. 3. sect. 2.) by which it was conveyed into a Canal under Ground, through which it ran into the Brook Kidron. And there was only this difference (they say) about these two holes, that the Blood of the Sin-offering (any part of which was carried into the most holy place) was poured out only into that on the Westside of the Foundation of the Altar. And, if we may believe the Jews, the gardiner's bought this Blood of those that were the Treasurers of the Temple, to enrich their Ground with it, as Constantine l'Empereur there observes. And while they were in the Wilderness, and all the time they had only a movable Tabernacle, it is most likely there were Receptacles made under Ground, with Conveyances to some distant place, where it sank into the Earth, or was covered with Dust, as other Blood is commanded to be, XVII. 13. For Maimonides thinks the pouring out the Blood (so that it might not remain in one place) which is constantly and strictly required by the Law, was in opposition to an idolatrous Custom of the old Zabijs; who made a collection of the Blood in a Vessel, or in a little Pit, about which they sat, and eaten the Flesh, imagining their Gods feasted upon the Blood; as I noted before out of Maimonides, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.  
Which is at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] For there was the place of it, as hath been often observed XL Exod. 6.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin-offering, etc.] All that follows in this and the two next Verses, (v. 9, 10.) is the same that was ordered to be done about Peace-offerings, as appears from v. 10. See therefore the foregoing Chapter, v. 3, 4, 5.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, etc.] This Sacrifice was so laborious, to work in them a greater detestation of sin; which was aggravated by the quality of the Person that committed it. And Nachmanides hath an observation which (in some parts of it, at least) is very remarkable; That all a Man doth, being performed in Words, in Works, or Thoughts, God commanded them when they brought an Offering for Sin, that they should lay their hand on it, which had respect to the Works they had done; and make Confession over it, which had respect to their Words; and burn the Inwards and Kidneys, which are the Organs of Thoughts and Desires; the Legs also, had a respect to a Man's hands and feet, by which he doth all his work; and the Blood that was sprinkled on the Altar signified his own Blood. So that while a Man did all these things, he was put in mind how he had sinned against God, both in Soul and Body, and deserved to have his Blood shed and his Body burnt; unless the Mercy of the Creator had accepted a Price of Redemption for him, viz. a Sacrifice; whose Blood was for his Blood, and its Life for his Life; and the principal Members of the Sacrifice, for the Members of his Body. By which it appears that the best sort of Jews had a sense, that the Sacrifices for Sin were offered to God in their stead, as a Ransom for them. And so we Christians are to understand the Sacrifice which Christ made of himself, who gave himself a Ransom for us all, as the Apostle speaks I Tim. 2. 6. and our LORD saith the same XX Matth. 28. X Mark 45. Such Sacrifices the Heathens themselves had, which they called Lustralia, from the word lustrare, which signifies to expiate among the Romans; and that by paying a price. For the ancient Poet Ennius (as our excellent Mr. Thorndike hath observed) translating into Latin a Greek Tragedy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (being taken out of Homer, where he speaks of Priamus ransoming of Hector's Corpse from Achilles) entitled it Hectoris lustra; which shows this is the Latin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ransom, or redemption: and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the New Testament to deliver by paying a ransom. See his Epilogue, Book II. Chapt. 27.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the Camp.] It was not dissected, as the Peace-offerings were, because no Body was to partake of any part of it; being a Sacrifice for the Priests own sin. And therefore it was to be carried (though not by himself, but some other Person) to be burnt without the Camp, to express the abominabless of the Sin. This Rite, and the carrying the Blood within the Tabernacle, to be sprinkled before the LORD, were used only in these two Cases; of the Sin of the Highpriest, and of all the People. For of other Sin-offerings the Priests might eat, (VI 26.) but of this, being for himself, he was not to taste at all, because he was in a state of Gild.  
Into a clean place, where the ashes are poured out.] On the East-part of the Tabernacle there was a place for the Ashes to be thrown into, when they were taken from the Altar; which afterward were carried into a clean place, without the Camp. And so they were carried out, after the Temple was built at Jerusalem, at the East-gate of the City, into a Valley which lay between Jerusalem and Mount Olivet.  
And burn him on the wood with fire.] Not upon an Altar, but in a fire made with Wood upon the Ground, to show the odiousness of the sin, as Maimonides thinks. For as the whole Burnt-sacrifices were burnt on the Altar, because they were an Offering of sweet smelling savour unto God; so this was burnt without the Camp upon the Ground, to show that the odour of it was ungrateful and abominable; More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46. where he also observes, that the burning of the Beast entirely, being the destruction of it, so that nothing of it remained, it signified in like manner the utter deletion of Sin, so that it should be remembered no more. And the Bullock being burnt without the Camp, I take it to denote, that the People should not suffer for the sin of the Priest, which was abolished together with his Sacrifice.  
The same Maimonides hath another observation upon the Title Zebachim, that there were three places constituted for the burning of holy things. The first was in the Sanctuary, as every one knows; the second was in the Mount of the House, (as they called the place round about the Court of the Sanctuary) where if any blemish happened to a Bullock or a Goat, they were brought out of the Sanctuary, and burnt in a place called Bira: and the third was in this place of the Ashes, without the City.  
Where the ashes are poured out, there shall he be burnt.] This is repeated, that none might presume to take the liberty to burn the Bullock in any other place.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And if the whole Congregation of Israel sin through ignorance.] The Jews generally understood by the whole Congregation, the great Sanhedrim, who represented the whole People of Israel. So Maimonides in his More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 41. and in his Treatise of Sacrifices; and R. Levi of Barcelona, Precept. CXVIII. For they sometimes erred in Judgement; and thereby misleading the People, they were bound when they found their Error to offer this Sacrifice. Yet the Talmudists have raised many Disputes upon this Point, and made various Cases: in some of which the House of Judgement was bound to offer the Sacrifice here appointed, and not they who followed their Sentence: and others there were, in which they who followed their Sentence were bound, and not the Judges themselves. But if Moses his words be well considered, it will appear, that he speaks of a Sin committed by all the People, in doing something which God had forbidden; by making wrong Constructions of the Law, or by common false Opinions, or popular Customs. For the whole Congregation is here plainly distinguished from the Elders of the People, (v. 15.) which is certainly the name for their Judges and Governors. It was Mr. Selden's intention to have treated largely of the Sense and Notion of this Law, as appears by what he saith of it, L. II. de Synedriis, cap. 14. n. 4. where he refers his Reader to the third Book on that Subject, for an account of this place. In the beginning of which (cap. 1. n. 1.) he signifies his intention to explain what the Office of the Sanhedrim was, in offering Expiatory Sacrifices for the whole Congregation. Which he repeats again cap. 10. n. 1. with this addition, that they made this Sacrifice in the name of all the People, when they offended as a Community. But he did not live to pursue his intentions, being diverted by long Digressions about other Matters: yet he shows sufficiently his Opinion was, that this Sacrifice was not offered for the Sanhedrim, but by them for the People.  
And the thing be hid from the eyes of the Assembly.] They are not sensible of their mistake for the present; but afterward discover it, either by themselves or by their Rulers.  
And they have done somewhat against any of the Commandments of the LORD, concerning things which ought not be done.] Have offended against some of the negative Precepts (as the Jews speak) which forbidden such things to be done. See v. 2.  
And are guilty] Are sensible of their guilt.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 When the sin which they have sinned against it, is known.] When they have discovered what Precept they have violated.  
Then shall the Congregation offer a young bullock for the sin.] Without blemish, as was required for the Sin of the Highpriest, v. 3.  
And bring him before the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] i. e. Cause the Bullock to be brought thither, by some of his People, in the name of all the rest.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Elders of the Congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock, etc.] They were to do this, as Representatives of the People. See v. 13. and the end of laying on their hands, v. 4.  
And the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.] Either by some of them, or some of the People whom they appointed. See v. 4.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Priest that is anointed.] That is, the Highpriest: See v. 5. All the rest that follows to v. 22. is exactly the same that is prescribed in the foregoing Offering, for the Highpriest himself. Only R. Solomon Jarchi hath a nice observation on the next Verse, that it is not said in this case (as it is in the former) he shall sprinkle of the Blood seven times before the vail of the Sanctuary, but only before the vail; without the addition of hakkodesh, of the Sanctuary, as it is v. 6. Because, saith he, if the Highpriest only sin, the Holiness doth not departed: but if all the Congregation sin, than it doth departed. As if a Province rebel against a Prince, his Family stands; but if there be a general defection, he must fall. He hath the like observation upon v. 22, 23. but it seems too subtle: For in the 18th Verse Moses only saith, he shall put some of the Blood upon the horns of the Altar, without adding, of sweet incense, (as before v. 7.) and yet it is manifest he means the same Altar; and what was done in this Sacrifice was as acceptable as what was done in the other.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 When a Ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against, etc.] The word Nasi, which we translate Ruler, signifies the Head of a Tribe, in I Numb. 4.16. VII. 2. But the Jews commonly understand it peculiarly of the Head or Prince of the great Sanhedrim; who, when they were under the Government of Kings, was the King himself. Thus the Misna gathers from these words in the Text [when he sinneth against any of the Commandments of the LORD his God] which signify him, say the Doctors, that hath no Superior but the LORD. And so the Gemarists understand it also, as Mr. Selden shows L. II. de Synedriis, cap. 16. p. 666. But I think it is most reasonable to extend this to all great Officers and Judges, who had a peculiar relation to God; and therefore were called by his Name.  
Concerning things which should not be done.] See v. 2.  
And is guilty.] Acknowledges that he hath offended God by the Sin which he hath committed.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 Or if his sin wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge.] If we retain this Translation, (and do not render the first word and, but or) then the foregoing words in the latter end of v. 22. veashem, must be translated (not is guilty, but) and acknowledges his guilt. Which seems to be the true sense; for when Men sin they are guilty, though the sin was committed ignorantly; but they do not acknowledge their guilt till they see it; as Moses here supposes they might, when they considered better, or some Body informed them aright. So these words signify, or his sin is made known unto him. Thus L'Empereur very judiciously translates this whole passage, And he acknowledges himself guilty, or his sin be shown to him. Otherwise there is no room for this disjunctive Particle. See his Annot. upon Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 1. and cap. 9 sect. 4, 5. And thus we ourselves translate the first part of this disjunction (in the latter end of the foregoing Verse) V Hosea 15. acknowledge their offences.  
He shall bring his offering, a Kid of the Goats.] His Sacrifice was of less value than the two former. From which Mr. Selden concludes, that the Highpriest was not always the Head of the Sanhedrim, L. II. de Synedr. cap. 16. p. 653. For their Sacrifices were very different, which argues a difference in their Persons. And the Misna says, if the Highpriest were put out of his Office, his Sacrifice was still the same, viz. a Bullock without blemish: but it was not so with the Nasi or Ruler, who offered only the Sacrifice of a private Man, if he lost his Office.  
A male without blemish.] It was to be the best of this kind; though not equal to the Sacrifice for the Highpriest, and the whole Congregation. See v. 28.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the Goat.] Of this see v. 4.  
And kill it in the place where they kill the burnt-offering before the LORD.] Where that was see Chap. I. ver. 11. Neither of the two  Offerings (for the Highpriest, or the whole Congregation) are ordered to be killed here; but only before the LORD, v. 14, 15. that is, in any part of the Court but that which was proper to the Burnt-offering, and the common Sin-offering, as it here follows.  
It is a sin-offering.] And therefore was to be killed where the Burnt-offering was: for so it is ordained VI 25. that all Sin-offerings should be there slain. Which doth not imply that the two former were not Sin-offerings; but that they were not of the common sort; as appears by the carrying of their Blood into the Sanctuary, and burning their Flesh without the Camp; which are not ordered either in this, or in the following Sacrifices.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And the Priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger.] By dipping his finger into it, v. 6, 17.  
And put it upon the horns of the Altar of burnt-offering.] Whereas the Blood of the two former, was put upon the Horns of the golden Altar in the Sanctuary, v. 7, 18.  
And shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the Altar of burnt-offering.] See v. 18.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the Altar, etc.] See chap. III. 9 It is not here said what should be done with the Flesh; which in the two foregoing Offerings is ordered to be burnt without the Camp, (v. 12, 21.) But in chap. VI 26, 29. and XVIII Numb. 9, 10. the Law of the Sin-offerings is set down to be this, that the Priest and his Sons should eat it, in the Sanctuary, and no where else; provided also that they were free from uncleanness, XXII. 4.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, as concerning his sin.] By this Sacrifice his Gild was expiated; which must be understood to be the effect of the Sacrifice for the Highpriest; though it be not expressed, as it is in that for the whole Congregation, v. 20.  
And it shall be forgiven him.] So that he should not be liable to the Punishment of cutting off, as the Jews understand it; who fancy such sins to which that is threatened are here spoken of, See v. 1. Rather, he was restored to Communion with the People of God, from which he was separated while he remained in a known Gild.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance.] Commit the same Offence that a Ruler or public Officer doth.  
And be guilty; or if his sin which he hath committed come to his knowledge.] See how this aught to be translated, v. 22, 23.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 That he shall bring his offering, a Kid of the Goats, a female without blemish.] Being a common Person, less was required of him than of a Prince; who was to offer a Male, (v. 23.) which in all Creatures was of greater value than a Female, as Maimenides observes: who reckons up three and forty offences of this sort, that might be committed imprudently (in his Treatise called Schegagoth) in one of which, viz. worshipping an Idol ignorantly, the Sacrifice was the same for a private Man, as for the King, or the Highpriest, or the Priest anointed for War: But in all the other XLII. a female Goat or Lamb sufficed for a private Man, cap. 1. sect. 4. And this Sacrifice they call stated or fixed, because no Man offered more or less, whether Rich or Poor, Man or Woman; except only those who eat holy things, or entered into the Sanctuary; whose Sacrifices were higher or lower, as they speak. And there were three things, if we may believe them, which though committed by Error, were expiated by no Sacrifice, viz. Blasphemy, neglect of Circumcision, and not keeping the Passover. So R. Levi of Barcelona, Precept 119. Which seems to be an unreasonable Opinion, since Idolatry committed ignorantly, they say, was comprehended within this Law.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, etc.] This Verse and the following, with the beginning of v. 31. contain nothing but what was ordered about the foregoing Sacrifice, v. 24, 25, 26.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 And the Priest shall burn it upon the Altar, for a sweet savour unto the LORD.] This is a phrase used concerning Burnt-offerings, I. 9, 13. and Peace-offerings, III. 5, 16. but it is not said of any of the foregoing Sin-offerings, that the burning of them, or their Fat, was for a sweet savour unto the LORD. The reason of which I am not able to give, unless it were to comfort the lowest sort of People with hope of God's Mercy, though their Offering was mean, in comparison of those offered by others. Abarbanel gives this reason for it, because a Sin of Ignorance being a less Fault in a common Man, it was a sign of great probity in him to bring a Sacrifice for the Expiation of it: But for the Highpriest, or Senate, or Ruler of the People to be ignorant of the Law, was such a high Crime, that it was no commendation to them, to bring a Sacrifice for their Purgation.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And if he bring a Lamb for a sin-offering, etc.] For which reason God was pleased to accept a Lamb, and that a Female, of those who were not able to bring a young Kid.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and slay it, etc.] This and the next Verse differ not from the foregoing, and therefore need no Explication.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 And the Priest shall burn them upon the Altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD.] Or rather upon the Offerings, or after the Burnt-offering. See III. 5.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for his sin, etc.] And if by the same Error he had committed several sins, there was a distinct Atonement to be made for every one of them: So that if he had committed ignorantly the XLIII. Offences , though it were by one and the same Error, he was bound to offer as many expiatory Sacrifices, as Maimonides resolves in the forenamed Treatise Schegagoth, cap. 4. This, and such like things, made this Law a Yoke which they were not able to bear, as St. Peter speaks XV Acts 10.   

CHAP. V.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 IF a soul sin.] In the manner following.  
And hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness.] Being adjured in the Name of God, when he is called to be a Witness in a Cause, to speak the Truth. For Judges had this power, to use such Adjurations, that they might either draw a Confession from an accused Person, or a faithful Testimony from a Witness. Of the former of which there is a solemn Form remaining in Scripture, 1 Kings XXII. 16. 2 Chron. XVIII. 15. as Grotius hath observed upon XXVI Matth. 63. And Dr. Hammond, upon the same place, hath observed instances of the latter, 1 Kings VII. 31. XXIX Prov. 24. And Micah's Mother seems by her own Authority to have adjured her Family, as they dreaded the Vengeance of the Divine Majesty, to discover if they knew any thing of the Eleven hundred Shekels of Silver, which had been stolen from her, XVII Judg. 2. In all which Cases, Men were bound to answer, as much as if they had taken a solemn Oath so to do. Insomuch that our blessed LORD himself, being thus adjured, made an Answer to the Court of Judgement, though before he had stood silent.  
Whether he hath seen or known of it.] Whether he can say any thing of the Matter in question; either from his own Knowledge, or from the Information of credible Persons.  
If he do not utter it.] Declare what he knows, being thus adjured.  
Then he shall bear his iniquity.] Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the Truth, when he is so solemnly admonished to declare it; but offer such a Sacrifice for his sin, as is prescribed v. 1. which belongs to all the following Cases. The Jews make four sorts of Oaths, in their Courts, or commerce one with another; as Mr. Selden hath observed out of their Writers, (L. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 8.) which are, rash Oaths, vain Oaths, (of which they also make four sorts) Oaths about Trusts (mentioned VI 2, 3.) and this, which they call the Oath of Testimony; which they say every Man was bound to give before the Sanhedrim, when he was required. With this distinction between Capital and Pecuniary Causes, that in the latter a Man was not bound to come and testify, unless he was cited by the Plaintiff, or by the Court; but in Capital Causes, and in such things as the Law prohibited, (as if a Man saw another smite his Neighbour) he was bound to come of his own accord, without any Summons, and give his Testimony in Court. Yet in this they make some difference, as may be seen in R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CXX. They who would see more of these several sorts of Oaths among the Jews, may find them considered in Sam. Petitus his Var. Lectiones, cap. 16. And such a Law as this there was anciently in other Countries, that he who saw a Crime committed, if he could not hinder it, should be bound, at least, to prosecute the Malefactor. So the Egyptian Lawgiver saith concerning Theft, which a Man saw committed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to prosecute the Law against that Crime. So Plato uses the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, L. IU. de Legibus, saying, that he who knew of such a Fact, or had certain Information of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and doth not prosecute the Person that did it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be liable to the same punishment. See Henr. Stephanus his Praefat. ad Fontes Juris Civilis.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, etc.] The Hebrew Doctors expound this of such Persons, as having touched any of the unclean things, which are mentioned in this Verse, and in the next, came into the Sanctuary, or did eat of the holy things. Which they gather out of VII. 20, 21. and XIX Numb. 20. where cutting off is threatened to those, who knowingly were so guilty. For otherwise, it was sufficient for a Man's Expiation, who touched any unclean thing, to wash himself; and his uncleanness lasted only till the Evening. See Chap. XI. and Numb. XIX. But why may it not be meant of those, who neglected to wash themselves? Who were to expiate that neglect by a Sacrifice.  
He also shall be unclean and guilty.] Obliged to offer the Sacrifice prescribed (v. 6.) for eating that which is holy (saith Rasi) or coming into the Sanctuary.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, etc.] Such uncleannesses as are mentioned in the XIIth, XIIIth, and XVth Chapters of this Book.  
And if it be hid from him, when he knoweth of it, than he shall be guilty.] The words may be translated, Whether he did it ignorantly, or had some knowledge of it, and yet offended, he shall be obliged to offer the Sacrifice mentioned v. 6.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Or if a soul swear.] This the Hebrew Doctors expound of that sort of Oath, which they call futil or rash: when a Man saith he hath done, or will do or not do, a thing that is in his power to do.  
Pronouncing with his mouth.] It was to be uttered in words, and not merely thought in his mind.  
To do evil or good.] That he hath done a thing, or not done it, of whatsoever kind it be; or that he will, or will not do it. For these four kinds of Oaths, of this sort, the Hebrew Doctors make, two about things past; and two about things to come, (See Selden. de Synedr. L. II. cap. 11. n. 8.) As if he swear that he did eat, or he did not eat of such a meat; did talk, or not talk with Reuben or Simeon, etc. Rasi thinks by doing good, is meant something for his own advantage; and consequently by doing evil, we are to understand afflicting himself, or punishing his Servant, etc. But it may as well be understood generally of all things whatsoever, which are comprehended under the name of good and evil.  
And it be hid from him.] He did not rightly understand, or consider the thing about which he swore; whether it was in his power, for instance, to do what he swore he would do; or whether he could lawfully do it; or if through forgetfulness he omitted to do what he might have done. Some interpret these and the following words, as those of the foregoing Verse.  
He shall be guilty in one of these.] Obliged to offer a Sacrifice (as it follows v. 6.) if he have sworn rashly in any of the foregoing instances.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing.] When he laid his hand upon the Head of his Sacrifice, this Confession of his Offence, it is likely, was made; without which his Sacrifice would have been of no avail: So all the Hebrew Doctors understand it: Particularly Abarbanel, upon the XVIth Chapter of this Book, saith, That Confession was necessary to be added to every Sacrifice for sin. For what is here commanded in this Case, they resolve belongs to all Sin-offerings, and Trespass-offerings also. And indeed it was a Notion among the Heathen themselves, that an Offering without Prayer, was to no purpose: Quip victimas caedi sine precatione, non videtur refer, nec Deos ritè consuli, as Pliny speaks, L. XXVIII. Nat. Hist. cap. 2. and every one knows that Confession was a part of Prayer. See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis, L. I. cap. 15. n. 9  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the LORD.] There is a difference between a Sin-offering (called Chattah) and a Trespass-offering (called Ascham) as is plain in the latter part of this Chapter, compared with this. But here in this place, they are not distinguished, for the name of Trespass-offering is given to that, which was really a Sin-offering; as appears from the latter end of this Verse, and from the two next, where this Offering is expressly called a Sin-offering.  
For his sin which he hath sinned.] In any of the four  Cases; either by polluting the Sanctuary, or eating holy things, or a rash Oath, or by refusing to give his Testimony, being adjured by the Court of Judgement to do it. Thus R. Levi of Barcelona explains this, Precept. CXXI.  
A female from the flock, a Lamb or a Kid of the Goats for a sin-offering.] As the Hebrews call the Sin-offering mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, v. 27. a fixed Sacrifice; so they call this higher or lower, being brought according to every Man's Faculty or Ability; some more, some less, as the forenamed Author, and many other of their Doctors observe; and is plain of itself from the following Verses.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, concerning his sin.] By sprinkling the Blood, and burning the Fat of the Sacrifice, as is directed IV. 34, 35.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if he be not able to bring a Lamb.] See the mercy of God, saith the same R. Levi, who was pleased to exact such small Punishments for these Sins, because it was very easy for Men to fall into them. For we are more prone to offend in word, then in deed: and without great Caution it was scarce possible not to fall into such Legal Pollutions, as required this Expiation.  
Then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath committed, two Turtle Doves, or two young Pigeons, unto the LORD.] Who, though he would not exact an heavy Punishment of them for these Offences, yet would not suffer them to escape altogether unpunished; that they might not be presumptuous, but use due care and caution in their words and actions. So the same R. Levi represents the sense of this Law, as if the LORD had said, I would not have such things done; but if any Man by frailty commit them, let him repent with all his might, and set a guard upon himself; and let him offer a Sacrifice, which may imprint the remembrance of his Gild upon his heart; and preserve him that he may not hereafter offend.  
The one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.] First he was to have his Peace made with God, by a Sin-offering; and then his Burnt-offering, or his Gift, might be accepted, as Rasi observes; and is expressly ordered in the next Verse, The Priest shall offer that which is for the Sin-offering first.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And wring off his head from his neck, etc.] Or rather, nip it off with his Nail (as the Jews explain it, See I. 15.) so as not quite to separate it from the Body. For that had been to make the Sacrifice contemptible, (as R. Levi of Barcelona gives the reason of it, Precept. CXXVIII.) the Bird looking more handsome with its Neck still joined to the Body, than without it. And it was fit the Sacrifice of a poor Man should be as decent, as possible; it being sufficient he thus suffered, without increasing his Affliction by the mean and abject form of his Sacrifice.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the Sin-offering, etc.] Some of the Blood, which ran out of itself, as the Priest held it by the Neck, where he nipped it, he was to sprinkle upon the side of the Altar. And then he was to press out the rest of the Blood (when as much was run out, as would of itself, by that nip) at the bottom of the Altar; where they were wont to pour out the Blood of the Sin-offering, IV. 7, 18, 25, 34.  
It is a Sin-offering.] Therefore the Blood was there pressed out: whereas in Burnt-offerings of a Bird, we read only of pressing or squeezing out the Blood at the side of the Altar, I. 15. It is not said what was to be done with the Flesh; but it is plain from VI 26. that the Priest was to have it; the Blood only being offered to God.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the manner.] Prescribed in the first Chapter, v. 15.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, etc.] Some gather from hence that the Burnt-offering was also an Expiatory Sacrifice. But it is so plainly distinguished from it, that these words seem to me, to relate only to the foregoing Offering, v. 8, 9 Though this may be concluded from hence, that the Sin-offering was not accepted for his Expiation, unless this Burnt-offering followed, as a Thankful Acknowledgement made to God for his Goodness.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 But if he be not able to bring two turtle Doves, or two young Pigeons.] This was still a more merciful Provision for the Poor; who were not to be so ambitious of offering a Beast or a Bird, as not to content themselves with offering the smallest thing that God would accept. So R. Levi of Barcelona observes, that God having such Compassion on men's Poverty, it did not become them to strain themselves to offer more than they were able; for so they might have been tempted to stealth. Yet if after a Man had set aside a little Money to buy this quantity of fine Flour, his Estate was bettered, he was then bound (as Maimonides saith in the Treatise called Schegagoth) to add so much to it, as would buy the Birds before prescribed. And in like manner if he had designed to buy Birds, and on a sudden grew richer, he was to procure a Lamb or a Kid. On the contrary, if a Man had set apart Money to buy a Bullock for his Sin-offering, and unexpectedly grew poor, he might buy two Turtles or young Pigeons, and by them redeem his Money so consecrated, etc. cap. 10.  
Then he that hath sinned, shall bring for his offering a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, etc.] Neither more nor less; which was but a small quantity, (See XVI Exod. 36.) because God would not have his Creature oppressed, as the same Author observes, Precept. CXXIX.  
He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon.] In commiseration of his Poverty, God required only a little Flour, which every one might easily get to offer, without any Oil to it, which was more costly; and also had something of Magnificence in it, (Kings and Priests being anointed) and therefore not becoming the meanness, or the grief and humility of the Person that brought this Offering. For which reason Frankincense was also omitted, being a pleasant thing; and not fit to be added to an Offering for sin: which was offensive to God. To this purpose the same R. Levi, in the same place. And we find this imitated also by the Heathen; for Pliny saith, in his Preface to Vespasian before his Natural History, Mola tantum salsa litant, qui non habent thura.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 Then shall he bring it to the Priest.] Confessing his Sin to him (as is ordered v. 5.) for which he desired this Offering might be accepted.  
And the Priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof.] For an Acknowledgement of his Fault, and as a Caution to him hereafter.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, as touching the sin that he hath sinned, in one of these.] With one of these three  Sacrifices: either with a Lamb; or with two Turtles or young Pigeons; or with fine Flour. For as Rasi hath observed, there are three sorts of Men; Rich, Poor, and very Poor: and so three sort of Offerings are prescribed in this Chapter, suitable to each of their Abilities.  
And the remnant shall be the Priests, as a meat-offering.] See Chapter the second, v. 2, 3. where the whole Meat-offering (except one handful) is given to the Priest: who had nothing at all of some of the Sin-offerings, mentioned in the foregoing Chapter (v. 12, 21.) which were entirely consumed.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the LORD spoke unto Moses saying.] Here begin the Orders which were given to Moses, about another sort of Sacrifice, near of kin to the former: but delivered, it is likely, at some other time; after he had written down the foregoing Laws about Sin-offerings. See IV. 1.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 If a soul commit a trespass.] In the Hebrew this is a different phrase, from what hath been hitherto used, signifying another sort of Gild.  
And sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD.] By applying to his own private use any thing that was dedicated to God, (as Maimonides expounds it in his More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46.) which might be committed in the payment of Tithes, and in First-fruits, and the Firstborn of Cattle, or meddling with that part of the Sacrifice which belonged to the Priest alone. Which things he that committed presumptuously, was to be cut off, XV Numb. 30. but if ignorantly, he was to do as here is directed in this Verse. But these words seem to be particularly restrained to the last of those things now mentioned (eating any part of the Sacrifice which belonged to the Priest alone, XXII. 14.) and the end of this Law (as R. Levi Barcelonita speaks, Precept. CXXII.) was to excite fear and reverence in all those who approached unto holy things.  
Then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD, a Ram without blemish out of the flocks.] As a Sheep was a more noble Species among Creatures than a Goat; so a Ram was of a greater value among Sheep, than a Female: and therefore this Sacrifice was more costly than the Sin-offering mentioned v. 6.  
With thy estimation.] Besides his Sacrifice, he was to make Satisfaction in Money, according as the Priest should esteem the damage. For that's the meaning of with thy estimation; according to the value thou shalt set upon the thing, which he applied to his own use.  
By shekels of silver.] At least two Shekels, as the Jewish Doctors resolve.  
After the shekel of the Sanctuary.] See XXX Exod. 13. The Jews were thus confined to these Rites, and such as are mentioned v. 8, 9 in the rest of these Prescriptions, that there might be no room for Idolatrous Ceremonies; nor might Men among themselves be left at liberty to invent impious or frivolous ways of Worship: and that the Obedience of good Men might be also exercised in these minute matters; and the contempt of wicked People be the more apparent, in refusing to comply with these known Laws of God.  
For a trespass-offering.] The Hebrew word Ascham, which we translate Trespass-offering, is so near of kin to Chattah, which we translate Sin-offering, that one of them is sometimes used for the other, as I observed upon v. 6. yet there is a real difference between them; though it be not easy to determine wherein it consists. For the greatest Men differ in their opinion, about the quality of the Offences, for which these two kinds of Sacrifices were to be offered: Some saying that the Offences for which Ascham was offered, were inferior to those for which Chattah was offered; which is the Opinion of Maimonides in his More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46. Others, on the contrary, think that the Offences which were expiated by Ascham, were more grievous than those expiated by Chattah; which is the Opinion of no less Man than the deservedly admired Bochartus, in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. II. cap. 33. Where he adds, that the former sort of sins were committed knowingly; the other only ignorantly. For so the LXX. translate Chattah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which seems to denote a Fault committed by Error and Mistake: but Ascham by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which carries in it the Notion of something premeditated and designed. But this is directly contrary to the very words of Moses here in this Verse; which expressly speak of a Trespass committed through ignorance. Aben-Ezra therefore distinguishes these two much better, making Chattah to significe a Sacrifice which was made for the purging Offences, committed through ignorance of the Law: and Ascham, for such as were committed through forgetfulness of the Law. But as he gives no proof of this, so he was sensible, it was liable to exception; there being one of this sort of Sacrifices, mentioned v. 17. which he saw could not be comprehended under this Rule. Others therefore think the former hath respect to Offences against God; and the latter to those against Men; not observing that the very same sort of sin, which when it was known is called Chattah, when it was doubtful, is called Ascham. From whence a very learned Person of our own, (now with God) who had much and long considered this matter, concludes, That an Offence was peculiarly called Ascham, (which is a name for the Sin as well as for the Sacrifice, as Chattah also is) about which either a Man was dubious (as in the following Verse) or did a manifest damage to other Men. There being no Ascham (or Trespass-offering) commanded to be offered by the Law, but for such Offences as were so committed against God, that their Neighbours also were injured by them. As in the Case of those who did eat holy things, here mentioned, whereby the Priests were damaged: and of those mentioned VI 2, 3, 4. and such as lay with a Bondwoman betrothed to another, XIX. 20, 21. Which are all the Cases belonging to this matter; excepting that of the Nazarite defiled by the dead, VI Numb. 12. and of the Leper, XIV. 12. who were to be purged with a Sin-offering, as well as with a Trespass-offering: and therefore not to be considered in this matter. See Dr. Owtram, L. I. de Sacrificiis, cap. 13. n. 8. and Samuel Petitus his Variae Lectiones, cap. 22. who hath said the same, but not so fully and distinctly. If this do not satisfy, yet it is plain the Sacrifices which go by this Name of Trespass-offerings, and the Rites also about them, were so different, that they are sufficient to distinguish them from the other. For none but Rams and Male-Lambs were admitted for Trespass-offerings; which were not used at all, in any Sin-offerings. And the Blood of the Sin-offerings was put upon the Horns of the Altar (as was noted in the foregoing Chapter, v. 7, 18, 25.) but that of the Trespass-offerings was sprinkled round about upon the Altar, VII. 2. Sin-offerings also were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel, IV. 13. but Trespass-offerings only for private Persons, which made Bonsrerius (I suppose) after a long discussion of this matter, to conclude, That the difference between Sin and Trespass, consisted only in the Sacrifices which were offered for them. See him upon the IVth Chapter of this Book, v. 1.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he shall make amends for the harm he hath done in holy things, and shall add a fifth part thereunto, etc.] Besides the Compensation mentioned in the foregoing Verse, for the damage that was done, according to the valuation made by the Priest, there was a fifth part more to be added thereunto, and given to the Priest who had suffered the damage.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the trespass-offering, and it shall be forgiven him.] The Atonement was not made, nor Forgiveness obtained, till full Satisfaction for the wrong had been made.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things, etc.] i. e. did eat any of the holy things ; which God forbade any but the Priests to eat.  
Though he witted it not.] i. e. Be not certain whether they were holy or no. For the Hebrews generally call this Ascham Talui, a dubious Trespass-offering: being in a matter about which a Man was in Suspense, whether he had offended or not.  
Yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.] He shall be obliged to offer this sort of Sacrifice. Which was ordained (saith R. Levi Barcelon. Precept. CXXIII.) to make Men cautious, and fear to sin; and to attend diligently in all their Actions, that they transgressed not the Laws of God.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he shall bring a Ram without blemish, out of the flock, with thy estimation, etc.] The Offering before appointed, v. 15, etc. with this difference only, that no fifth part was in this Case to be added; because it was not certain whether he had transgressed or no.  
The Priest shall make an atonement for him, concerning his ignorance wherein he erred, and witted it not.] Did not know whether he had offended or not: which distinguishes this from the Sin of Ignorance mentioned v. 15.  
And it shall be forgiven him.] But if he afterwards came to have a certain knowledge of his Offence, he was not excused by this dubious Offering (as Rasi observes) but was bound also to offer a Sin-offering.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 It is a trespass-offering.] In this case a Sacrifice must be offered, as well as in a certain Trespass.  
He hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.] The words in the Hebrew are, Ascham ascham lajhova; which, I think, should be translated, A Trespass-offering certainly unto the LORD. That is, in this doubtful case, let him take a sure course, by offering the Sacrifice here prescribed. For though neither this sort of Sacrifices, nor Sin-offerings, were to be voluntarily (which was proper only to whole Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings) yet the very suspicion of a Gild required a Sacrifice. As for all those Offences which might be committed by Men, who had no sense nor suspicion of them, they were expiated by the Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation, at certain stated times: but no particular Person was to offer either Sin-offering, or Trespass-offering of his own accord; unless he knew or feared he had contracted some Gild.  
I cannot think fit to conclude this Chapter, without taking notice how Jonathan paraphrases these last words of it; who instead of saying, he hath trespassed (as it is commonly translated) against the LORD, saith against the Name of the Word of the LORD. Which is an observation that might have been made in my Notes upon the two foregoing Books of Moses; where many such passages occur, which I did not mention. And I should not have done it now (being unwilling to swell this Commentary with any thing that doth not tend to the explaining the sense of the Text) did not the impious Pamphlets that have lately been spread abroad, against the Doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity, made it necessary for me to take this occasion to assert, That this Doctrine was not unknown to the ancient Jews; as appears even from the frequent mention of the Word of the LORD in the Chaldee Paraphrasts, where the Hebrew hath only JEHOVAH (or the LORD): For which I can see no reason at all, if there had not been a Notion among them, of more Persons than One, who were JEHOVAH. It doth not always indeed carry this signification in it; but there are very many places where, by the WORD of the LORD, cannot be meant a word spoken by the LORD, or any thing else, but a person speaking or acting, etc. who is the LORD. There is a famous instance of it in XXVIII Gen. 20, 21. where Jacob's Vow is thus translated by Onkelos: Jacob vowed a vow, saying, if the WORD of the LORD will be with me, and keep me, etc. then shall the WORD of the LORD be my God. Where the WORD of the LORD is so plainly made the Object of his Adoration, that it evidently shows, they had a Notion in those days when Onkelos lived (which was about our Saviour's time) of more Persons than One, who was the LORD. The Jerusalem Targum also speaks this so clearly, that one cannot but be something amazed to meet with such Expressions in it, as those upon III Gen. 22. The WORD of the LORD said, Behold, Adam, whom I have created, is my only begotten in this World; as I am the only begotten in the Heavens above. Which may fairly induce a belief, that St. John used the known Language of those times, when he declared our blessed Saviour's Godhead, under the Name of the WORD; who was in the beginning with God, and was God, I Joh. 1.   

CHAP. VI  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] What here follows belonging unto the same matter, with that which went before, it is likely was spoken at the same time. And these words signify, that the LORD further spoke unto Moses, what concerned Trespass-offerings.  
Ver. 2. If a soul sin, and commit a trespass.] The same sort of expression is used in the beginning of this Law, concerning the Offerings, V 15. Which some translate prevaricate, or act insincerely.  
Against the LORD.] The Sovereign of the World; who was peculiarly affronted by the following Sins; especially by swearing falsely, which was calling him to bear witness to a lie.  
And lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep.] Deny the Trust which was committed to him; and that when he was brought upon his Oath to deliver the Truth, as appears by the next Verse. For this is the instance of that sort of Oath, which the Jews call, The Oath about a thing deposited, (See V. 1.) For there being no witness of what was done between two Friends or Neighbours, who trusted one another in such matters, but God alone; they appealed unto him, from whom Nothing could be hid. And this Oath, the Jews say, was governed by another, which they call The Oath of Testimony: which a Man was not bound to give, unless he were adjured to it by the Court of Judgement: and so it was in the Oath about the things deposited; he was not guilty who was adjured by private Persons, and denied it; but he that denied it before the Court. So they resolve in Halicah Olam, Pars IU. cap. 2.  
Or in fellowship.] To carry on a common Trade, in joint-stock; or (as others understand it) in any thing for which he gave his hand unto another: for so the Hebrew words are, putting of the hand, as Contracts were ofttimes made: Which if a Man afterwards denied, he fell under the guilt here mentioned. And there is some reason to think, that this is much of the same nature with the former; because, when he speaks of Restitution, v. 4. this is not repeated. And therefore it seems to be included in that which was deposited with another: whether it were Money, called here Pikkadon; or any other Goods, called Tesumah jad. They that would see more Opinions about these words putting of the hand, may consult Const. l'Empereur in his Annotations on Bava kama, cap. 9 sect. 7.  
Or, in a thing taken away by violence.] That is, by Robbery, or Stealth; as the word gazel signifies. For Theft not being punished among the Jews with death, they tendered an Oath to those who were accused, or suspected of it, to clear themselves from the imputation, XXII Exod. 11.  
Or hath deceived his neighbour.] Wronged him by false Accusation, as the Hebrew word Hoschok seems to import. Which St. Hierom always translates Calumny; as the word Haschak he translates to calumniate. It signifies also extortion; and Rasi takes it for defrauding an Hireling of his Wages.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it.] Deny that he found a thing lost; which in truth came to his hand.  
And sweareth falsely.] They put Men to their Oath in this case also, when there was a just cause of suspicion; as they did in matters of Theft.  
In any of all these.] In any of these sorts of things; as the Hebrew may be translated.  
That a man doth.] Wherein one Man dealeth with another: or which frequently happen, as Grotius thinks this phrase signifies, in his Annotations upon 1 Corinth. X. 13.  
Sinning therein.] By these means contracting a guilt.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned and is guilty.] The last words should rather be translated, and acknowledges his guilt. For so this word Ascham, guilty, aught to be expounded, as I showed IV. 22, 23. to make a clear sense of the Law there mentioned. And it would otherwise be superfluous here: for when a Man had sinned so grievously as the foregoing Verses suppose, who could doubt of his guilt? The true meaning therefore is, when he hath sinned (so the first words may be translated) by committing any of those things , and acknowledges his guilt, he shall restore that which he took away violently, etc. And this most plainly reconciles the contradiction, that otherwise would be between this Law and that in XXII Exod. 1, 7, 9 Where a Man that stole an Ox, is condemned to restore five Oxen; and four Sheep for one; and if he delivered Money to another to keep, and it was stolen, the Thief was to pay double: whereas, here one simple Restitution is exacted, with the addition of a fifth part. The reason is, because in Exodus he speaks of those Thiefs who were convicted by Witnesses in a Course of Law; and then condemned to make such great Restitution: but here, of such as touched with a sense of their sin, came voluntarily and acknowledged their Theft, or other Crime, of which no Body convicted them, or at least confessed it freely when they were adjured; and therefore were condemned to suffer a lesser Punishment, and to expiate their Gild by a Sacrifice. See L'Empereur upon Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 1. and cap. 9 sect. 1, 5, 7. Where he observes very judiciously, that this Interpretation is confirmed by V Numb. 7. where the first words may be translated, If they shall confess their sin that they have done, etc. And this seems to me more reasonable than the account which Maimonides gives of this matter, in his More Nevochim, P. III. c. 41. where expounding these words, which he took violently, of an open Robber; he gives these Reasons why he was not punished so much as a Thief, but restored only the Principal with a fifth part: because Rapine happens seldom, but Theft often; for it cannot be committed so easily as Theft; and is done openly and manifestly, whereas Theft is committed more secretly: so that a Man may be ware (he imagines) of a Robber, and defend his Goods against him, better than against a secret Thief. Yet this is better than the account of R. Johannes f. Zachei (mentioned by J. Coach upon the Gemara of the Sanhedrim, cap. 7. p. 271.) that a mere Thief fears Man more than God; but a Robber fears both alike.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 Of all that about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in the principal.] The same numerical thing which he took away, if it still remain in his possession unalter'd; or else the just price of it: as R. Levi Barzelonita expounds it, Precept. CXXV. And the Jews pretend to such scrupulosity in this matter, that they say, a Man who was to have a share in his Father's Estate, from whom he had taken something by robbery, was to restore it before the Division was made, and not by detaining it to make his share greater than it ought to be. See Bava kama, cap. 9 sect. 9  
And shall add the fifth part more thereto.] The Jews have many subtleties about this, as may be seen there sect. 6, 7. The plain sense is, that he should compensate the loss which the right Owner might have sustained (by wanting the use of his Goods so long as the other had detained them in his hand) by adding a full fifth part of the Principal, as an amends for the wrong. Yet if he had really forgotten that he had found such a thing as he was charged withal, at the time he denied it upon Oath, he was not bound to pay the fifth part more, nor to offer the Expiatory Sacrifice, though he really was possessed of the thing; as Mr. Selden observes L. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. p. 506.  
And give it unto him to whom it appertaineth.] If he had stolen from a Man the smallest piece of Money, which the Jews call Peruta, and had forsworn it, they fancy he was bound to restore it to the Owner himself; though he lived as far off as Media: and it would not suffice to give it to his Son or his Attorney, whom he had left to act for him. Yet they are something humorsom in these Absurdities, for they do not tie a Man to go so far to pay the fifth part; though in a case where it was more than a Peruta. See Bava kama, cap. 9 sect. 5, 6.  
In the day of his trespass-offering.] Or, in the day of his trespass; that is, as soon as he acknowledgeth his guilt, as this word I showed, v. 4. is to be interpreted. And this agrees with what our blessed Saviour requires V Matth. 23.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the LORD, a Ram without a blemish.] This the Hebrews call an Offering for a certain guilt; as that V 15. was for a dubious.  
With thy estimation, etc.] R. Levi Barzelon. interprets it a Ram worth two Shekels, Precept. CXXIV.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, etc.] The Offender was not to think he was cleared, by making Restitution, and adding the fifth part, whereby his Neighbour might well be satisfied: but withal, this Sacrifice was necessary for his Expiation, without which no Satisfaction was made to the Divine Majesty. The Jews themselves also think that this was prescribed, to make them more sensible of their Sin, and to render it more odious unto them; as the same Author observes.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Here the Hebrews begin a new Section of the Law, as well as a new Chapter (as we call it) for the first seven Verses plainly belong to the Matter of the foregoing Chapter. And it is reasonable to think that the following Precepts were given at a distinct time from the former, (See IU. 1.) being about a different Matter. For having declared what Offerings the People should bring to the LORD, he now gives instructions to the Priests, how they should manage the several Offerings that were brought.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 Command Aaron and his sons, saying.] As before he bade Moses speak unto the Children of Israel, I Leu. 2. iv 2. because the Laws he then gave concerned them: So now he bids him command Aaron and his sons what to do; and acquaints them with the Laws, that is, the Rites they should observe in offering the several Sacrifices before directed to be made.  
This is the Law of the burnt-offering.] He mentions that first, which was first delivered, and was the principal Offering, being purely in honour of God; whereas the other was occasioned by men's sins, or the Benefits he had bestowed on them.  
It is the burnt-offering.] He explains what Burnt-offering he chief means, viz. the daily Sacrifice: which was the principal Burnt-offering, according to which all other Offerings of that kind were to be regulated.  
Because of the burning upon the Altar all night unto the morning.] Or, for the burning upon the Altar, etc. This was the reason of its name, because it was burning on the Altar from the Evening (at which the Jews began their day) till the Morning. For which purpose the Priests watched all Night, and put the Sacrifice upon the Altar piece by piece; that it might be consumed by a slow and gentle fire. As for the Morning Sacrifice, it is not here mentioned, because it was consumed with a quicker fire; that there might be room for other Sacrifices that were commonly offered after it (as appears from v. 12.) and were only offered in the Morning, not at Night. But if there were no other Sacrifices to succeed it in the Morning, then, it is very likely, that it was also kept burning till the Evening Sacrifice; that God's Altar might always have Meat upon it.  
And the fire of the Altar shall be burning in it.] Or, For the fire of the Altar, etc. So it should be translated: unless we translate the last word not in it, but by it. And the fire of the Altar shall be burning (i.e. be fed or maintained) by it.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the Priest shall put on his linen garment.] Mentioned XXVIII Exod. 40.  
And his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh.] To cover his Secret Parts, as appears from XXVIII Exod. 42.  
And take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt-offering, etc.] Or rather, When the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the Altar. For the word ascher, which we here translate which, signifies also when; and is so translated by us, IV. 22. Or else the sense must be, The ashes into which the fire hath consumed the Burnt-offering. Or, to make good our present translation, a few words must be added, in this manner, The ashes (of the Wood) which the fire hath consumed with the Burnt-offering.  
And he shall put them besides the Altar.] On the East-part of it, as far, as might be, from the most holy place. See I 16. For this was most suitable to the Glory of the House of God (saith R. Levi of Barcelona) and the fire would burn better, when the Altar was cleared from the Ashes.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And he shall put off his garments.] Those beforenamed, and put on other garments. It is a question among the Jews, whether he mean his common Raiment; or some other Garments, not holy, and yet not quite common, but of a middle nature. It is most likely that the carrying the Ashes out of the Tabernacle, being not an holy action, as they were not to perform it in their Priestly, i. e. Sacred Garments, wherein they took them from the Altar; so they did it in the common Habit, which they wore when they did not minister. Yet Rasi thinks this was not absolutely necessary, but only fitting and seemly: it being indecent to do this Work in the same Garments, wherein they served at the Altar. And the Ashes having been upon the Altar, there are those (as I said) who fancy this was not a Work fit to be performed in their common Garments; and therefore have devised an Habit of less dignity than those Garments wherein they Ministered, which they used when they carried out the Ashes. Thus Maimonides himself, and others, mentioned by Mr. Selden, L. III. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 6. where he likewise observes that Chiskuni is of opinion, that such of the Family of the Priests, as were both excluded from their Ministry in the Sanctuary, and from wearing the holy Garments, by reason of some defect in their Bodies, were permitted to perform this Office of carrying away the Ashes.  
And carry forth the Ashes without the Camp, into a clean place.] See IV. 12. The  Rasi will have it, that they needed not to take away all the Ashes every day; but only a shovel full, which they laid beside the Altar: And when the hollow place of the Altar was so full, that there was no room to lay on the Wood, they were bound to empty it, and carry all the Ashes away.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And the fire upon the Altar shall be burning in it, it shall not be put out.] This Precept is repeated again in the next Verse; as it was mentioned once before, v. 9 For which there is a just reason, as Abarbanel makes account. For in the ninth Verse he requires that the Wood for the Evening Sacrifice should be so ordered and attended, that the fire might be kept in till the Morning. And then, here in this Verse, he requires there should such care be used in taking away the Ashes, that the fire might still remain, and not be extinguished. After which, speaking of the Morning Sacrifice, in the latter part of this Verse, he requires in the next (v. 13.) that such a quantity of Wood should be laid on the Altar, when they offered it, that the fire might be kept in till the Evening Sacrifice: or, that if there were any extraordinary Sacrifices brought besides the daily Burnt-offering, the Priests should still add more Wood, that the fire might not be put out by that means, but be able to devour them.  
And the Priest shall burn wood on it every morning, etc.] The Hebrew word for Wood being in the Plural Number, R. Levi of Barcelona concludes there were more bundles than one brought in every day. And from this place (and I 7.) he gathers there were three. The first of which he calls the great heap; with which the daily Sacrifice, and the rest, for which there was occasion, were offered: of which he thinks Moses speaks in the ninth Verse of this Chapter. The second was lesser, which was laid at the side of the other, that they might have Coals for the burning Incense: and this, he thinks, intended here. And the third was merely to keep in the fire perpetually, of which, he thinks, Moses speaks in the next Verse. The Misna also tells us, that there being seven Gates to the great Court of the Sanctuary, three on the North, and as many on the South, and one at the East; the first on the Southside was called the Gate of burning: because, at that Gate they brought in the Wood, which was to preserve the fire perpetually on the Altar: See Codex Middoth, cap. 1. sect. 4.  
And he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings.] This fat of the Peace-offerings, was to be burnt together with the Burnt-offering, and not separate from it: by which means the Burnt-offering was the sooner consumed, and more room was made for other occasional Sacrifices.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the fire shall be ever burning upon the Altar.] This fire was not kindled by the Priests, but by God himself; who sent it from Heaven to consume the first Sacrifice that was offered by Aaron, IX. ult. From which time they were bound to take care, that it never went out; that so their Sacrifices might be constantly offered by Celestial fire: because it was the continuation of that fire which came from Heaven, by a continual addition of Fuel, whereby it was preserved. And so it continued, as the Jews affirm, till the Captivity of Babylon; and after it, as some of them would have us believe, (who fancy it was preserved in a Pit, by the care of some religious Priests, till their return) though against the common Tradition among them, which is, That there was no sacred fire in the second Temple; for they reckon this among the five things which were wanting there, and had been in the first. And as for the constant continuance of this fire, there was care taken that wood should be laid up in the Temple for the maintenance of it: so in order thereunto, there was a certain set time, when the People were obliged to carry wood thither; which made a kind of Festival, called by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, L. II. de Bello Judaico, cap. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. it being the Feast of the Wood-carrying; when it was the custom for all to bring up Wood for the Altar: that there might be no want of Fuel for the fire, which was never to go out.  
It shall never go out.] This was a thing so famous, that it was imitated among the Gentiles; who thought it ominous to have their Sacred fire go out: and therefore appointed Persons on purpose to watch it, and keep it perpetually burning, as appears by the Vestal Virgins at Rome, whose great business it was to look after the Eternal fire, as they called it; imagining the extinction of it purported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the destruction of the City, as Dionysius Halicarn. speaks. This Institution is ascribed both by him and by Plutarch unto Romulus; into whose History many things were translated by the ancient Pagans, out of these Sacred Records of Moses: as the Learned Huetius hath made probable in his Demonstratio Evangel. Propos. IV. cap. 9 n. 8. The Greeks also preserved such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inextinguishable fire at Delft; and the Persians in like manner, and many other People, as Bochartus hath shown in his Hierozoicon, P. I. L. II. cap. 35. and Dilheirus before him in a special Dissertation (as he calls it) the Catozelia Gentilium, cap. 11. where he hath heaped up a great deal to this purpose: and among other things, hath this conjecture, that the Grecian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Roman Vesta, had their Names from the Hebrew word Esch, or the Chaldean Escha, which signify fire. The conjecture of David Chytraeus also is no less ingenious, who derives those Names from Eschgal, the fire of the LORD.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And this is the law of the meat-offering.] He doth not speak of the Offerings which accompanied the daily Burnt-offerings, but of those which were offered alone, mentioned in the second Chapter. Where directions are given of what they should consist; and also how much the Priest should have for his portion: but here are some things added concerning the place where they should be eaten by the Priests; and concerning those Meat-offerings, which were peculiarly to be offered for themselves.  
The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the Altar.] Or rather, upon the Altar: for so the Hebrew phrase [on the face of the Altar] signifies. Or else, the meaning is, he shall present it to the LORD before the Altar; and then afterward (as is directed in the next Verse) burn an handful of it upon the Altar. And so the Rule is, Chapter second, v. 8, 9 When it is presented to the Priest, he shall bring it to the Altar, etc.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat-offering, etc.] According to the prescription in the second Chapter, v. 2. where all this Verse is explained.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat.] If they had no pollution upon them, XXII. 6. See Chapt. II. 3. The reason of the Precept was (as R. Levi Barcel. observes, Precept. CXXXIII.) that it preserved the dignity of the Sacrifice, to have it eaten only by the Priests: and by them (I may add) only in the holy place, and not carried out from thence, as it here follows.  
With unleavened bread shall it be eaten.] There is nothing in the Hebrew Text to answer unto the word with; which makes the sense unaccountable, that otherwise is easy and natural. If we translate it, as the Hebrew words plainly signify, unleavened it shall be eaten. See X. 12.  
In the holy place.] There was a room in the Court of the Priests, where they eaten these holy things, as Kimchi observes upon XLII Ezek. Which may be confirmed out of XVIII Numb. 10. where the most holy place can signify nothing, but the Court of the Priests, as L'Empereur rightly understands it, in his Annot. upon Middoth, cap. 2. sect. 6.  
In the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, they shall eat it.] As the Priests did eat it in their own Court, so their Male-childrens had a place in the Court of the Israelites, wherein to eat it, X. 12, 13. And they are all said to eat before the LORD, because this was a part of the Tabernacle: as was also the Court of the Women; where there was a place for the Priest's Daughters to eat, as well as their Sons, of the Firstlings that were offered to the LORD, XVIII Numb. 19  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 It shall not be baken with leaven.] There were two little rooms, at the East-gate of the Court of the Temple, called The Gate of Nicanor; one of which was a Vestry, for the Priests to put on their Garments, when they went to Minister; and the other was for baking this flour, and that mentioned v. 21. So they tell us in Middoth, cap. 1. sect. 4. And therefore it is ordered to be baken without leaven, because it was a part of the LORD's Sacrifice: which being offered unleavened (Chapt. second, v. 11.) the remainder must needs be unleavened also, because the whole was God's; and the Priests could have it no other ways, than it was offered unto him.  
I have given it to them for their portion of my offerings made by fire.] That is, of the Meat-offerings .  
It is most holy, etc.] This is the reason why it was not to be carried, to be eaten out of the holy place. See Chapt. second, v. 10.  
As is the sin-offering, and as the trespass-offering.] See v. 26. and VII. 6.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it.] And none but they, because it was a thing most holy.  
It shall be a statute for ever in your generations.] That is, as long as the Law about Sacrifices shall last.  
Every one that toucheth them shall be holy.] According to this translation of these words, the meaning is, That it was not sufficient, to be descended of Priests, and to be Males, but they were also to be free from any legal defilement, who were admitted to eat of this Offering, XXII. 6. But these very words, which we here translate every one, in the 27th Verse we translate whatsoever: and then the meaning is, Every thing that toucheth them shall be made holy by them. That is, the very Dishes into which such holy things were put, or the Spoons, or Knives, wherewith they were eaten, were never to be employed to any other use. See XXIX Exod. 37.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] At the same time the LORD gave direction about another Offering, near of kin to the former; but not yet mentioned.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD.] The Jews call this a Mincah of imitation; which every Highpriest, and every other Priest (as they understand it) were bound to offer, when they were Consecrated; and the Highpriest to continue every day, as long as he lived. So Abarbanel in his Preface to this Book, (Section 2.) reckoning the various sorts of Meat-offerings, makes this the fourth kind; which the Highpriest offered every day, and every other Priest once in his Life, viz. when he first was admitted to Minister at the Altar, at the Age of twenty years. For both these Meat-offerings, saith he, are comprehended in this Verse. But it may as well be understood only of Aaron and his Successors in the Priesthood, of whom the following words seem to speak, and not of the common Priests.  
In the day when he is anointed.] The Hebrew word bejom may be translated from the day: and so the Jews understand it, that he was to make this Oblation, not only upon the day of his Consecration, but ever after, (as I said) every day as long as he continued in the Priesthood. And so the next words seem to explain it.  
The tenth part of an Ephah of fine flour, for a meat-offering perpetual; half thereof in the morning, and half at night.] The Highpriest, saith Josephus, L. III. Antiq. cap. 10. sacrificed twice every day, at his own charges: and then he describes this very Offering, which was distinct from that which attended the daily Burnt-offering; as appears by the quantity of this Meat-offering, and by the manner of ordering it. For that seems to have been raw Flower, mixed with Oil; but this baken, as it follows in the next Verse. See XXIX Exod. 40, 41. The reason why it is here mentioned is, because it was a Mincah (or Meat-offering) of whose Rites Moses is treating; and this is an Exception from the rest.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 In a pan shall it be made with Oil.] With three logs of Oil; as the Jews determine.  
And when it is baken.] See v. 17.  
Thou shalt bring it in.] Unto the Altar.  
And the baken pieces shalt thou offer, etc.] If it was a Meat-offering of the Highpriest, it was divided into XII pieces, (as Maimonides saith) if of a common Priest (for they will have both to be included in this Law) then into X pieces; which were so exactly divided, that half of them were offered in the Morning, and the other half in the Evening. And the handful of Frankincense (which they say was offered with them) was in like manner divided, and burnt on the Altar, Maase Korban, cap. 13.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And the Priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead, shall offer it.] What he had said of Aaron and his Sons in general, (v. 20.) he now particularly requires of every Son of his, that should succeed him in his office. For which there was the greater necessity, because (as R. Levi of Barcelona understands it, Precept. CXXXIV.) the Highpriest was an Ambassador between the Israelites and their Heavenly Father, (by whom their Prayers were offered to God, and who made Reconciliation for them) and therefore should be bound, in all reason, to offer a perpetual Sacrifice twice every day, for the constant needs of the Congregation; and to apply his Mind to this, (as he speaks) that he and they might be the better for it.  
It is a Statute for ever unto the LORD.] As long as that Priesthood continued.  
It shall be wholly burnt.] In which it differed from other Meat-offerings, as will appear in the next Verse.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 For every meat-offering for the Priest.] Or of the Priest. This may seem to relate to every common Priest; who were not all bound to offer this Sacrifice every day, but only he who did it in the name of all the rest, viz. the Priest who offered the daily Burnt-Sacrifice. He may be well thought to have been obliged to this; by which means this Meat-offering was offered to God every day, by one or other of them, and never omitted. But Abarbanel, (as I noted before v. 20.) thinks that only the Highpriest was bound to offer this Meat-offering every day; and every other Priest once in his Life, viz. when he began his Ministry.  
Shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.] The Priests had all the Meat-offerings which were brought by the People, except one handful which was offered to the LORD. See Chapt. second, v. 2, 3. But of their own Meat-offerings they were not to taste, but wholly burnt them on the Altar. For it had not been seemly for him both to offer unto God, and to eat of it as if it were his own; as Maimonides speaks, P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 46. or, as R. Levi Barcelonita gives the reason (Precept. CXLI.) the scope of the Sacrifice being to raise the Mind of him that offered it unto God, it was not fit he should think of eating any part of his own Offering; which would have taken his Mind off from God.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] He added further several things, concerning other Offerings; which perhaps were delivered at the same time with the foregoing; being still concerning the Priests, (See v. 8, 9) And therefore the next Verse gins thus, Speak unto Aaron and his sons, saying.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 This is the Law of the sin-offering.] That is, for particular Persons: that for the Priests themselves being governed by another Law. For it is plain that in the IVth Chapter he distinguishes the Sin-offerings into two kinds: one, whose Blood was carried into the Sanctuary, and the Flesh of it burned entirely without the Camp, (v. 7, 8, etc. and here v. 30.) and another, whose Blood was not carried into the Sanctuary; the Flesh of which the Priests were to eat, as is here directed.  
In the place where the burnt-offering is killed, shall the sin-offering be killed before the LORD.] See IV. 24, 29, 31.  
It is most holy.] This is the reason of what follows, that none might eat of it, but those who were holy to the LORD.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 The Priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it.] The Flesh of this Sin-offering fell to the share of him, who offered the Sacrifice that day; and to his Male-childrens: though he might invite any other Priests, and their Sons to partake with him, if he pleased; as appears from v. 29. I need not add that the Immurim, as the Hebrews call them, were excepted: that is, the Fat, etc. mentioned III. 9, 10. iv 26. which were to be wholly burnt upon the Altar.  
In the holy place shall it be eaten, etc.] See v. 16. For it being mostly holy (as the words are in the conclusion of the foregoing Verse) it was to be eaten in the holy place: and that, the same day and night when it it was offered; and none of it to be kept till the morning. Whereas some of their Peace-offerings (which they called the lighter holy things) might be eaten the next day, VII. 16. See Maimonides More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46. This seems to have been imitated by the Heathen, who required that their most holy Sacrifices should not be carried out of the Temple; as the Scholiast upon Aristophanes his Equites observes concerning the Sacrifices offered to Ceres and Proserpina, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 Whosoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy.] See v. 18.  
And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment.] This is commonly understood of the Priest's Garment, who alone sprinkled the Blood. But his Garments being holy, the Blood that might chance to fall upon them, was not thereby at all dishonoured: and therefore (if this be the meaning) we are to understand that the Garments would appear less venerable, when they were spotted with Blood; and upon that account were to be washed. If we take it for the Garment of him that brought the Sacrifice, which when it was killed, the Blood might chance to spurt upon his Clothes; then the washing of them, was out of reverence to the Blood; which being holy, was not to remain upon a common Garment. Which way soever it be interpreted, the intention, it is manifest, was to preserve in their Minds an awful regard to God, and to whatsoever belonged unto his Service.  
Thou shalt wash that wherein it was sprinkled, in the holy place.] Where there was a Room (after the Temple was built) which was called Lischath hagullah, the Chamber of the Spring, or Well, out of which Water was drawn for the use of the Court of the Sanctuary. And there it is probable these Garments were washed. See Codex Middoth, cap. 5. sect. 3.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden, shall be broken.] For it being very porous, might so deeply imbibe a tincture from the Flesh, that it could not be washed out; but the smell of it might remain a long time. And being of a small value, it was no great loss to have it broken; rather than any thing that was holy, remaining in it, be profaned. What became of the broken shreds of these earthen Vessels, is a doubt among the Hebrew Doctors; because it was neither fit to throw them out into a profane place, nor yet seemly to heap them up in the Sanctuary: and therefore they fancy the Earth opened and swallowed them up, as a great Man in this kind of Learning (J. Wagenseil) hath observed upon the Mischna of Sota, cap. 3. But they might have rather said, that they were thrown abroad into a clean place, after they were broken into small bits, or crumbled to powder; just as the Ashes were that came from the Altar, which was an holy place.  
If it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.] Nothing could so easily sink into this, being a solid metal: but whatsoever stuck to it might be rubbed out and cleansed by washing. From this Verse, compared with other places, it seems apparent that nothing was roasted in the Sanctuary, but only boiled. So we find the Peace-offerings (mentioned 1 Sam. II. 13, 14, 15.) were constantly sodden; and all other holy Offerings, except the Paschal Lamb (which they roasted at home) 2 Chron. XXXV. 13. And, after their return from the Captivity of Babylon, the same is intimated in the last Verse of the Prophecy of Zechariah.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 All the males among the Priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.] See v. 16. and 26.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And no sin-offering.] Or rather, but no Sin-offering.  
Whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten, etc.] Such were those Sin-offerings for the Highpriest, IV. 3. and for the whole Congregation, upon particular occasions, IV. 13, etc. Or, upon the day of general Atonement, XVI. 27. No part of these were to be eaten, but entirely burnt in the fire; as it here follows in the end of this Verse. There is no necessity of Maimonides his observation upon these words; That no Man whatsoever might eat of these Sacrifices: for if the Priests might not, they were certainly prohibited to all other Persons.   

CHAP. VII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 LIkewise this is the Law of the trespass-offering.] The People were directed before, in what cases they should bring this sort of Offering; and I have noted the difference between them and Sin-offerings, (V 15.) but now the Priests are directed in their Office about Trespass-offerings.  
It is most holy.] In general they were to observe that these Offerings, as well as Sin-offerings, were to be numbered among the most-holy things; and therefore to be accordingly used, v. 6.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 In the place where they kill the burnt-offering, shall they kill the trespass-offering.] The same order that was given about Sin-offerings, IV. 24. VI 25.  
And the blood thereof shall be sprinkled round about upon the Altar.] This is a different Rite, from that which was observed in the Sin-offering; whose Blood was put upon the Horns of the Altar, IV. 25, 34. and the Blood of such Sin-offerings as were made for the Highpriest, or the whole Congregation, were also to be sprinkled seven times before the Veil of the Sanctuary, IV. 6, 17. But this to be sprinkled round about the Altar of Burnt-offering; according to the manner used in the whole Burnt-offerings, I. 11. and in the Peace-offerings, III. 2, 8. only with this difference, that there being a scarlet Thread, or Line, which went round about the Altar exactly in the middle; the Blood of the whole Burnt-offerings was sprinkled round about above the Line, and the Blood of the Trespass-offerings and the Peace-offerings round about below the Line. See Codex Middoth, cap. 3. sect. 1. and L'Empereur Annot. 12.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof.] This was the work of the Priest, first to offer unto God his part of the Sacrifice.  
The rump.] All the Fat belonging unto God, this is particularly mentioned in the first place, as the principal Fat. For the Tails of their Sheep in those Countries (and no other Creature but a Ram was allowed for a Trespass-offering, as was before noted) were of a prodigious bigness, as hath been noted by many: particularly by the famous Bochartus in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 45.) and lately by another excellent Person Jobus Ludolphus in his  History, L. I. cap. 10. n. 16. and in his Commentaries on it, num. 76. And therefore it is called both here, and in other places, by the peculiar name of Alja; whereas the Tail or Rump of other Creatures is called Zanab. See what I have noted upon III. 9  
And the fat that covereth the inwards.] This, and all that follows in the next Verse, hath been explained before, III. 3, 4, 8, 9  
Ver. 5. And the Priest shall burn them on the Altar, etc.] As he did the Fat of the Sin-offerings and Peace-offerings, IV. 26, 31.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 Every male among the Priests shall eat thereof, etc.] All the Fat being offered to God, the Flesh became the portion of the Priest; who, with his Male-childrens, but not Females, were to eat it: but not in any place out of the Sanctuary; as it here follows. See VI 18, 26, 29.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 As is the sin-offering, so is the trespass-offering: there is one law for them.] In this matter (though in other things they differed) for the same Rule is given here about the Trespass-offering, that is given in the Chapter foregoing, v. 26. about the Sin-offering.  
The Priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it.] Who might invite other Priests, if he pleased, to eat with him, and with his Sons: but he was not bound to it; for the Flesh of this Sacrifice was entirely his own.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the Priest that offereth any man's burnt-offering, even the Priest.] Or, that Priest who offereth it.  
Shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering, which he hath offered.] All the Flesh of the Burnt-offerings being wholly consumed, as well as the Fat, upon the Altar (Chapt. I. v. 8, 9) there was nothing that could fall to the share of the Priest, but only the skin; which is here given him for his pains. I observed upon III Gen. 21. that it is probable that Adam himself offered the first Sacrifice; and had the Skin given him by God, to make Garments for him and for his Wife. In conformity to which the Priests ever after had the Skin of the whole Burnt-offerings, for their portion. Which was a Custom among the Gentiles (as well as the Jews) who gave the Skins of their Sacrifices to the Priests, (when they were not burnt with the Sacrifices, as in some Sin-offerings they were among the Jews, (IV. 11.) Who employed them to a superstitious use, by lying upon them in their Temples, in hope to have future things revealed to them in their Dreams. This Dilhe●●rus hath observed out of those words of Virgil, 
— huc dona Sacerdos  
Quum tulit, & Caesarum ovium sub nocte silenti  
Pellibus incubuit stratis, somnosque petivit,  
Multa modis simulacra vidit variantia miris,  
Et varias audit voces, fruiturque Deorum  
Colloquia.—  And in the Eleusinia, he observes out of Suidas, the Daduchus put on the Skin of the Beasts which had been sacrificed to Jupiter; which were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Fleece of Jupiter, Dissert. Special. de Cacozelia Gentil. cap. 9  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And all the meat-offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan, and in the pan.] See concerning these various sorts of Meat-offerings in the second Chapter, v. 4, 5, 7.  
Shall be the Priest's.] All but the Memorial of it, which was burnt upon the Altar. See II. v. 9, 10.  
That offereth it.] That particular Priest who offered it, was to have the remainder for his Portion.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And every meat-offering.] Or, but every Meat-offering: for here is an Exception to the foregoing Rule.  
Mingled with oil, and dry.] The foregoing Verse speaks of such Meat-offerings as were any ways baken; but this of those that were raw: which were of two sorts; either of Flour mingled with Oil, as all voluntary Offerings of this sort were, (II. 1.) or dry without any Oil, as some Sin-offerings were, V 11. and the Offering of Jealousy, V Numb. 15.  
Shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.] All the Priests who attended on that day, were to have an equal share in this kind of Meat-offering: though he alone who Ministered at the Altar had the baked Meat-offerings. There are some indeed who can see no reason for this difference, (though this last sort, others think, was more easily divided, and therefore shared among them all) and consequently take these words to signify the same with those in the foregoing Verse: Every one in the course of his Ministry, shall have this benefit, in his turn of waiting at the Altar.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, etc.] These are the only sort of Offerings remaining to be spoken of: which, when he required them of the People, are mentioned in the third place, after the Burnt-offerings and Meat-offerings; before the Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings. But here are reserved for the last place, in his directions he gives to the Priests about them; because, as there were several sorts of them, so there were various Rites to be observed about them. Which Rites, as I observed before, are called here the Law of such Sacrifices.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 If he offer it for a thanksgiving.] In this, and in the sixteenth Verse, we have an account of three sorts of Peace-offerings. This, which was the principal, for Benefits received from God's bounty: the other two, for the obtaining such Blessings, as they desired to receive. And this of Thanksgiving, was either general for the whole Congregation, (of which there was but one only, at one time of the year, in the Feast of Pentecost, XXIII. 19 which was accounted most holy) or particular for private Persons, as occasion offered; which were accounted less holy. And they are these here mentioned; which might be either of the Flock, or of the Herd, (but no Birds) and either greater or smaller of those kinds; that is, of the Herd from the first year to the third, and of the Flock from the first to the second year complete. If they were older, they were not fit for Sacrifice. All this R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CXXXVII. explains at large.  
Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mingled with oil, etc.] The same R. Levi observes, that some Peace-offerings were offered without any Bread; viz. such as they called Hagigah and Schimcah, Sacrifices of Festivity and Rejoicing, i.e. at their great Solemn Festivals. But these here mentioned, were all offered with Bread; and that offered with this, which was the first of them, was called the Bread of Thanksgiving. R. Solomon Jarchi restrains this sort of Peace-offerings (of Thanksgiving) to such wonderful Deliverances, as those mentioned in the CVIIth Psalm; from Tempests at Sea, or dangerous Travels through the Wilderness, and the like. Aben-Ezra also seems to have been of the same Opinion, when he saith, That Men being delivered out of Straits and Distresses, gave Thanks to God by this Oblation. But I can find no ground for this limitation; it being far more likely that this Sacrifice was offered by all devout Persons, for any Mercy whatsoever, that God bestowed upon them.  
Unleavened cakes, and unleavened wafers.] For none of God's Bread was to be leavened. See Chapter the second, v. 11.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 Besides the cakes.] ; which were to be unleavened.  
He shall offer for his offering leavened bread, with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, etc.] Not upon the Altar (for that was absolutely forbidden in the forenamed Chapther of this Book) but he was to give it to the Priest, who waited at the Altar, and was to partake of this Sacrifice, and to rejoice together with him that offered it. Which is the reason that such different sorts of Cakes are ordered in the foregoing Verse, all unleavened (of which the Priest was to have his share) and also others leavened, which are prescribed in this Verse; that God's Family (his Servants the Priests) might want no variety of Bread at their Feasts upon these Sacrifices: and that God might show his Friendship with those who offered the Sacrifice, by accepting the same Bread at his own Table, which they were wont to use at theirs.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And of it he shall offer out of the whole oblation, etc.] One of the Cakes  (v. 12.) was to be presented to God for an Heave-offering: Concerning which, See XXIX Exod. 24, 28.  
And it shall be the Priests that sprinkleth the blood of the peace-offerings.] Having offered one Cake out of the whole, all that remained was the portion of the Priest, who sprinkled the Blood of the Peace-offerings on the Altar.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, shall be eaten the same day that it is offered, etc.] The reason of this, which was observed in most of their Sacred Feasts, (particularly in the Paschal Lamb, XII Exod. 10. and in the Manna itself, XVI. 19, etc.) was to maintain the honour and dignity of the Sacrifices; that they might not be in danger to be corrupted, or turned to any profane use, or gratify men's Covetousness. For, as Philo observes (in his Book of Sacrifices) It was not sit that these holy things should be put into their Cupboards, but immediately set before those who were in need; for they were no longer his that offered them, but his to whom they were offered: who being himself most liberal and bountiful, would have Guests invited to his Table to partake with those that offered the Sacrifice. Whom he would not have to look upon themselves as Masters of the Feast, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they are but Ministers of the Feast, not the Masters or Entertainers. That belongs to God himself, whose bounty ought not to be concealed, by preferring sordid Parsimony before generous Humanity. His meaning is, that all the Sacrifice was God's, who graciously granted to him that offered it, a part of it, to entertain his Friends, and the Poor; whom he would have invited forthwith, that no part of it might be converted to any other use, but that which God appointed, who made the Feast.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering.] These two other sorts of Peace-offerings, were in the nature of Prayers, for the obtaining such Blessings, as they desired and hoped for. And they were either the performance of a Vow, which they made to God of offering him such a Sacrifice, when they received the benefit; which was called Neder: or, they were freely made before hand, in hope God would bestow the benefit; which Sacrifice was called Nedebah, a voluntary offering. Now these were not so holy as the former; and therefore might be eaten on the morrow, as well as on the same day they were offered. So it here follows.  
It shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his Sacrifice.] Then they were immediately to begin to feast upon the Sacrifice.  
And on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten.] But if they could not conveniently eat it all the same day, or had a mind to lay up some of it till the next, they had that liberty allowed them. For which Philo gives this reason (in the same Book) that these being for Mercies not yet received (or offered by virtue of an obligation) they might take more time to feast upon them with their Friends, and be more sparing: but the former being a thankful Acknowledgement of Blessings already bestowed, their hearts were to be enlarged in greater bounty. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they upon whom God readily bestowed his benefits, might make a quick and speedy return, by doing good to others without delay. And what is here said of the Flesh of the Sacrifice, the Jews also understand of the Meat-offerings mentioned v. 12, 13. None of which were to be kept longer than two days at the most.  
There is no place here assigned, where these Sacrifices should be eaten, at the Sanctuary; as there is for the other, VI 16. 26. and here in this Chapter, v. 6. The reason is, because there was such a multitude of them, that it might have made too great a crowd in the Court of the Israelites, if they had been confined to it. Where they might eat them if they pleased (as I showed before, VI 16.) but were not determined to that place; but left at liberty to eat them in any part of the City where the Tabernacle, and afterward the Temple, stood. See XII Deut. 6, 7. And consequently while they dwelled in the Wilderness, they might eat them any where in the Camp; which was pitched round about the Tabernacle: only it was to be in a clean place, where the Priests might eat them as well as the People, X. 14.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, shall be burnt with fire.] If there were such plenty, or they and their Friends were too sew, or they were so niggardly as not to call Poor enough, to eat all in two days time; they were to have no further benefit of the Flesh of this Sacrifice, but what remained of it on the third day, was to be burnt. Which was to preserve the dignity of the Sacrifice, as the Jews speak, in preventing its stinking. And there was no nobler way of consuming it than by sire, which consumed the Sacrifice on the Altar. So R. Levi Barcel. observes, Precept. CXXXVIII. where he also adds, that God taught them hereby, not to be solicitous for the future, nor careful to hoard up more than needed; when they saw him command the holy Flesh to be destroyed, after the time allotted for its use was passed. The Heathens themselves thought this a decent Rite; for there was a Sacrifice at Rome which they called Protervia, (as Bochart observes out of Macrobius, L. II. Saturnal. cap. 2.) in which the Custom was, ut si quid ex epulis superfuisset, igne consumeretur, that if any thing of the Feast remained, it was consumed in the fire. See his Hierozoic. P. I. L. II. cap. 50.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, etc.] He lost the fruit of his Sacrifice which he had offered to God, by this profanation: which destroyed the Grace and Favour, which it had procured him with God.  
Neither shall it be imputed to him that offered it.] He shall not be thought to have made any offering at all.  
It shall be an abomination, etc.] And more than that, it rendered him abominable; being abominable itself: and made him liable to be scourged, as the Jews here understand the last words of this Verse, he shall bear his iniquity. Which, I think, also signifies, that he should die under a great guilt, till it was purged by a Trespass-offering.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing, shall not be eaten.] That is, the Flesh of the Peace-offerings , which might happen, as they carried it from the Altar to the place where they intended to make a Feast upon it, to touch any unclean thing, might not be eaten by any body.  
But burnt with fire.] As that which remained to the third day was, v. 17. This made them very careful to preserve it pure.  
And as for the flesh.] That is, all the Flesh which was not defiled, by touching any unclean thing.  
All that be clean shall eat thereof.] Whether the Priest, or other Persons. For the Priest had the right Shoulder and the Breast, (as we read expressly, v. 33, 34.) and he that brought the Sacrifice had the rest. Of the former, the whole Family of the Priest might eat; not only his Sons, but his Wife and Daughters, who were not married; or being Widows, were come back to their Father again, if they had no Children; or if those they had, were begotten by Priests: Yea, his Servants born in his House, or bought with his Money. See XXII. 11, 12, 13. XVIII Numb. 11. And of the rest of the Sacrifice, he that offered it might eat it, with all his Family and his Friends; excepting those who had any uncleanness upon them. There are frequent mention of these Feasts in the following Books of the Bible. As that made by Elkanah, 1 Sam. I. 4. and by Samuel, when he entertained Saul, 1 Sam. IX. 13, 24. And when the Kingdom was renewed to Saul at Gilgal, there was a Public Feast made on these Offerings with great rejoicing, 1 Sam. XI. 15. And the like was made for Jesse and his Sons, XVI. 3, 5. And by David when he entertained the People, 1 Chron. XVI. 3. and by Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings VIII. 65. And all the Children of Israel made such a Feast at their return from Babylon, VIII Nehem. 19 There are many Examples also of the like Feasts among the Heathens; particularly in Homer, where Agamemnon (Iliad. I.) offered an Hecatomb, and made a Feast upon it. And Nestor (Odyss. III.) offered a Sacrifice of LXXXII. Oxen, and made the like Entertainment.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, that pertain unto the LORD.] By these last words it appears, that the whole Offering was the LORD's, whose Bounty entertained him and his Friends, to whom he gave the greatest part of it.  
Having his uncleanness upon him, etc.] In this Verse and in the next, every one that had any legal defilement upon him, is prohibited, under a severe Penalty, to eat of the Peace-offerings.  
And they might be made unclean either by impurity in their own Body, or by the contact of unclean things: of the former of which he speaks in this Verse; and of the other, in the next. Both were to be punished with cutting off; which hath been explained elsewhere, (XVII Gen. 14.) From whence it was that the Jews were so very careful, not to go into the Judgment-Hall when our Saviour was condemned, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover, XVIII John 28. at which Feast, Peace-offerings were offered together with the Paschal Lamb. See more of this XXII. 2, 3, 4.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 Moreover, the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing.] All these several sorts of Uncleanness, contracted by touching things unclean, we shall find in the following Chapters, XI. etc.  
And shall eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off, etc.] The intention of such Precepts was, that the greater Reverence (as Maimonides speaks, P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 41.) might be maintained towards the Sacrifices which were offered unto God. Upon which account Julian highly commends Moses, who he saith (as St. Cyril quotes his words, Lib. IX. contra Julian.) was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, truly religious about the eating of holy things; which he proves from these very words of Moses. But his conclusion from thence was very frigid, as St. Cyril calls it, That Christians were therefore to blame, because they would not partake of such Sacrifices: for we abstain not from them, saith that Father, as unclean things, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we rather make a progress, as from Types, unto the Truth.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] At the same time, that all these Precepts were ordered to be delivered to the Priests, he takes occasion to repeat several Precepts he had before given, which concern all the People; because it was of great moment, to have them observed.  
Ver. 23. Verse 32 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, ye shall eat no manner of fat.] Because this was God's part; and therefore not to be eaten by any one, but burnt on his Altar. See III. 16, 17. And the reason Maimonides gives, why it was reserved for him alone, was because it was very delicious to the Taste, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 41.  
Of Ox, or of Sheep, or of Goat.] The Jews restrain this Precept to these three sorts of Creatures (which were the only Beasts that were offered at the Altar) taking the Fat of all other Beasts to be lawful. So R. Levi , Precept. CXLIX.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And the fat of the beast.] Of any of the forenamed Beasts, which alone were allowed in Sacrifices.  
That dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with Beasts, may be used in any other use, etc.] Though the Flesh of such Beasts was unclean, yet they might apply the Fat, when separated from the Body, to any use: only they might not eat it.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] This seems to justify the Opinion of those Jews, who restrain the eating of Fat, only to the three sorts of Creatures mentioned v. 23. as was there observed.  
Even the soul that eateth it, shall be cut off from his people.] If he did it presumptuously; but if through inanimadvertence, he was to be scourged, as the Jewish Doctors affirm. Yet if he did it a third time, scourging did not suffice, but they shut him up in a little Cave, where he could not stand upright, nor had room to sit down; and there fed him with the Bread and Water of Affliction, till his Bowels were sorely pinched, etc. as Maimonides describes this punishment. See Schickard's Mischpat Hammeleck, and Carpzovius his Annot. on him, cap. 2. Theorer. VII.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 Moreover, ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl, or of beast.] See III. 17. Men were very prone to this, in those times, (as Maimonides thinks) whereby they ran into Idolatrous Worship. Which was the reason God restrained them from it, by threatening cutting off (v. 27.) to those who were guilty of it, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 41.  
In any of your dwellings.] This is added to signify, that they might no more eat of the Blood of those Beasts, which they killed at home, than of those slain at the Altar.  
Ver. 27. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off, etc.] The reason of it is given XVII. 10, 11. But the Jews here distinguish (particularly R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CXLVIII.) between the Blood of the Soul, or the Life, (as they speak) and the Blood of a Member. The former, which run out freely when the Beast was killed, in which was the Life of the Beast, is that which is here meant, as Moses more fully explains it, in the place . The other, which remained in the several parts of the Beast, they looked upon as belonging to the Flesh, and therefore might be eaten with it.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] He delivered at the same time some other Rules to be observed by the People, in these Matters. See v. 22.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace-offerings unto the LORD, shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings.] The meaning may be no more than this, that before he and his Friends feasted together, as is directed v. 15, etc. he was to take care to bring his Oblation unto the LORD, that is, to see that God had his part of the Peace-offering; for till that was offered, none could meddle with the rest. But if the import of the Hebrew words be well observed, they seem to have a further meaning; which is, that whensoever any Man brought the Sacrifice (which in the Hebrew is here called Zebach) of his Peace-offerings, he should also bring his Oblation (which in distinction from the other is called Korban) that is a Mincha, or Meat-offering together with it; that the Feast which was to be made might be completely furnished with Bread and Wine, as well as the Flesh of the Sacrifice.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 His own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring.] The Sacrifice being slain and divided, the Priest was to put what belonged unto the LORD into the Man's own hands, (viz. the Fat, with the Breast and the Shoulder) that he might present it himself unto the Divine Majesty.  
That the breast may be waved, for a wave-offering before the LORD.] This is the manner wherein it was to be presented; the Man was to lift it up over his head, and wave it to and fro; his hands being supported and guided by the Priest. See XXIX Exod. 24. and VI Numb. 19, 20. Maimonides describes the order of it in this manner; first the Priest put into the Man's hands the Fat; and then laid upon it the Breast and the Shoulder; and after that, one of the pieces of the Cakes for the Meat-offering upon them: all which he waved about.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 And the Priest shall burn the fat upon the Altar: but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons.] When that part which belonged to God's Altar (viz. the Fat) had been burnt there, the Priests had the Breast and the Shoulder to their own use; as Servants have what comes from their Master's Table. For it was all offered unto God, (v. 29, 30.) who taking only the Fat for himself, bade them take the rest, viz. the Breast and the Shoulder: which had been presented unto God by waving them to and fro, as a Sacrifice to the LORD of the World; but by him bestowed upon his Ministers for their maintenance in his Service. This is more fully expressed in the three next Verses; in which there is no difficulty, and therefore I shall but lightly touch them.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the Priests, etc.] This is only a more particular declaration what belonged to the Priest; who was to have not only the Breast , but also the right Shoulder.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 He among the sons of Aaron that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part.] This is still a more special direction, providing for the encouragement of that Priest, who on that day ministered at the Altar; unto whom the right Shoulder was appropriated as a reward of his pains, in offering the Sacrifice.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 For the wave-breast, and the heave-shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel, from off the sacrifice of their peace-offerings, and have given them to Aaron and his sons, etc.] This doth not contradict what I observed just before; for when he saith, he hath given these to Aaron the Priest and his Sons; the meaning must be, to those of his Sons, who at the time when these were offered, sprinkled the Blood and burned the fat.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, etc.] In the Hebrew the words are, This is the anointing of Aaron, etc. That is, this they have in right of their Unction to the Priest's Office; which entitles them to all .  
In the day.] The Hebrew word Bejom may, both here and in the next Verse, be translated (as I observed before VI 20.) from the day, and ever after.  
When he presented them to minister unto the LORD in the Priest's office.] Made them draw near to attend upon him at his Altar.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Which the LORD commanded to be given them, in the day that he anointed them, etc.] By virtue of a Grant from God, when they were made Priests; to enjoy this benefit in all future Ages.  
By a statute for ever, etc.] As long as this Law of Sacrifices, and this Priesthood shall last. See VI 22.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meat-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the trespass-offering, etc.] This Verse contains a Summary of what he had commanded Aaron and his Sons, from the ninth Verse of the sixth Chapter, unto this place.  
And of the Consecrations.] The whole order of their Consecration is not here directed (but in XXIX Exod.) only something belonging to that matter, VI 20, etc.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 Which the LORD commanded Moses in mount Sinai.] In that mountainous Country, which lay near to Mount Sinai, as Maimonides truly expounds it. For he was come down from Mount Sinai, and had delivered to them all that he received there (XXXIV Exod. 29, 32.) before these Commands were given: but they still continued near unto it; and so the word behar may be translated, by mount Sinai. For as the last words of this Verse tells us, they were still in the Wilderness of Sinai: that is, in that part of the Wilderness which took its name from its nearness to Mount Sinai.  
In the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the LORD, etc.] This doth not precisely signify, that he commanded Aaron and his Sons (VI 9, etc.) all these things, on the very same day, that he commanded the Children of Israel what Oblations to bring, (Chapt. I. 2, etc.) but they were delivered all at the same time; immediately after the other, without any other Commandments intervening.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] See IV. 1.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Take Aaron and his sons with him.] Having delivered the Laws and Rules about Sacrifices, and the Rites belonging to them, he now prepares the Priests to offer them, as had been commanded. And there is not much said in this Chapter, but what hath been explained in XXI● Exod. and other neighbouring Chapters; where he relates the Orders he received in Mount Sinai, about those things which were now performed.  
And the garments.] XXVIII Exod. 2, 4.  
And the anointing oil.] XXX Exod. 24, etc.  
And a bullock for the sin-offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread.] See XXIX Exod. 1, 2, 3, etc. These were in their kind the very best of the legal Sacrifices, as appears, in part, from that Expression of the Psalmist, LXIX Psalm 30, 31. where he prefers Thanksgiving and Praise, before a Bullock that hath Horns and Hoofs (a young Bullock, which began to spread its Horns and Hoofs) that is, before the very best of all their bloody Sacrifices.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And gather thou all the Congregation together, etc.] All the Elders of the People, with the great Officers who were set over Thousands and Hundreds, etc. For these are frequently called by the Name of Col ha' Edah, which we translate all the Congregation; particularly in XXV Numb. 7. XXXV. 12. XX Josh. 6. XXI Judg. 10, 13, 16. where the Elders of the Congregation, and the Congregation, and all the Congregation, are plainly the same thing. Which is further confirmed from the next Chapter of this Book, (v. 1.) where it is said expressly, Moses called Aaron and his Sons, and the Elders of Israel.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And Moses did as the LORD commanded.] Summoned them to appear before the LORD.  
And the assembly was gathered together.] The word we translate Assembly is the same with that in the foregoing Verse which we translate Congregation: that is, as I said, the Assembly of the Elders.  
Unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] That they might be Witnesses of what was done, and satisfy all the People, that Aaron and his Sons did not intrude themselves into this Office; but were solemnly called and consecrated to it by Moses the Servant of the LORD. It is likely also, that as many of the People, as the place would conveniently hold, met together to be Spectators of this Solemnity.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And Moses said unto the Congregation, this is the thing which the LORD commanded to be done.] I am now about to execute what God hath formerly commanded, when I was with him in the holy Mount, XXIX Exod. 4. At what time this was executed is a question among learned Men. And our great Primate of Ireland places this Consecration of Aaron and his Sons, together with the Tabernacle and all things belonging to it, in the second Month of the second Year, after they came out of Egypt: moved thereunto, I suppose, by what is said in VII Numb. 1, 2. So that, according to his Opinion, the numbering of the People, and the separation of the Levites to God's Service, preceded this Action. But I do not see any reason, why we should not think all things were done in the order wherein they are here related. And then this Consecration was performed in the first month of that year; after the Tabernacle had been erected and set apart for the Habitation of the Divine Majesty. See XL Exod. 17, 18.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons.] To the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; as he had been directed XXIX Exod. 4.  
And washed them with water.] As is there also directed; having first likewise washed himself, XL. 31.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he put upon him the Coat, and girded him with the girdle, etc.] Moses, by an extraordinary Commission from God, performed the Office of an Highpriest, on this day, and the six days following. And put Aaron in possession of this Office by clothing him with the Garments here mentioned, (according to the orders which had been given XXIX Exod. 5, etc.) which was thought sufficient for the Consecration of an Highpriest, after the Captivity of Babylon; when they wanted the holy Oil, as hath been before observed. Whence Philo often calls Moses by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. Highpriest. And in Schemoth Rabath the Tradition is, that he continued Highpriest all the time they continued in the Wilderness: though others, they confess, are of opinion (which is the truth) that he officiated only the seven days of the Consecration; after which this Office was settled in Aaron. See Selden L. I. de Succession. in Pontificatum, cap. 1.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Vrim and the Thummim.] See XXVIII Exod. 30. It is observable, that he saith nothing here in this place, of the precious Stones, but only mentions Vrim and Thummim; as in XXXIX Exod. 10. (where he describes the same thing) he makes mention only of the four rows of Stones, but saith not one word of Vrim and Thummim: which I look upon as a proof that they were all one.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And he put the Mitre upon his head; and upon the Mitre, the golden Plate, the holy Crown, etc.] According as God commanded him in XXVIII Exod. 36, 37, etc. XXIX. 6.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle, and all that was therein.] See XXIX Exod. 26, etc. and XL Exod. 9, 10, 11. There being several ways of anointing a Thing or Person, either by pouring Oil upon them, or by putting it upon them with the finger, or by sprinkling; it is not an improbable Conjecture of Fortunatus Scacchus, that Moses anointed the Tabernacle and its Utensils, by dipping his finger in the Oil, and putting it upon them. For though the word Maschah, which he useth for anointing, be general, yet the Vulgar expressing it by linivit, and the LXX. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which import this particular sort of anointing) and there being different words used to express the anointing of the Altar and of Aaron, it may well incline one to his Opinion; Myrothec. 2. Sacr. Elaeochrism. cap. 70.  
And sanctified them.] Set them apart by this unction, for the holy use; for which they were designed.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And he sprinkled thereof upon the Altar seven times; and anointed the Altar, and all its vessels, etc.] We do not find this expressly before directed: but the intention of anointing the Altar being to make it most holy (because it was to sanctify all that was laid upon it, XXX Exod. 29. XL. 10.) it was very fit it should be both sprinkled seven times with Oil, and also anointed: in token of its extraordinary Sanctity, which was put upon it by this very solemn Rite. For here are two distinct words about this anointing; the first is jaz, he sprinkled of the Oil upon it; and then jimshach, he anointed it, by putting some of the Oil on it: whereas it is said of the Tabernacle, and of the things there, only jimshach, he anointed them, without any sprinkling.  
Some think that the Altar being mentioned twice in this Verse, he speaks of the Altar of Incense, as well as of the Altar of Burnt-offerings. But it is plain by those places in Exodus, it was the Altar of Burnt-offerings, which was thus sanctified: and here the Laver and its foot (which stood in the same Court) is said to be sanctified with it. As for the Altar of Incense, it is included in what is said, in the foregoing Verse, that he anointed the Tabernacle and all therein.  
Both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them.] It may be thought that he sprinkled with Oil the Laver and its Foot, as well as anointed them; which is the opinion of the forenamed Fort. Scacchus. But the Hebrew words will not warrant it; for they only signify that they were anointed as the Altar was after its aspersion.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head.] Here now is a third word distinct from the two former, viz. jitzok; which signifies there was more done to Aaron, than to any of the holy things, to sanctify him to his office: For the holy Oil was poured on his Head.  
And anointed him.] Perhaps he drew the Oil with his finger upon his Forehead, after it was poured on his Head; as the Jews think he did. See XXIX Exod. 7, 8. XXX. 30. XL. 13.  
To sanctify him.] i. e. Set him apart to this Sacred Office. Now this Consecration of Aaron and his Sons, being mentioned here together with the Consecration of the Tabernacle and all belonging to it; it hath made some conclude, that both were done at the very same time. But I have given some Arguments to prove the contrary, upon XL Exod. 17, 18. And the meaning of these three Verses (10th, 11th, 12th of this Chapter) may be, not that they were Consecrated at the same time, but with the same Oil. For first he says, Moses took the anointing Oil; and shows how it was employed after a different manner, upon the Tabernacle and its Utensils, upon the Altar, and upon Aaron; on whose Head it was poured; whereas the former had it only put upon them with the finger, or were sprinkled with it. But though they were not Consecrated together, yet their Consecration immediately followed one another. For seven days being spent in sanctifying the Tabernacle and the Altar, then immediately began the sanctification of Aaron and his Sons: during which time Moses may be supposed to have received the foregoing Laws about Sacrifices; in which they were to be employed, as soon as they were Consecrated. And the seven days for the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons, immediately succeeding the other seven days which were spent in the Consecration of the Tabernacle and the Altar; it may be the reason why they here are succinctly mentioned both together; and neither of them mentioned before. For if the account we have in the XLth of Exodus concerning these things, be well attended to, it will appear that nothing is there said of the anointing of the Tabernacle, or any thing else; but only that he set it up the first day of the Month, as he was commanded (v. 2, etc. and 17, etc.) And he is commanded in like manner to take the anointing Oil, and anoint the Tabernacle and all therein, (v. 9, etc.) and then to anoint Aaron and his Sons, (v. 13, 15.) but he relates nothing of his doing either of them, till now; when he executed those commands.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, etc.] See XXVIII Exod. 40, 41. XXIX. 30. XL. 14.  
As the LORD commanded Moses.] He commanded him also to anoint them at the same time, XXVIII Exod. 41. XL. 15. but it is not here mentioned; because they were not anointed as he was, by pouring Oil upon their Heads; but sprinkling it on their Garments, with the Blood of the Sacrifice offered for them. And that he did afterward as he had been ordered, v. 30. See XXVIII Exod. 41. XXIX. 7.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And he brought the bullock.] See XXIX Exod. 1, 10, etc.  
For a sin-offering.] So it was designed to be, XXIX Exod. 14.  
And Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin-offering.] See XXIX Exod. 10. I Levit. 4.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And he slew it.] XXIX Exod. 11.  
And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the Altar round about with his finger.] As he had been directed, XXIX Exod. 12.  
And purified the Altar.] It was purified before; but this was a further purification of it; that it might be the more fitted to be a place to make reconciliation upon it, as it follows in the conclusion of the Verse.  
And poured out the blood at the bottom of the Altar, and sanctified it, etc.] The vulgar Latin, I think, gives the true interpretation of these words, rather than translates them; in this manner: It being expiated and sanctified, he poured out the blood at the bottom of the Altar, etc. Fort. Scacchus hath taken a great deal of pains to prove that this Expiation (as the Vulg. Lat. calls it) went before the Anointing or Consecration of the Altar; in his Myrothec. P. II. cap. 34. But his Arguments seem to me of no force to overthrow the Opinion of Abulensis and Philo, That these words do not speak of a proper Expiation of the Altar; but that it was only hereby more particularly set apart (as the word sanctify signifies) to be the place where Sin-offerings might be made; that Men who had committed Offences, might be expiated by these Sacrifices.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the cawl, etc.] See XXIX Exod. 13.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 But the bullock and his skin, his flesh and his dung, he burned with fire without the camp, as the LORD commanded Moses.] See XXIX Exod. 14. Yet we do not find that the Blood of this Sacrifice was carried into the holy place; and therefore it did not fall under the Rule in the VIth Chapter of this Book, v. 30. but might have been eaten by the Priests, as is there allowed, v. 26. Some think it sufficient, for the solution of this, to say that Aaron and his Sons were not yet completely Consecrated, and therefore had not a right to eat of the Flesh of this Sin-offering. But such Persons do not consider that Moses, who now acted as a Priest, could not be debarred of that benefit, by this reason. And therefore it is better to say, that no Highpriest, whether ordinary or extraordinary (such as Moses now was) might eat of any Sin-offering, offered for the Priests themselves; although the Blood of it was not brought into the Sanctuary. From whence we may draw this Consequence, that although the Sins of the People, were taken away by the Priests, who by eating of their Sin-offering, plainly showed that they bore their sin, (as the phrase is X. 17.) yet the Sins of the Priests themselves could not be taken away, by any Sacrifice they could offer for sin, of which they might not eat: But they were to expect, as an excellent Person of our own speaks (Dr. Jackson. Book IX. upon the Creed, cap. 26.) a better Sacrifice made by a better Highpriest, the Son of God. But these Legal Sacrifices in the mean time were offered in such a place, as prefigured the place where this better Sacrifice should be offered, viz. without the Camp: as when they came to their rest, without the City of Jerusalem, where our Saviour's Body was offered for our Redemption.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he brought the Ram for the burnt-offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the Ram.] According to the direction given to Moses, when he was with God in Mount Sinai, XXIX Exod. 15, 16. where all that follows here, to the end of the 21st Verse, is explained: this being nothing else but the execution of what was before ordered.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And he brought the other Ram.] For he was commanded to bring two, v. 2. and XXIX Exod. 1.  
The Ram of Consecration. So it is called XXIX Exod. 22, 31. for the reason there given.  
Ver. 23, 24. Verse 23, 24. And he slew it, and Moses took of the blood of it, etc.] These two Verses are explained XXIX Exod. 20. where order was given for what was now done. I shall only add a Remark of R. Levi been Gersom upon the order wherein these Sacrifices were offered; which was most rational. For first there was a Sacrifice for Sin offered (v. 14.) before they could be worthy to have any Gift or Present which they made to God, received by him. But upon their Expiation, an whole Burnt-offering was accepted, (v. 18.) and after that followed this Sacrifice, which was a Peace-offering (as appears from v. 31.) part of which was burnt upon the Altar, part given to the Priest, and the rest they themselves eaten for whom it was offered; that it might appear, they were so far in the favour of God, as to eat with him of his Meat from his Table. Abarbanel hath the same observation.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And he took the fat, and the rump, etc.] All this Verse likewise is there explained XXIX Exod. 22.  
Ver. 26, 27, 28. Verse 26, 27, 28. And out of the basket of unleavened bread, etc.] These three Verses show that Moses exactly followed the Orders he had received XXIX Exod, 23, 24, 25. where they have been explained.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 Burnt them upon the burnt-offering.] This shows, that they were not a burnt-offering properly, as I there observed; but an Appendix to it.  
They were consecrations for a sweet savour.] Because they were offered to consecrate and sanctify them, as this is explained XXIX Exod. 33. See there.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And Moses took the breast and waved it, etc.] According to the direction given XXIX Exod. 26. where it is also ordered that this should be Moses his part.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And he took of the anointing oil, and of the blood that was upon the Altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron, etc.] See XXIX Exod. 21. where it appears plainly this blood that was mixed with the Oil, was the Blood of the Ram of Consecration.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 And Moses said unto Aaron and his sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and there eat it, etc.] God having had his part, v. 28. and Moses, who performed the Office of a Priest at this time, having had that which belonged to him, on that account, v. 29. the rest was given (as the manner was in Peace-offerings) to those for whom the Sacrifice was offered: that is, all but the right shoulder, which was burnt upon the Altar, and the Wave-breast, which was given to Moses, as Priest. See XXIX Exod. 31, 32.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 That which remains of the flesh and the blood shall ye burn with fire.] See XXIX Exod. 34. This shows it was of the nature of a Peace-offering, VII. 15, 17.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And ye shall not go out of the door of the Tabernacle in seven days, etc.] For till then their Consecration was not perfected (as the following words signify) no more than the Consecration of the Altar was, till a Bullock had been offered, to cleanse it, and make an atonement for it seven days together. See XXIX Exod. 35, 36, 37. This was to make them more sensible of the great weight, as well as dignity of their Office.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 As he hath done this day, so the LORD hath commanded to do, to make an atonement for you.] Every day of these seven, those Sacrifices were to be repeated, the Sin-offering, the Burnt-offering, and the Peace-offering; and their Garments were to be sprinkled with the Blood and the Anointing Oil, as the LORD required when Moses was with him in the Mount, XXIX Exod. 35. This shows the imperfection of all the Legal Sacrifices; which would not have been so often repeated, if they had been of greater efficacy: Yet the continuance of them seven days doth signify, the complete Consecration of these Priests; according to the Rites of those times. In conformity to which, our great Highpriest, the LORD Christ, who was perfected by one Sacrifice of himself, spent seven days in his Consecration to his Office. For as Aaron is commanded to attend at the Tabernacle so many days together, in like manner our LORD Christ (as Dr. Jackson observes in the forenamed Book, Chapt. XXV.) did attend the Temple five days one after another, before his death; (See XII John 1, 12, etc. XXI Matth. 8, 9, etc.) and having purged it on the first or second of those days, from the profaneness that was exercised in it by Merchandizing; and afterward hallowed it by his Doctrine, and by his Divine Presence, which appeared in several miraculous Cures, he went the sixth day into his heavenly Sanctuary, into Paradise itself; to puririsie and sanctify it with his own Blood, as Moses at Aaron's Consecration did the material Sanctuary, and Altar, with the Blood of Beasts. And having rested the seventh day, finished all by his Resurrection early the next day in the morning.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 Therefore shall ye abide at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] Where all things mentioned in this Chapter, had been done, and were still to be repeated (v. 3, 4.) for they could not go into the Sanctuary till they were completed.  
Day and night.] This was to make their Consecration more solemn, and taken notice of by all the People.  
Seven days.] By which means, a Sabbath, as the Jews observe, passed over their heads: without which, they conceive, Aaron and his Sons could not have been completed. But the Sabbath of the LORD did never so exactly pass over any Highpriest in his Consecration, as it did over the Highpriest of the New Testament. For however it were of Aaron's, it was to our blessed Saviour (as the forenamed Dr. Jackson notes) a Day of Rest indeed after six days of Labour, Watching, Praying and Fasting, which concluded in his bloody Death and Passion.  
And keep the charge of the LORD.] That which he had now enjoined. Or rather, watch the Tabernacle and his Vessels, etc. as they were to do in time to come. The Hebrew Doctors have here raised a difficulty about the necessary Easements of Nature; for which they had no convenience, if they might not stir for seven days, from the door of the Tabernacle: and therefore they fancy, there was a hole digged in the Ground for such occasions. But it is more likely, they were not so confined, as not to be allowed this liberty: and one cannot well doubt of it, who considers the word Mismoroth here used, (which we translate keep the charge of the LORD) which is a military phrase, signifying the Stations and Watches kept, in their turns, for certain hours: after which they were at liberty to attend their own Affairs. Such was the charge here, one may reasonably think, of not departing from the door of the Tabernacle, while they were upon the guard (as we speak) which some or other of them kept night and day; in such order, that while some watched, others might sleep, or step out about the necessary occasions of Nature.  
That ye die not.] It may seem hard that they should be in peril of their Life, if they omitted any of these Rites. But this was necessary, to make those serious and intent upon their business, who were to save the Lives of others, by making Expiation for them, when they deserved to perish.  
For so I am commanded.] These Orders, as hath been already observed, he received in the holy Mount.  
So Aaron and his sons did all things which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses.] This was necessary to be added, that all Generations might be assured, whatsoever was performed by their Ministry, would be effectual, to the end for which it was appointed; they being exactly Consecrated to God's Service, without the least omission of any thing that he had required. In like manner our great Highpriest, was Consecrated to his Eternal Priesthood, by fulfilling all the Will of God; and that in a far more Solemn and Public way than Aaron's was; it being performed by Suffering such things, as nothing but a perfect Filial Obedience to his heavenly Father could have moved him to admit, because it was accomplished by shedding his own Blood, in a lingering Death.   

CHAP. IX.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND it came to pass on the eighth day.] He doth not mean on the eighth day of the Month; but on the next day after their Consecration, which was seven days in doing, VIII. 33, 35. Then it was that the Fire fell down from Heaven, and consumed the Sacrifice which Aaron offered: and this seems also to have been the first day of unleavened Bread, which fell upon the fifteenth day of this Month; for on the fourteenth in the Even, which was the last day of the Consecration of the Priests, the Passover was kept, IX Numb. 2, 5.  
That Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the Elders of Israel.] Just as he had done before, VIII. 2, 3. that the Rulers, and as many of the People as could meet together, to behold what was done, might see the Glory of the LORD, which appeared at this time, v. 6.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 And he said unto Aaron, take thee a young Calf.] This is the first Sacrifice, that was offered to God, by the Priests of the Order of Aaron. It differed from that which was offered by Moses for Aaron and his Sons, as Egel, a young Calf, doth from Par, a young Bullock: by which his Sin was expiated at his Consecration. And Maimonides saith that the former signifies a Calf of one year old; the latter one of two. Others say a Calf was called Egel till his Horns budded; and than it was called Par.  
For a sin-offering.] For his sins in general; not for any determinate Offence, like that IV. 3. which therefore was something different from this. The Jews fancy that a young Calf was appointed for the first Sin-offering, to put Aaron and the People in mind of the Golden Calf, which they worshipped. So Maimonides reports the Opinion of their Wise men, in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46. Where he also hath this conceit, that it was to expiate that Sin.  
And a Ram for a burnt-offering.] For none but Males were accepted for Burnt-offerings, I. 10. There is no Peace-offering ordered for him (as there is afterward for the People, v. 4.) because it was not fit he should have all the Sacrifice, as he must have had, according to the Law of such Sacrifices, being both the Priest and the Offerer; between whom and the Priest (after the Fat was burnt) all was to be shared.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And unto the Children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying.] Unto all the Elders (v. 1.) who were to bring the following Offerings, in the Name of all the People of Israel; and that by Aaron's direction, who was now to act as God's Highpriest, and gave out this Order.  
Take ye a Kid of the Goats for a sin-offering.] The Hebrew word Seir signifies a He-goat. Concerning which Maimonides (in his Book concerning Sacrifices) delivers this opinion, That all Sacrifices for sin, whether of private Persons, or the whole Congregation, at their three principal Feasts, New Moons, and the Day of Expiation, were He-goats. For this reason, because the greatest Sin and Rebellion of those times was, that they sacrificed to Daemons, who were wont to appear in that form. For which he quotes XVII. 7. They shall no more offer their Sacrifices, lasseirim; which we translate unto Devils: but the word Seirim is but the Plural Number of the word Seir, which signifies a Goat. And further he adds, That their Wise men think, the Sin of the whole Congregation was therefore expiated by this Kid of a Goat, because all the Family of Israel sinned about a Goat, when they fold Joseph into Egypt, XXXVII Gen. 31. And such reasons, saith he, as these should not seem trifles; for the end and scope of all these Actions was, to imprint and engrave on the Mind of Sinners the Offences they had committed, that they might never forget them. According to that of David, LI Psal. 5. My sin is ever before me.  
This Sin-offering was different from that IV. 14. being not for any particular Sin, as that was; but in general, for all the Offences that the Highpriest might have committed.  
A Calf and a Lamb, both of the first year, etc.] When they were in their prime.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Also a Bullock and a Ram.] These also were, no doubt, to be without blemish, as is prescribed in the two foregoing Offerings. And the Hebrew word Sor (which we translate a Bullock) often signifies a well grown Ox; as in XXI Exod. 28. XXV Deut. 8. As Ajil, a Ram, the Hebrews say signifies a Sheep of above a year old. These made very large Peace-offerings, and consequently a liberal Feast upon them.  
For peace-offerings.] The very same order is here observed that was at Aaron's Consecration: First Sin-offerings, than a Burnt-offering, and then a Peace-offering was offered to the LORD, VIII. 14, 18, 22.  
And a meat-offering mingled with oil.] Which was to complete the Peace-offerings, on which they were to feast; that Meat might not be without Bread to it.  
For to day the LORD will appear to you.] Give you an illustrious Token of his Presence, by sending Fire from Heaven, or from the Brightness of his GLORY to consume the Sacrifice, v. 23, 24. Whereby they were all assured that both the Institution of this Priesthood, and the Sacrifices offered by it, were acceptable to the Divine Majesty.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And they brought that which Moses commanded.] Both Aaron (v. 2.) and all the Congregation (v. 3.) brought all the Offerings which Moses required.  
Before the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] Where these Sacrifices were to be offered.  
And all the Congregation drew near, and stood before the LORD.] Approached to the door of the Tabernacle, and stood there by their Sacrifices, looking towards the Holy Place; and worshipped the LORD.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses said.] Unto the Congregation.  
This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye should do.] I require this of you by the commandment of God; who will demonstrate, by a visible Token, his Presence among you.  
And the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.] That Glory which filled the Tabernacle when it was erected (XL Exod. 34, 35.) openly showed itself to them all, (v. 23.) and declared his Grace and Favour towards them, by consuming their Sacrifice, as an acceptable Oblation to him, v. 24. Whereby a particular Honour also was done unto Aaron, who was hereby most illustriously owned to be God's Highpriest; and all other Persons deterred from pretending to his Office.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the Altar, and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering.] One of them after the other; in the order wherein they were directed, viz. his Sin-offering first, to make his Burnt-offering accepted.  
Make an atonement for thyself, and for the people.] First for himself (as the Apostle observes VII Hebr. 27.) that then he might be capable to offer for the Sins of the People. This was the great imperfection of the Aaronical Priests, that they were Sinners like other Men: by reason whereof, they were bound, as for the people, so also for themselves, to offer for sins, V Hebr. 3.  
And offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them.] After he had offered both the Sin-offering (v. 8.) and the Burnt-offering (v. 13.) for himself; then he was to begin to offer for the People. For his own Sins being expiated, and his Burnt-offering being accepted, he was fit to procure Remission and Acceptance for them.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 Aaron therefore went unto the Altar.] That he might be ready to perform his part of the Service, which was to sprinkle the Blood; after he had first of all offered the Morning Sacrifice. See v. 17.  
And slew the Calf of the sin-offering which was for himself.] Ordered it to be slain: for this was no part of the Priest's work, as I showed upon the first Chapter, v. 5.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him.] They received it in Basins, as it run from the Calf, when it was killed (See I. 5.) and brought it unto him; who stood at the Altar, to receive it, and do what follows.  
And he dipped his finger in the blood.] The forefinger of the right hand, which had been sanctified to this Ministry, by putting the Blood of the Sacrifice of Consecration upon the thumb of the right hand, (VIII. 23, 24.) whereby we grasp all things, and cannot hold them strongly, nor perform any thing well if that be wanting.  
And put it upon the horns of the Altar, etc.] See IV. 25.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 But the fat, and the kidneys, and the cawl above the liver.] See IV. 8, 9  
He burned upon the Altar, as the LORD commanded Moses.] Laid or disposed them upon the Altar, to be burnt by the heavenly fire, (v. 24.) as most understand it. And the LXX. justify this Opinion; who though they here translate it, He offered it on the Altar; yet v. 13. where there is the same phrase, they expressly translate it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he laid the Burnt-offering upon the Altar: and again, v. 17. in the same manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he laid it upon the Altar, besides the burnt-sacrifice of the morning. For common fire, it is supposed, was no longer to be used when Aaron's Sacrifice began; as it had been all along before. But there is no certainty in this: and we may as well take the words in their proper sense, that Aaron burned this and the following Sacrifice, as Moses had done before, (VIII. 14, 21, 28.) until the Burnt-offering for the People came to be offered, which God consumed by fire from himself: and then followed those other Sacrifices mentioned v. 17, 18. For all these Sacrifices, for Aaron and for the People, could not be laid upon the Altar at once; but one after another, in the order here directed: and consequently this Sacrifice, here mentioned, was actually burnt upon the Altar, to make way for those which followed it.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the flesh and the hide, he burned with fire without the camp.] See VIII. 17.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And he slew the burnt-offering, and Aaron's sons presented to him the blood, etc.] See I 5.  
Ver. 13, 14. Verse 13, 14. And they presented the burnt-offering unto him, with the pieces thereof, etc.] All that is contained in these two Verses, is explained in the first Chapter, (v. 8, 9) where the Law about burnt-offerings is delivered.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And he brought the people's sin-offering, etc.] Having offered all that was necessary for himself; now he became fit to make Supplication for the People.  
And offered it for sin, as the first.] In the same manner, as he offered the foregoing Sin-offering, for himself, v. 8, etc.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he brought the burnt-offering.] Here being no express mention of burning it, some from thence conclude, that this was the Offering, which alone was consumed by fire from the LORD. See v. 24.  
And offered it according to the manner.] Laid it upon the Altar, as Moses had directed; in the first Chapter of this Book.  
Ver. 17. And he brought the meat-offering, etc.] Which attended upon Burnt-offerings, XV Numb. 2, 3, 4, etc.  
Beside the burnt-offering of the morning.] This shows that Aaron began his Priestly Function, with the Morning Sacrifice; which preceded all other: and was never omitted, for the sake of any other Sacrifice that was to follow it; and it had always a Meat-offering waiting upon it, XXIX Exod. 39, 40.  
Ver. 18, 19 Verse 18, 19 He slew also the Bullock and the Ram, for a sacrifice of peace-offerings.] These two Verses are explained in the third Chapter; which treats of such kind of Offerings.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And he put the fat upon the beasts, etc.] That it might by elevation and waving, be presented unto the LORD; and then burnt upon the Altar. See VII. 30.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave-offering before the LORD.] The Fat being burnt upon the Altar, as God's portion; these were the portion of the Priests; who feasted upon God's Meat; for they were solemnly presented unto him, before they had them. See VII. 34.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people.] Imploring the Divine Blessing upon the People; which he afterwards pronounced. At this day, they that are of the Family of Aaron, going up the steps which lead to the place where the Book of the Law is kept, lift up their hands as high as their heads, and pronounce a Blessing in their Synagogues, upon the Assembly. And they say the ancient Custom was, which is still observed, not only to lift up and spread their hands, but then to join them together by the thumbs, and the two fore-fingers; dividing the other from them, in that Figure which is represented by an eminently learned Person, J. Wagenseil, in his Commentary upon Sota, cap. 7. p. 672. and 1132.  
And blessed them.] We read of no order for this; but natural Reason taught them, from the beginning, that the Priestly Office consisted in praying for the People, and Blessing them: We find an Example of it in XIV Gen. 18, 19 And not long after Aaron's Consecration Moses delivered from God a form of words, wherein the Priests should bless the People, VI Numb. 24. And at this day, there is nothing done among the Jews with such Solemnity, and in which they place so much Sanctity as this. For when the Blessing is pronounced in their Synagogues, they all cover their Faces; believing they would be struck blind, if they should look up; because the Divine Majesty, at that time, sits upon the hands of the Priest. So the same Wagenseil observes, in the place : which shows not only how laborious they have been to maintain in the People's minds an opinion, that God is still as much present with them in their Synagogues, as he was anciently in the Tabernacle and Temple: but how high a value they set upon the Divine Blessing pronounced by his Ministers.  
And came down from offering the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and peace-offerings.] He pronounced the Blessing before he came down from the Altar, which stood upon raised Ground, (though there were no steps to it, XX Exod. 26.) that all the People might the better see what was done, while he offered all these Sacrifices for them, and lift up his hands to implore God's Blessing upon them.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And Moses and Aaron went into the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] The Sacrifice being ended, it is likely Moses went with Aaron into the Sanctuary, to instruct him how to sprinkle the Blood, and to burn Incense, and order the Shewbread, and such like things as were to be done only in the Holy Place.  
And came out, and blessed the people.] I suppose that all the Sacrifices  might be offered after the Morning Sacrifice (v. 17.) which took up a great deal of time, before they were all completed. After which Moses and Aaron went into the Sanctuary, and stayed there till the time of the Evening Sacrifice; and then came out and dismissed the People with a new Blessing, when the Evening Sacrifice was finished.  
And the Glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.] That Glory which filled the Tabernacle, XL Exod. 34, 35. now appeared without: either at the door of it, or upon it, in the sight of all the People, as Moses had foretold, v. 6.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD.] Either out of the Sanctuary, from the Holy of Holies; or from that Glory which now appeared unto them, and sent out flashes of fire which burned up the Sacrifice. In either of these senses, it may be said to come from the face of the LORD, as the Hebrew phrase is.  
And consumed upon the Altar the burnt-offering and the fat.] It seems to me most natural and easy, to take this Burnt-offering and its Fat, for the Evening Sacrifice; which concluding the work of this day, God gave a special Token of his acceptance of all the other Sacrifices, by consuming this: and likewise publicly testified his approbation of all the  Rites of the Ministry of Aaron, whose Authority was hereby established, in a miraculous manner. To confirm this, it may be noted; that, as the place which God chose for his Worship and Service, was afterward designed in the time of David after the very same manner, 1 Chron. XXI. 26. So it was at the time of the Evening Sacrifice, as may be gathered from 2 Sam. XXIV. 15. where it is said the Pestilence continued from Morning, to the time appointed, that is, to the Evening; and than David saw the Angel, who commanded Gad to bid him set up the Altar in the Threshing-floor of Araunah; where God answering him by fire from Heaven, it made him say, This is the House of God, and this is the Altar of Burnt-offering, 1 Chron. XX. II. 1. And when Solomon built the Temple in that very place, it was thus consecrated by fire coming from Heaven, and consuming the Burnt-sacrifice, as well as by the Glory of the LORD filling the House, 2 Chron. VII. 1, 2, 3. And it is very probable also, that this was at the time of the Evening Sacrifice: for the former part of the day had been spent in bringing the Ark into the House of the LORD, and in Solomon's Prayer; as we read in the two foregoing Chapters. Certain it is, that the Authority of Elijah to restore God's true Religion and Worship, was thus justified, 1 Kings XVIII. 38, 39 and it was at the time of the offering the Evening Sacrifice, v. 36. From whence that Prayer of the Psalmist, CXLI Psal. 2. Let the lifting up of my hands be as the evening sacrifice.  
All this was so notorious, that Julian himself acknowledges that fire came down from Heaven in the time of Moses, and again in the days of Elijah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consuming the Sacrifices; as we find his words related by St. Cyril, L. X. contra Julianum. And this gave such a Divine Authority to the Jewish Religion, that it is no wonder to find, that the Pagans endeavoured to get credit to their Religion, by the like reports of fire, from an invisible Power consuming their Sacrifices: which perhaps was sometimes really done by the Prince of the Power of the Air, as the Apostle calls the Devil. However that be, there are several Instances of this in Pausanias, Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Valerius Maximus, and Pliny. But Servius may serve instead of all; who upon those words of Virgil in Aeneid. XII. — faedera fulmine sancit, saith, that anciently they did not kindle fires upon their Altars, sed ignem divinum precibus eliciebant, etc. but they procured by their Prayers Divine fire, which inflamed their Altars. And Solinus saith, cap. 11. that the flame sprung out of the Wood by a Divine Power. Si Deus adest, si sacrum probatur, Sarmenta licet viridia ignem sponte concipiunt, etc. If God be present, if the Sacrifice be acceptable, the Faggots, though green, kindle of themselves; and without any one to set them on fire, a flame is raised by the Deity to whom the Sacrifice is offered. Thus there risen up fire out of the rock, and consumed Gideon's Sacrifice, VI Judg. 21. They that would see more of this out of Pagan Writers, may consult J. Dilherrus Dissert. Special. de Cacozelia Gentil. cap. 11. But especially Huetius in his Alnetanae Quaestiones, L. II. cap. 12. n. 21.  
But whether this Fire which now came from before the LORD consumed Aaron's Sacrifice instantly, or only set it into a flame, which consumed it leisurely in the sight of all the People, cannot certainly be determined. The Jews seem to suppose the latter; the heavenly fire being now kindled, which continued ever after by a constant supply of Fuel, whereby it was kept perpetually burning, as is ordained VI 12, 13. See Note on that place. Where to me it seems very observable, that this Law of keeping in the fire perpetually, is ordered to be put in execution at the Evening Sacrifice, v. 9 of that Chapter. Which is a sufficient Reason to incline one to think, that the Celestial Fire now came, as I have supposed, at the Evening Sacrifice, and consumed the Burnt-offering.  
Which when all the people saw, they shouted.] They fled not from it, as Men affrighted, but shouted for joy: or, as Abarbanel's phrase is, they lifted up their voices with singing, and prayed to God, or rather praised him. Just as they did when the Fire came down at the Consecration of Solomon's Temple, When the people saw it, they praised the LORD, saying, for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever, 2 Chron. VII. 3.  
And fell on their faces.] Worshipped God, with humble Thankfulness; who hereby testified his Presence among them, and his gracious Acceptance of them. For thus he had of old showed his Respect to Abel, IV Gen. 4. and to Noah, VII. 20. and to their Father Abraham; whose Sacrifice was thus accepted in the Evening, when the Sun went down, XV Gen. 17.  
And there was great reason that both Priests and People should rejoice at this sight: For, as the Author of the Book Cosri discourses (Parson III. sect. 53.) if a Man look only at the foregoing part of the Work of this day (the killing of the Sacrifices, the Blood running about their hands, their slaying of them, washing the Entrails, rinsing the Pieces of the Flesh, sprinkling the Blood, laying the Wood in order, kindling the Fire) they would rather set his Mind further off from God, than draw it near to him: till after all these things performed orderly, he saw the Fire coming down from Heaven, testifying God's gracious acceptance of the Sacrifice; or felt another Spirit excited in him, beyond any thing he was acquainted withal before; or had Divine Dreams, or Heroical Motions; which he believed were the Effects of what he had been doing, etc. And no doubt, all good Men, in future Ages, felt their Minds raised, by the thoughts that the Sacrifices they offered, were as acceptable to God, as that offered at this time; being consumed, in some sort, by the same Fire, which burned continually on this Altar; and after this day was never extinguished till the Captivity. Which seems to be the Original of that Expression of the People, in their Prayer for their King, That God would remember all his Offerings, and accept (turn to ashes, it is in the Hebrew) his  Sacrifice, XXI Psal. 3.  
Such acceptable Sacrifices, St. Cyril tells Julian, we Christians still offer, but infinitely better, being Spiritual and Intellectual, (and consequently nearer to the Divine Nature) and that by Fire sent from Heaven, viz. the Holy Ghost (of whom this Fire was but a Figure) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illustrating the Church, and enabling the Members of it to offer continually the sweet smelling Sacrifices of Faith, and Hope, and Charity, and Righteousness, Temperance, Obedience, perpetual Doxologies, and all other Virtues, L. X. contr. Jul.   

CHAP. X.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron.] His two eldest Sons, VI Exod. 23.  
Took either of them his Censer.] Here are two of their Errors expressed in these words, if Abarbanel conjecture aright, (who supposes this to have happened on the last day of their Consecration, when Fire came down from Heaven) First, That they adventured, without any order from God, to go and burn Incense in the Sanctuary. For though this did not belong to the Office of the Highpriest alone, yet upon this Solemn Day Aaron only was commanded to perform the whole Service; as upon the Day of Expiation, IX. 7. And this account Bochartus gives of their Offence, that sine vocatione, thus obtulerunt, they offered Incense, without any call to it, Hierozoic. P. I. L. II. cap. 49. p. 557. And secondly, both of them went about this Work, whereas the Incense was to be offered only by one; and not by two at a time. Procopius Gazaeus adds a third Error, that they attempt this, out of the due season for it: which was only in the Morning and Evening.  
And put fire thereon.] As the Priests were required to offer no strange Incense, XXX Exod. 9 so, in all reason, they were to think, it was not to be offered with strange fire; but only with a Coal from that Altar, where there was a fire kindled by God himself.  
And offered strange fire before the LORD.] Here are two sins more (if Abarbanel take it right) that they brought Fire from another place, without the Sanctuary; and did not take it from the Altar: and then, that they attempted to go into the most holy place; which he thinks is signified by these words, before the LORD. The first of these is the Opinion also of Aben-Ezra, and other learned Men among the Jews; who by strange fire understand, fire that did not go out from before the LORD, IX. 24. that is, was not taken from the Altar of Burnt-offering; where Fire from Heaven lately consumed their Oblations. And so R. Bechai: They imagined that the Fire on the Altar of Burnt-offerings, was only for consuming Sacrifices; and therefore they fetched some from without, for the burning Incense. But as to the second thing, it doth not seem to me probable; for Aaron himself had not yet gone into the Holy of Holies.  
Which he commanded them not.] This they did (saith Aben-Ezra) from their own proper Motion and Opinion; without any Authority from God: for whose order they should have waited, if his Mind was not already sufficiently declared, as it was fully afterwards XVI. 12.  
How two such excellent Men as these (who had had the honour to be called up to God, when he appeared on Mount Sinai, and to have a sight of him, and to eat and drink in his Presence, XXIV Exod. 1, 9, 10, etc.) came to be so rash, and to fall so unadvisedly into so great an Error, as this here mentioned, cannot be certainly resolved. But it seems to me highly probable, that at the Feast upon the Peace-offerings, they had eaten and drunk too liberally; which made them forget themselves, and fall into this gross mistake. For I can see no other reason, why that Command v. 8. of not drinking Wine or strong Drink, when the Priests were to go into the Sanctuary, is annexed unto this story of their Death and Burial; but only this, which I have now alleged; that their Miscarriage arose from drinking too much Wine, before this Office was to be performed.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 And there went out fire from the LORD.] As they were entering into the Sanctuary, or as they stood at the Golden Altar ready to offer Incense; Fire came out from the most Holy Place (where the Glory of the LORD was) and struck them dead.  
And devoured them.] It did not reduce their Bodies to Ashes, nor so much as burn their Clothes, (v. 5.) but they were killed, as Men sometimes are with Lightning; which penetrates into the Vital Parts, and puts a sudden end to their Life. That's meant here by devoured them; took away their Breath in a moment. From which Expression the Hebrew Doctors conclude, that when any body was condemned to be burnt, it was not to be consumed to Ashes, but only exanimated by the Fire; because this is called devouring or burning, here in this place. See Gamera Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 1.  
And they died before the LORD.] Fell down dead in the House of God. Which may seem too great a Severity, till it be considered, how reasonable and necessary it was, to inflict a heavy Punishment upon the first Transgressor's of a Law, concerning a Matter of great moment, to deter others from the like Offence. Many instances of which there are in Scripture: Some observed by St. Chrysostom upon VI Psal. 2. where he gives this account, why the Man who gathered a few sticks upon the Sabbath-day, was adjudged to be stoned, as Blasphemers were; because it was a very heinous thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. as soon as a Law was enacted immediately to break it: which made it necessary it should be thus severely punished, to strike such a Terror into others, that they might not dare to do the like. Which was the reason, he observes, of the sudden Death of Ananias and Sapphira, mentioned Acts V Isidore of Peleusium hath made the same observation (Lib. I. Epist. 181). and goes so far back, as to our first Parents, who were dreadfully punished, for a seemingly small Offence, because they were the first Transgressor's. The same others have observed, of the punishment of Cain, who committed the first Murder; of the filthiness of Sodom; of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf; the Covetousness and Sacrilege of Achan; the Disobedience of Saul, the first King of Israel; the sudden Death of Vzzah, who was the first that presumed to touch the Ark of God.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And Moses said unto Aaron.] To satisfy him in the Justice and Wisdom of this dreadful stroke, at which he could not but be extremely afflicted.  
This is that the LORD spoke, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.] To come nigh unto God, is, in the holy Language, to perform the Office of a Priest, XIX Exod. 22. XVI Numb. 5. who having the honour of attending upon the Service of the Divine Majesty, were bound to approach into his Presence, with the greatest Reverence. We do not read indeed those very words, which Moses here recites, in the foregoing Books: But, as many things were spoken to them, which are not recorded, so the sense of these words are in the place forenamed, XIX Exod. 22. and the reason of them, in XXIX Exod. 43, 44. where the Tabernacle being said to be sanctified by the Divine Glory, and the Priests being sanctified to minister unto him therein (which was seven days a doing, as we read here VIII. 35.) they were plainly taught to draw nigh to God with a holy Fear, and to do nothing rashly, nor without order from him. For God being peculiarly known by the Name of the Holy One, i e. who hath incomparable Perfections, such as no other Being hath; he justly required to be accordingly worshipped, suitable to his most surpassing Greatness; by peculiar Rites of his own prescribing, in a different manner from all other Being's. It was, for instance, below his Emenency, or rather Supereminent Majesty, to have common Fire (such as they employed in their Kitchens) used for the burning Sacrifice upon his Altar. And in like manner all other parts of his Service were, in reason, to be performed after such a fashion, as might signify their sense of the peculiar Excellencies of the Divine Nature; who therefore sent Fire from Heaven, as only fit to burn perpetually upon his Altar.  
And before all the people will I be glorified.] This may be thought to be but a solemn Repetition of what was spoken before; as the manner is in these Books, to deliver the same thing twice in different words. Or the meaning is, if they who draw nigh to me, will not sanctify me, I will vindicate my own honour, by such Punishments, as shall openly declare to all, that I am the Holy One. Thus God is said to be honoured upon Pharaoh, by drowning him in the Red-sea, XIV Exod. 4.  
And Aaron held his peace.] Silently adored the Justice of the Holy One; and did not complain of his Severity. For this doth not seem to be the effect merely of great Grief, but of great Reverence to the Divine Majesty.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron.] It appears from VI Exod. 18. that Vzziel the Father of Mishael and Elzaphan (v. 22.) was the younger Brother of Amram the Father of Aaron, and consequently Aaron's Uncle.  
And said unto them, Come near, and carry your brethren.] All near Kindred are called Brethren in Scripture. And these Cousin Germane of theirs are appointed to carry them out, because Aaron's other Sons were now attending upon God in their Ministration, upon the Day of their Consecration. But without this special order, these two Persons could not have been admitted to come near into the very Sanctuary, being not of the Family of Priests, though of Kin to him.  
From before the Sanctuary.] See v. 2.  
Out of the Camp.] For anciently they buried not in their Cities, but in the Fields adjacent to them, XXIII Gen. 9, 17. and so they did in after times, XXVII Matth. 7. and VIII Luke 27. where the Tombs are plainly intimated to be without the City.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 So they went near.] There being two Accents upon the Hebrew word for draw near, the Cabalists from thence observe (I know not upon what grounds) that these Men did not come into the very Sanctuary where the dead Bodies lay, but drew them out with long Poles, and those of Iron, being afraid of the Fire wherewith Nadab and Abihu had been killed: or rather, fearing to go into the Sanctuary, or too near it. See Hackspan's Cabala Judaica, n. 58.  
And carried them out in their Coats, etc.] Their Linen Vestments wherein they ministered; which having touched dead Bodies, were no more fit to be used in the Divine Service.  
As Moses had said.] As he had directed in his order which he gave them.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar, and unto Ithamar his sons.] These two were all the Sons that Aaron had now remaining; from whom came two great Families of the Priests; which, in the days of David, we find very numerous, (though more of the House of Eleazar than of the other) when they were by him divided into XXIV Classes, and had their Courses of waiting appointed them, 1 Chron. XXIV. 4, etc.  
Uncover not your heads.] The Hebrew Doctors interpret it quite contrary, Let not the head of your hair grow; so long, that is, as to cover their Faces; which was the custom of Mourners, 2 Sam. XV. 30. XIX. 4. and many other places. And thus Onkelos, and the Arabic Version set forth by Erpenius, and many of the Jewish Commentators, (such as R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra) who give the same account of XXI Leu. 10. where the same thing is required of the Highpriest. And the time of their letting their Hair grow on such occasions, they determine by the Law of the Nazarites, who were not to cut their Hair all the time of their Vow of Separation, which the Jews say was at least XXX days, VI Numb. 5. Therefore the Priests were not to let their Hair grow so long: if they did, they were uncapable of officiating. Only they make this difference between the common Priests, and the Highpriest; that this Law did not bind the Priests at all times, but only in their Course of Ministration: but the Highpriest (whose Presence was always necessary in the Sanctuary) might never let his Hair grow; but was bound every Week to have it cut even, on the Eve of the Sabbath. See Selden L. II. the Success. in Pontiff. cap. 6.  
But the foundation of all this is not very strong; for it relies chief on the use of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place of Numbers VI 5. where it signifies Hair: from whence they conclude the Verb here may have the same Notion, and signify the growth of Hair. But this is not the usual signification of it in Scripture, where it commonly imports the rejection of something; as of good Counsel, I Prov. 25. of Reproof or Instruction, XIII Prov. 18. XV. 32. And being joined with the Head, plainly signifies the uncovering it. See V Numb. 18. And therefore so the LXX. understand it here; as if they were forbidden to put off their Bonnets. But that they always did, as soon as they had performed their Sacred Office in the Sanctuary: and therefore it may be meant of making their Heads bare by shaving them, or bald by pulling off the Hair, as the manner was in Mourning, XV Isa. 2. XLI Jer. 5. XLVIII. 37. and many other places. And in this, the Priests among the Jews directly opposed those among the Egyptians who shaved their Heads, as appears by what Minutius Faelix, and Lampridius, in the Life of Commodus, say, concerning the Priests of Isis. And Herodotus also in his Euterpe, whose words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In other places the Priests of the Gods nourish their hair; but in Egypt they are shaved.  
Neither rend your Clothes.] Which was another Rite of Mourning; not only among the Jews, but among all People in ancient Times, especially in the Eastern Countries; as every one knows that hath read any of their Authors. See I Job 20. And it was used on many other occasions among the Jews, as well as in their Funerals; particularly when any Man blasphemed, XIV Numb. 6. 2 Kings XIX. 1. when any ill Tidings came, which put them into a Passion, 2 Kings V. 7. or any Misfortune befell them, XLIV Gen. 13. XI Judg. 35. But was thought so unseemly in a Priest, especially when he ministered, that the Jews say, they whose Garments were rend by accident, were as uncapable of ministering, as they who rend them themselves in Mourning.  
The reason of this Precept was (as R. Levi of Barcelona well observes, Precept. CLV.) that it being not allowed in those Countries for Mourners to come into the Presence of their Kings, (as appears by the History of Esther) much less was it seemly for any that attended upon the Divine Majesty, to come into his House in such a Habit.  
Lest ye die.] As Nadab and Abihu did. For after such a Monition as this, they had highly dishonoured God, if they had appeared in his Sanctuary in such an indecent manner.  
And wrath come upon the people.] For want of Priests, to make atonement for them, when they offended.  
But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.] He doth not prohibit the rest of the People, who were not Priests, to mourn for them; but rather requires it of them all: that they might be sensible of their loss, and of the the sin which was the cause of it. And it is likely the People bewailed them, by rending their Clothes, and bearing their Heads, and putting Ashes upon them; or, some such Rites, then in use among them.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. For it is supposed the seven days of their Consecration were not yet quite ended, (VIII. 35.) or they had begun some other Ministration in the Sanctuary; and therefore were not to stir out of the Court of it, till it was sanctified. And the Hebrews think this Law did not only bind Aaron and his Sons, at this time; but their Posterity for ever: that if they heard of the death of any of their Kindred, when they were ministering in the Sanctuary, they should not stir from their Duty: For that would have been to show a greater affection to a dead Friend, than to the living God. This appears to be true, by the like command to this, and in the same words, laid particularly upon the High-Priests, XXI. 12.  
For the anointing of the LORD is upon you.] You are devoted and consecrated by a Solemn Unction (VIII. 10, etc.) to the Service of God; which must not be omitted out of respect to any Person whatsoever. For in this Precept (as R. Levi Barcelonita observes, Precept. CLVII.) the Dignity and Majesty of the Divine Worship was consulted; which, if his Ministers had deserted on such occasions, for a moment, would have been brought into contempt. For it would have been a declaration, that there was something in the World more to be regarded, than God's Service. And therefore the punishment of Death is threatened (in the foregoing words) to those who were guilty of such an offence.  
And they did according to the word of Moses.] Stayed in the Tabernacle, without any of the usual Tokens of Mourning. Wherein they performed an eminent piece of Obedience to God; whose commandment suppressed those natural Affections, which are very hard to be kept in subjection.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the LORD spoke unto Aaron, saying.] It may be thought, that the LORD was so pleased with his Obedience, that he himself now spoke unto Aaron; whereas hitherto he had spoken to him by Moses.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee.] By Wine, every one knows is meant that Liquor, which is pressed out of Grapes: And by Schechar (which we translate strong Drink) is meant such Liquors, as were made, in imitation of Wine, of Dates, or Figs, and many other sorts of Fruits; also that which was made of Honey, which we call Mede, and Metheglin. There are many sorts of such Liquors mentioned by Pliny (in his Natural History, Lib. XIV. cap. 16.) which he calls Vina factitia.  
When ye go into the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] To perform your Ministry. At other times they might drink Wine: and, if we may believe the Jews, they did not offend against this Precept, if before they went into the Sanctuary, they drank no more than the fourth part of a Log: which contained an Eggshell and an half. If they exceeded this measure, than their Ministry, they say, was profaned, and they were liable to death, by the hand of Heaven. See R. Levi of Barcelona, Precept. CLVIII. who hath many Niceties about this matter; as hath also Maimonides, mentioned by the learned Dr. Outram in his Book de Sacrificiis, Lib. I. cap. 6. n. 9  
Lest ye die.] As their Brethren did; See upon v. 1. where I observed it to be very probable, that they were burnt with Fire from the LORD upon this account. They that think it worth their while, may see after what manner the Cabalists make out this, and what Reflections they make upon it, in Theod. Hackspan's Cabala Judaica, n. 144, 145.  
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your Generations.] And such a Law there was in some Heathen Countries, that no Magistrate, all the year he was in Office, nor any Judge, while he was in Action and Employment, should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so much as taste a drop of Wine. So Plato tells us; with which Eusebius compares this Law of Moses, Lib. XII. Praepar. Evang. cap. 25. And Chaeremon the Stoic, describing (in Porphery's Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, L. iv) the Diet of the Egyptian Priests, tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some of them drunk no Wine at all; and others, very little.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 That ye may put a difference between holy and unholy, between clean and unclean.] Here is the ground and reason of this Precept; that they might have their Wits about them, (as we speak) and preserve their Minds from being clouded (as Nabad's and Abihu's were, who put no difference between holy Fire and common) and so be able both to put a difference (as the first words may be translated) between holy and unholy, etc. and also to teach the People all the Statutes, which God had delivered to them, as it follows in the next Verse.  
And here it must be observed, that as some days and places were more holy than others, so were some parts of the Sacrifices also; which they might not eat themselves, but were reserved for the Altar. Some Beasts also were clean, and others so unclean, that they might neither be offered in Sacrifice, nor eaten at their common Tables, XI. 47. Some Men and Women also were so unclean, that they were not to be admitted into their ordinary Conversation; much less into the Sanctuary, Chap. XII, XIII. Of all which the Priests were the Judges, and therefore had need to be perfectly sober, that they might make an accurate difference between one thing and another. And for such a like reason it was, the Egyptian Priests were so abstemious in drinking Wine, because they looked upon it, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an impediment to the finding out of Truth. So Chaeremon speaks in the forementioned Book.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And that ye may teach the Children of Israel all the Statutes, etc.] Which concern the Rites and Ceremonies of God's Worship.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And Moses spoke unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar, and unto Ithamar his sons that were left.] This was still spoken on the same day; a little after what he had said to them v. 6, 7.  
Take the meat-offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, etc.] He seems to have been afraid, that Aaron's grief, for the loss of his Sons, might have so disturbed his Mind, as to have made him negligent in some part of his duty; or that Eleazar and Ithamar, through mistake or forgetfulness, might have offended against some of the Laws lately delivered about Sacrifices; which therefore he here repeats, that they might be exactly observed. And in the first place, that they should eat what remained of the meat-offering, as was commanded VI 16. Where it is required also, as it is here, to be eaten without leaven; and beside the Altar, in the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; as it is there expressed.  
For it is most holy.] See there VI 17.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place.] This he repeats, because they might possibly have forgotten it, or not sufficiently attended to the difference between things most holy, and things only holy. The former of which the Priests alone might eat, and that only in the holy place: the other all their Family might eat (as he saith in the next Verse) in any place that was clean.  
Because it is thy due, and thy sons due, etc.] No body might eat it but holy Persons; for so God directed Chapt. II. 3. VI 16, 17, 18. VII. 9, 10.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 The wave-breast and the heave-shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place.] They were not bound to eat these in the Court of the Tabernacle, (as in the former case v. 13.) but in any part of the Camp that was not defiled.  
Thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee.] These being those which the Jews call lighter holy things, might be eaten by the whole Family; as was before observed.  
For they be thy due, and thy sons due, which are given you out of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, of the Children of Israel. They were bestowed upon them by an express Grant, VII. 34. where though only his Sons be mentioned, as they are here, yet it is plain all of their Family, who were clean, might eat of these things. See upon VII. 19  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 The heave-shoulder and the wave-breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave-offering before the LORD.] This also he inculcates again, which had been said before (VII. 29, 30.) that they must take care first to wave these things before the LORD, and to burn the Fat upon the Altar: for till this was done, they had no right to eat these things.  
And it shall be thine, and thy sons with thee.] When they had been presented to the LORD of the whole Earth, and he had received his part, these became theirs by an express Grant from him, VII. 32, 33, 34.  
By a statute for ever.] As long as such kind of Sacrifices should last.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And Moses diligently sought the Goat of the sin-offering.] Which had been offered for the People, IX. 15.  
And behold, it was burnt.] This justified Moses his suspicion and fear, that some mistake might have been committed in other matters; because he found, upon a diligent inquisition, that they had burnt upon the Altar, those parts of the sin-offering, which they ought to have eaten themselves, VI 26, 29. In which it was the easier for them to mistake, without diligent observation of Moses his directions; because the sin-offering which had been offered for Aaron himself, was just before wholly burnt without the Camp, IX. 11. and so were all the Sin-offerings, for the Highpriest, and for the whole Congregation, ordered to be, IV. 12, 21. that is, if their Blood was carried into the Holy Place, than nothing of them might be eaten, VI 30. But otherwise, their Flesh was to be eaten in the Court of the Tabernacle, as is expressly commanded, VI 26. This distinction they either did not well observe, when it was delivered; or being oppressed with sorrow, for the loss of Nadab and Abihu, they did not think it fit to feast at this time upon the Flesh of this Offering. For so Aaron excuses this Fact, v. 19  
And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar.] He saith nothing to Aaron: either because he was loath to add to his Grief; or because it was the business of his Sons to look after this Sacrifice, and to see that the Flesh of it was disposed of according to God's orders.  
The sons of Aaron, which were left alive.] Who, by the punishment upon their Brethren, should have learned greater caution in their Ministry.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the holy place?] That is, obeyed the Commandment which I gave you, VI 26.  
Seeing it is most holy.] VI 25.  
And God hath given it you.] VI 29.  
To bear the iniquity of the Congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD.] God bestowed upon the Priests this Reward of their Service, that they might be the more willing to take upon them the People's Sins, and to make an Expiation carefully for them. And indeed, the very eating of the People's Sin-offering, argued the Sins of the People were, in some sort, laid upon the Priests; to be taken away by them. Which being done, they had reason to rejoice also in a Feast upon this Sacrifice; which God had been pleased to accept, for the taking away of the Sins of the People. From whence the Sacrifice of Christ may be explained, who is said to bear our iniquity, (as the Priest is said here to do) all our Sins being laid on him; who took upon him to make an Expiation for them, by the Sacrifice of himself. For the Priest here by eating of the Sin-offering, receiving the Gild upon himself, may well be thought to prefigure one, who should be both Priest and Sacrifice for Sin: which was accomplished in Christ.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 Behold.] Observe what I say to you.  
The blood of it was not brought in, within the holy place.] It was none of those Sacrifices which I commanded you to burn entirely; but required you to eat of it, VI 26, 30.  
Ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.] For as there was a peremptory Law forbidding the Priests to eat the Flesh of any Sacrifice, whose Blood was brought into the Holy Place, to make atonement with it: so there was as peremptory a Law, that they should eat the Flesh of those Sacrifices for Sin, whose Blood was not brought in thither.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And Aaron said unto Moses.] Though Moses questioned only Eleazar and Ithamar, yet Aaron makes the answer: they not being able perhaps to give an account of what they had done, though sensible of their mistake.  
Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering, and their burnt-offering before the LORD.] His Apology for them seems to be this, that they had not wholly violated God's Command; but performed the Substance of it, though they had failed in one Circumstance. For they had not only offered the Sin-offering for the People (for that is meant by their Sin-offering) but also their Burnt-offering (IX. 15, 16.) and that before the LORD, in the place where he ordered them to be offered. In all this Aaron was the principal Minister, but they assisted him: For it is expressly said, They presented unto him the Blood of the Peace-offerings, (which at the same time were also offered) and they put the fat upon the breasts, when he burned the fat upon the Altar, IX. 18, 20.  
And such things have befallen me.] After this was done, followed the death of Nadab and Abihu, who went in to burn Incense: which struck him into such a Consternation, and made him so exceeding sad, that he was not fit to feast with Eleazar and Ithamar upon the Sacrifice; and so suffered them to burn it.  
And if I had eaten the sin-offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?] Would God have been pleased with me, if in such Sadness and Sorrow, I had eaten of the Sacrifice? This is the reason whereby he justifies the omission of which his Sons were accused; in not eating the Sin-offering in the Holy Place. The blame of which he takes upon himself; for to have eaten it with a sad Countenance and a heavy Heart, he thought would have been to pollute it. And therefore he chose to forbear it, and to give it wholly to God, by burning the Flesh of it, as he had done the Fat; which he hoped would be more acceptable, than to eat it in grief. And to eat it without grief and sorrow was impossible: for though they had not been so dutiful to him, as they ought to have been; yet he could not extinguish the Affection of a Father towards them, nor suddenly cease to mourn inwardly for their untimely death.  
From this place Maimonides gathers, there was but one day of Mourning due to the dead, viz. the first: the rest were added by the Constitution of the Elders.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And when Moses heard that, he was content.] He was either satisfied with his reason, and thought he had done well, (for Nature seems to have directed what was afterwards enjoined, that they should rejoice in their Feasts, XII Deut. 7, etc. and not eat holy things in their mourning, XXVI. 14.) or he would not further charge him with a Fault, for which there was so fair an Excuse. For where there is no wilful Contempt, but rather a Respect intended in any Action, all good Men are inclined to make a favourable Construction of it, and grant it an Indulgence, though there be some Error in it.   

CHAP. XI.  
MOSES having mentioned, in his preceding Discourse about Sacrifices, several sorts of Uncleanness, (V 2, 3.) and in the foregoing Chapter (X. 10.) commanded the Priests to keep themselves sober, that they might at all times be able to distinguish between clean and unclean, takes an occasion from thence, to give an account of that matter. For otherwise, that which we read (Chapter XVI.) would here have most naturally followed (as appears from the 11th Verse of it) being about the principal Sacrifice, whereby all manner of Uncleanness was to be expiated; which he now inserts in the midst of those things, that belong to that head. For first, he treats in this Chapter of unclean Meats; and in the XII, XIII, XIV, XVth of unclean Persons, Garments, and Habitations. And then, (after he hath directed how to make the great Atonement for the whole Nation, and some other things) he returns in the latter end of the XVIIth Chapter, to speak of some forbidden Food; and Chapter XVIIIth of unclean Marriages: And after a Repetion of several Laws (Chapt. XIX.) of some greater Uncleannesses: and Chapt. XXI. of Priests that were unclean: and lastly, of Sacrifices not fit to be offered, Chap. XXII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them.] The Consecration of Aaron being now completely finished, God spoke to him, as well as unto Moses; he being also highly concerned to teach the People the difference that is here made between several sorts of Meats, (X. 11.) which Moses assures them was enacted by Divine Authority.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, saying.] They were all to take special notice of what follows, because by the Diet here prescribed, they were discriminated from all other People in the World.  
These are the beasts that ye shall eat, among all the beasts that are on the earth.] God having bestowed upon Mankind, after the Flood, every living thing to be their Food, IX Gen. 3. it hath raised a question among learned Men, why God should limit and restrain his own People from the benefit of this general Grant. And some have thought this so unaccountable, that they have said it is in vain to inquire into the reason of the difference that is made here of Meats: concerning which P. Cunaeus declares (as Plutarch doth of the Laws of Solon and Lycurgus) that no doubt they were enacted with wise Counsel; but the reason of the Authors cannot be known, Lib. II. de Republ. Hebraeorum, cap. 24. But others think the reason is plain enough; and the Jews are of opinion that the Creatures, here called unclean, were forbidden to be eaten, because they were unwholesome Food. So Maimonides discourses at large, in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 48. where he saith there can be no doubt, that every thing here prohibited, yields a bad Nourishment, except it be Swines-flesh and fat: and yet he endeavours to show, that there is no reason to think otherwise of those two. R. Levi of Barcelona is of the same mind, but pretends not to be able to demonstrate it as Maimonides doth. For the Sum of a long and pious Discourse, which he hath upon this Subject (Precept. LXXIX. where he treats of that Flesh which was torn by wild Beasts) amounts to this: That the Body being the Seat of the Soul, where it doth its business, God would have it fitted to the Desires and Employments of the Soul. And therefore the Law, saith he, removeth from us all those things which may hinder the Soul in its operations. For which reason such and such Meats are forbidden, as breed ill Blood: among which, if there be some whose hurtfulness is neither visible to us, nor to Physicians, do not wonder at it; for the faithful Physician who forbids them, is wiser than any of us.  
This opinion I cannot think to be wholly groundless: for though there be some Creatures here prohibited, which seem to us of as good Nourishment, as those which are allowed; yet considering that Climate wherein the Jews lived, and the temper of their Blood, which was very hot, and apt to be extremely corrupted, (as appears by the unusual Leprosy to which they were obnoxious, more than other Nations) it is reasonable to conclude that God had some respect to this, in the ordering of their Diet. See J. Wagenseil Confut. Carminis R. Lipmanni, p. 556. Yet I cannot think this to have been the chief reason of this Law (though it be very agreeable to the peculiar care God had of this People, that he should not only give them Civil and Sacred Laws, but direct them in the smallest Matters, as he did in their Apparel, Building, etc.) but the main drift and scope of it was, that the Israelites might be separated from all other Nations in the World, by a Diet peculiar to themselves: which kept them from such a familiar Conversation, as otherwise they might have had with the Gentiles; and consequently from learning their idolatrous Customs. And I do not see why I should not add, most of the Creatures, which are reckoned unclean, were such as were in high esteem and sacred among the Heathen. As a Swine was to Venus, the Owl to Minerva, the Hawk to Apollo, the Eagle to Jupiter, and even the Dog to Hecate, etc. Whence Origen justly falls into an high admiration of Moses his wisdom; who so perfectly understood all Animals, and what relation they had to Daemons, that he pronounced all those to be unclean, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which were esteemed by the Egyptians, and other Nations, to be the Instruments of Divination; and those to be clean, which were not so, Lib. IU. contra Celsum, p. 225. And if in Moses his time such Creatures were not sacred to Daemons, it is a greater wonder that he should mark those out for impure, which proved to be so sacred in after Ages: As a great number of Birds mentioned by Porphyry (Lib. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) who saith the Gods used them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to declare their mind to Men: and several other Creatures, mentioned by other Authors, as peculiarly appropriated to other Deities.  
Many have discoursed largely of the Moral Reasons of these Precepts; particularly a very learned Man now living, Joh. Wagenseil, in his Annotations on that Title in the Misna called Sota, fol. 1171, etc.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.] There are some Creatures which Porphyry (in the Book , Lib. iv) calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose Hoofs are solid, and not at all divided; such as Horses, Asses, and Mules: Others that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divided into several parts, like Toes; as Lions, Wolves, and Dogs: But a third sort that are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Aristotle calls them) divided into two parts; as Oxen, Deer, Sheep, Goats, etc. And these are of two kinds; for some divide the Hoof into two parts, but it is not cloven quite through; as the Camel, whose Hoof is parted above, but joined by a thick Skin below, and therefore reckoned among the unclean Beasts. Others both divided and cloven, which are those allowed by this Law to be clean Creatures.  
And cheweth the end among beasts, etc.] As all those Beasts do, which are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Aristotle calls them, Lib. X. cap. 50.) that is, have not a Set of Teeth both above and below: Such are Oxen, Sheep, and Goats, which want upper Teeth; and therefore bring their Meat up again into their Mouths, after it hath been some time in the Stomach; that it may by a new chewing of it, be better prepared for digestion. So the Author of Porta Coeli, who explains this very exactly, when he saith, For want of upper Teeth they cannot chew their Food perfectly at one time; nor can the Stomach make a perfect digestion till it be ground a second time. And therefore such Creatures are provided with a a double Stomach: an upper, into which the Meat goes down after the first chewing; and another, into which it is sent, after it hath been grinded a second time.  
That shall ye eat.] The Hebrews truly observe (particularly R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CLIX) that all kinds of Animals, which had not every one of these Marks (of parting the Hoof, and being clovenfooted, and chewing the Cud) were unlawful to be eaten.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the end, or of them that divide the hoof.] This is added as an Explication of the foregoing Rule, to show, that if any of the  Marks werewanting, such Creatures must not be eaten.  
As the Camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, etc.] The latter part of this Character is not to be understood, as if the Camel did not divide the Hoof at all; but not quite thorough, so as to be cleft, as well as divided. For though its Hoof be divided above, it coheres below, as R. Solomon observes. And so doth Aristotle, Lib. II. cap. 1. and Pliny, L. XI. cap. 45. This being so very plainly expressed in this Law, it is something strange that Heliogab●lus should order the Flesh of Camels and Ostriches to be served up to his Table, Dicens, praeceptum Judaeis ut ederent: saying, The Jews were commanded to eat them; as Lampridius reports his words, cap. 28. Salmasius indeed upon that place saith, he found these two words, Struthiones and Camelos, joined together to make one word, in a MS. of the Palatine Library, which reads Struthiocamelos exhibuit in caenis. Which seems to some to mend the matter; but then they are forced to interpret praeceptum by concessum; as if he had said, God did not forbid this Meat to the Jews: which is altogether uncertain. It is better to say, That though many of the Pagans did read the Law of Moses, yet they did it carelessly, without sufficient attention to it.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And the Coney.] Much might be said to justify our Translation of the word Saphan, by the English Coney, if it could be proved that they chew the Cud; which they do not, having upper Teeth. Therefore Bochart, by many Arguments, proves this word Saphan to signify a Mountain Mouse; which, as Solomon saith, XXX Prov. 26. Make their holes in Rocks: which Rabbits do not; but this Creature doth, as he proves out of the Arabian Writers; who call it Aljarbuo, and say it chews the Cud. See Hierozoicon, P. I. L. III. cap. 33.  
Because he cheweth the cud, etc.] Or rather, Though he chew the cud, yet wanting the other Mark, they were to look upon it as unclean.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Hare, because he cheweth (or, though he cheweth) the cud, but divideth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. The same Author shows in the same Book, cap. 37. that the Hebrew word Arnebeth is rightly translated a Hare. For though no Author, but Moses, saith it chews the Cud, yet Aristotle saith something like it, Lib. III. cap. 22. where he observes it hath a rennet in the Stomach. And Th. Bartholinus in his Anatom. Hist. Cent. 2. Histor. LXXXVI. tells us, That in his Dissection of an Hare, though he found but one Stomach, which made him wonder at first, that Moses should reckon it among the Creatures that ruminate, yet he found that what was wanting in the simple Stomach, was supplied by the largeness of the intestinum Caecum. Which Gut is of a great bigness, consisting of two parts. In one of which he found liquid and white Excrements (like to Chyle) as if it were another Stomach: The other part, towards the Ileon, being full of black Excrements.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the Swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud: he is unclean to you.] Though the Swine hath the first part of the Mark of a clean Creature completely, being clovenfooted, as well as having the Hoof divided, yet not chewing the Cud, it is forbidden to be eaten. And this, no doubt, was the sole foundation of the Jews abstaining from this Meat. Whose filthy feeding and wallowing in the Mire Maimonides fancies, was the only cause why it was prohibited, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 48. To which others add, its feeding upon Flesh, as Vossius observes, L. III. the orig. & progressu Idol. c. 42. where he gives other reasons also for it. One of which, viz. that it was apt to breed the Leprosy, to which they were very subject in those Countries, is ingeniously treated of by Petrus Cunaeus in his Republ. Hebraeor. Lib. II. cap. ult. and more lately by another very learned Person, J. Wagenseil, Carminis R. Lipmanni Confutatio, p. 556. To which Clemens Alexandrinus adds several other reasons, Lib. VII. Strom. p. 718. and there are many more in Lactantius relating to Morality, Lib. IU. Divin. Instit. cap. 17. But whatsoever grounds there might be of this Prohibition, that alone could not be the reason, why the whole Nation of the Jews abhorred this more than any other unclean Creatures, which were equally forbidden with this. Insomuch, that they would not, when they spoke of it, mention its proper name; but called it another (or a strange) thing. Which arose sure from some other cause, that, in process of time, made this the most abominable of all other Creatures. And that was, I take it, because the Gentiles used it in their Sacrifices and Mysteries of Religion; and because nothing was accounted a more delicious Food among many great Nations: which (if a vehement abhorrence had not been infused into the Jews of this Creature) might have invited them to their Tables, and bred such Familiarity with them, as might have concluded in Idolatry. Pliny observes Lib. VIII. cap. 51. that no Creature affords greater plenty of delicious Dishes at their Tables than this, Neque alio ex animali numerosior materia ganeae, etc. Insomuch that old Homer, relating how Eumaeus entertained Ulysses (Odyss. XIV.) saith only that he killed a great Hog of five years old, and that only for five Guests. They that would see more of this, may look into Petrus Castellanus, Lib. II. de Esu Carnium, cap. 1, 2, etc. where he shows also out of Varro (Lib. II. de Re Rustica, cap. 4.) that the Gentiles knew of no ancienter Sacrifices than this, after they began to offer Animals upon their Altars. For they thought that would be most acceptable to their Gods, which best pleased themselves: insomuch that a Swine, which the later Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab illo verbo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from that word which signifies to Sacrifice. For the first Sacrifices were of this Creature, as appears by the Mysteries of Ceres, in which a Sow was offered; and at their Marriages the ancient Kings and great Men of Etruria offered the like Sacrifice; and so did the Latins and Greeks in Italy. The Hierapolitans indeed looked upon Swine as unclean, and would neither eat them, nor offer them to their Gods; nor would they of Pessinuntium in Galatia: quod prorsus Mosaicum est, which they learned in all likelihood from Moses, as Huetius thinks, Demonstr. Evang. Propos. IV. cap. 11. n. 1. But in many other Nations this Food was highly valued: and Athenaeus, I observe, giveth the very same reason of its Name that Varro doth, Lib. IX. Deipnos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From whence it is, that Aristophanes calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mystical Swine, in his Acharnan: because, as the Scholiast there explains it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They were offered in the Mysteries of Ceres. And Julian himself, in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods (Orat. V.) confesses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It was deservedly believed to be a grateful Sacrifice to the Terrestrial Gods, p. 332. Edit. Patau.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch.] Some think the latter part of this Precept signifies no more, but that they should not meddle with their Carcase to prepare it for Meat, (as the word touch seems to be used, III Gen. 3.) though they did not eat it. But others take it more largely, that they should not so much as open them, to take out the Fat, and apply it to any use. In this the Jews are so scrupulous, that they say they may not touch them (though alive) with one of their Fingers, for fear of the Leprosy. It being a Proverbial saying among them, which we read in the Treatise Kidduschin, That ten measures of Leprosy descending into the World, Swine took to themselves nine of them, and the rest of the World one.  
If we may believe Herodotus, Lib. II. cap. 47. the Egyptians looked upon Swine as so unclean, that if any one touched one of them by chance, as he passed by, he was bound to wash himself, with his Garments, in the River. Certain it is, that not only they, but the Arabians, and some other neighbouring Nations, did abstain from Swine's flesh, as Bochartus and others have observed, (See his Hierozoicon. P.I. L. II. cap. 57 p. 702. and Petr. Castellanus, L. II. de Esu Carnium, cap. 4.) which they learned, I doubt not, at first from the Jews; and afterwards found other reasons for it. This abhorrency of Swine is propagated into far distant Countries among the Mahometans; particularly into Mindanao, one of the Philippine Islands; where, if any one have but touched one of these Creatures, he is not permitted to come into any Body's House, for many days after. So Dampier relates in a late Voyage round the World, chap. 12. p. 343. where he says, The Sultan's Brother having a pair of Shoes made him by one of their Ships Crew (which they seldom wear there) fell into a great Passion, when he was told the Thread, wherewith the Shoes were sewed, was pointed with Hog's bristles; and would not wear them.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 These shall ye eat, of all that are in the waters.] Though some of the Heathens abstained perpetually from all Fish, and others only for some time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they were under strict Obligations of Purity, (as Julian tells us in the  Oration V) But God left his People at greater liberty, forbidding to them only some kinds of Fish; by abstinence from which they were sufficiently distinguished from those Nations, which eaten all indifferently, and accounted Fish the greatest delicacy.  
Whatsoever hath fins and scales.] If both these Marks did not concur in a Fish, they were not to eat it. But their Doctors say, (as we learn from R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CL.) that if but one Scale was found on a Fish, it was accounted lawful; and they needed not to observe whether it had Fins or no: for all that have Scales, they say, have Fins; though, on the contrary, all that have Fins have not Scales. They observe also, secondly, that it was lawful to eat young Fish before their Scales appeared, if they were of that kind, which have Scales when they are grown. And, thirdly, all Fishes that have Scales when they are in the Sea, but cast them when they are taken out, are lawful.  
In the Waters, in the Seas, and in the Rivers.] By Waters in this place, as distinguished from Seas and Rivers, are meant Lakes and Ponds. And so Moses expresses all the places where Fish is found.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And all that have not fins, nor scales, etc. shall be an abomination to you.] There was an ancient Law among the Romans, made by Numa, That no Fish which wanted Scales, should be used in those Feasts which they made in honour of their Gods. So Pliny tells us, Lib. XXXII. Nat. Hist. cap. 2. where he quotes an ancient Writer for it.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you.] The next words explain what he means by abomination; that they should not eat their Flesh, nor touch their Carcases.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.] He repeats it again, that they might take notice, that this alone was a sufficient Mark of difference: And therefore he doth not give any instance of particular Fishes, that might be eaten or not eaten; as he did of Beasts. He uses also the word abomination concerning prohibited Fishes, (which he doth not of such Beasts, whom he only calls unclean) because there was greater danger of their transgressing in this matter; Fishes being a more usual Food among the Eastern People, than Flesh. Insomuch, that among the later Greeks, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies all manner of Victuals, came to be used peculiarly for Fish. See Bochartus in his Hierozoic. P. I. Lib. I. cap. 6. where he observes also the greatest Luxury was committed in this sort of Food: which any one may see that reads Athenaeus.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls, they shall not be eaten.] Here are no Notes given, as in the two foregoing sorts of Creatures, to distinguish clean Birds from unclean: And therefore the Hebrew Doctors say, all Birds are lawful to be eaten, but these XXIV mentioned in this Chapter; which they were to have in abhorrence. Yet they adventure to give four Marks of a clean Bird; the principal of which are, If it do not fasten its Talons; i e. be not rapacious: and have one Claw longer than the rest. See R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CLXI.  
They shall be an abomination.] This is repeated to make them more careful in this matter.  
The Eagle.] He names in the first place, the King of Birds, as Pindar calls the Eagle, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. whose Flesh is very hard, and whose Nature is very rapacious: and therefore, both upon a Natural and Moral Account, some Author's fancy it was forbidden to be eaten. See Vossius, Lib. III. de Orig. & Progr. Idol. cap. 77. But I think Origen hath given a better Account of it, in the place I named above; that Moses by his admirable Wisdom understood what Creatures were looked upon as Prophetical by the Egyptians, and other Nations; and these he prohibited to the Jews: Among which he expressly names the Eagle and the Hawk, Lib. IU. contra Celsum, p. 225. For Diadorus Siculus saith (Lib. I.) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The People of Thebes worship the Eagle, looking upon it as a Royal Bird, and worthy of Jupiter. And Julian in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods (Orat. V) saith, That in the time of their strictest Purifications, they were permitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so Spanhemius truly reads in the late Edition of Julian's Works) to eat Birds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except a few, which had been commonly held Sacred. Which is a plain acknowledgement of the sacredness of some Birds among the Gentles.  
The Ossifrage.] All Authors, in a manner, agree, that the Hebrew word Peres signifies a kind of Eagle; but what kind is not so certain. Boobartus thinks it is rightly tranflated by Junius, as it is by us, the Ossifrage: for the Hebrew word Paras, in III Micab 3. is used for breaking of bones. See Hierozoie. P. II. Lib. II. c. 5.  
The Ospray.] This is also of the same Species; and signifies that sort, which the Greeks call Haliaetus, the Sea-Eagle. But Bochartus in the same Book, cap. 6. thinks the Hebrew word Oznija, rather signifies that which they call Melaniaetus, the black Eagle. Which though it be the least, yet is the strongest of all other, and therefore called Valeria by the Romans: and was so noted for many other qualities, besides its great strength, that it makes it probable Moses did not here omit it.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the Vulture, and the Kite after his kind.] No wonder Interpreters differ in their Translation of the two Hebrew words, Daa and Aja; the former of which we translate a Vulture, the latter a Kite (which others translate quite contrary, taking Daa, or Raa, as it is called in Deuteronomy, for a Kite) because there is no way to find the signification of them, unless it be by the roots, from whence they may be thought to be derived. Which makes Bochart think the first word ought to be translated a Kite, called Daa, from its very swift flight. Most of the ancient and later Interpreters also, are of his mind. As for the second word in this Verse, Aja, some take it for a Vulture: but Bochart, from several observations, judges it to be a kind of Hawk or Falcon. See in the same Book, cap. 8. After this word there follows in Deuteronomy XIV. 13. the name of a Bird which is here omitted, called Daja, which he takes for the black Vulture; as the Reader may find in the next Chapter, cap. 9  
After his kind.] Though there be some little difference in shape, yet these Birds all belong to one Species. See v. 22.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 Every Raven after his kind.] No Body doubts that the Hebrew word Oreb, (which signifies blackness) is rightly translated a Raven: of which the Arabian Writers mention four kinds. And some think under this name is comprehended, not only Crows, and Daws, and Choughs; but Starlings and Pies also. See Bochartus, cap. 10. p. 202.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Owl.] The Hebrew word Bath-jaana, it appears, by many places in the Prophets, signifies a Bird which inhabits the Wildernesses, and desolate Places. See XIII Isa. 21. XXXIV. 13. L Jer. 39, etc. By which the ancient Interpreters of Scripture almost unanimously understand the Ostrich; though a very learned Man of our own Nation (Nic. Fuller in his Miscellanies, Lib. VI cap. 7.) endeavours by a probable Argument to support our Translation. But it hath been the constant persuasion of the Jews, that God did not permit them to eat the Flesh of an Ostrich, which is not where forbidden, if not in this word. And therefore Bochartus maintains, against our Fuller, and labours to prove that Bath-jaana signifies the fentale Ostrich, P. II. Hierozoiv. Lib. II. cap. 14. where he shows the word Bath (i. e. daughter) is prefixed to the name of many Birds, without any respect to their Age, and doth not signify their young ones; but only the females.  
And the night Hawk.] In the next Chapter to that now named, the same Bochart proves that the Hebrew word Thacmas (which we here translate the Night-Hawk) signifies the male Ostrich. For there is no general name for this Bird in the Hebrew Language, to comprehend both Sexes, (as there is for an Eagle and a Raven) and therefore Moses mentions both Male and Female distinctly; that none might think, by forbidding one of them only, he allowed the other.  
And the Cuckoo.] The LXX. St. Hierom, and some later Interpreters, translate the Hebrew word Sachaph by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Seagull. Which the same great Man, , thinks most probable, c. 18.  
And the Hawk after his kind.] There is the greatest consent in the Translation of the Hebrew word New, which all agree signifies an Hawk; from its strength and swiftness in flight, which made it Sacred to Apollo. For Eustathius observes upon Iliad. X. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Hawk flies, as the Sun moves, very swiftly. And every one knows there are very various kinds of these birds. Callimachus mentions Six, Aristotle X. and Pliny Sixteen sorts. See Bochart in the same Book, cap. 19  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the little Owl.] Interpreters generally agree that Chos signifies a kind of Owl; following the LXX. who translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet Bochart hath collected a great many ingenious Arguments, to prove that it signifies that Bird, which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bittern. See there cap. 20.  
And the Cormorant.] Though the same learned Person doth not approve of this Translation, yet he acknowledges the Hebrew word Salach signifies some Sea-bird, which sits upon Rocks, and strikes at fishes with great force, and draws them out of the Waters. And so the Talmudists, in the Treatise called Cholut, expound it; and the Gloss upon it there says, it signifies the Crow of the Waters, that is, a Cormorant.  
And the great Owl.] There are various Translations of the Hebrew word Jansaph, which St. Hierom takes for a Stork, and others for a Bustard: But Bochart acknowledges the Syriac and Chaldee Translation to be the most probable; which is the same with ours.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And the Swan.] In this Translation we follow St. Hierom: but Jonathan takes it for a kind of Owl, which he calls Otja. Whereby he means, no doubt, that Bird which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which he saith is like an Owl, having Tufts of Feathers about its ears; from whence it hath the name of O●●, L. VIII. cap. 12. And so the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Samaritan here translate the Hebrew word Thinsemeth, which a great many Modern Interpreters follow; who take this for that which the Latins call noctua, as the former for that Owl which they call bubo.  
The Pelican.] That the Hebrew word Kaath signifies a Pelican is not disputed. But that it also signifies the Bird we call an Hern, is not improbable; being joined with Chos in the CII Psalm 6. which is a Bird that makes an unpleasant noise, especially that kind of them that cries like a Bittern, and is called by later Writers Butorius.  
And the Gier-Eagle.] There are many various Opinions about this Bird, which the Hebrews call Racham. But Bochart hath shown out of the Arabian Writers, that it signifies a kind of Eagle, or Vulture: for sometimes they call it by one of these names, sometimes by the other. It being of a dubious kind, between an Eagle and a Vulture; and therefore happily by us translated a Gier-Eagle, that is, a Vulture Eagle, which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See Hierozoic. P. II. L. II. cap. 25, 26, 27. where Bochart shows it is such a harmless and good natured Bird, that thence it had the name of Racham, and in Arabic of Rachama: and was made the Hieroglyphic of Mercy and Tenderness among the Egyptians, if Horus Apollo may be believed.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And the Stork.] There are vastly different Interpretations of the word Chasida; which imports kindness no less than the foregoing Racham. But there is no Reason to departed from the Opinion of the later Hebrews, who take it, as we do, to signify a Stork. The Piety (as the Latins call it) of which BIrd, is celebrated by all Authors, and is the very import of the Hebrew word Chasida. But it feeds upon Serpents, and therefore, as Bochart imagines, was prohibited to be eaten by the Jews: though upon this account it was had in honour by the People of Thessaly, and by the Egyptians, as he observes in the  Book, cap. 29.  
The Heron after his kind.] There are at least ten different Interpretations of the Hebrew word Anapha; among which ours is one. But it being derived from a word which signifies anger, Bochartus rather takes it for a Mountain Falcon; which is a fierce Bird, and very prone to anger.  
And the Lapwing.] The Hebrew Doctors take Dukiphath for a Mountain Cock, which hath a double Crest, and thence hath its name, according to R. Solomon. Or rather it may be so called from the place where it resorts; for Dik in Arabic is a Cock, and Kepha a Rock, from whence Bochart probably conjectures this Bird had its name, because it lives in mountainous places. And he thinks the LXX. and the Vulgar have rightly translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Vpupam: which is the sense also of four Arabian Interpreters. It is a portentous kind of Bird, which hath a Crest from its Bill to the hindermost part of its head; and one of the principal Birds used in the ancient Superstitions of the Magicians and Augurs, as he observes cap. 31.  
And the Bat.] As Moses gins the Catalogue of Birds with the noblest, which is the Eagle, so he ends it with the vilest, which is a Bat; being of a dubious kind, as Aristotle observes, between a Bird and a Mouse, Lib. 4. cap. 13. where he saith it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. See the famous Bochartus, who shows that its name in Hebrew, which is Attaleph, imports it to be a Bird of Darkness. Whence that phrase in the Prophet, TWO Isaiah 20. In that day a man shall cast his Idols of Silver and Gold to the Bats and the Moles; i. e. they shall no more appear to delude Men with their glittering brightness, but be utterly destroyed.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 All Fowls that creep.] The Hebrew word Oph is not well translated Fowls; but signifies rather all flying things going upon all four. All flying things that go upon four feet are here forbidden; such as all kinds of Flies, and Wasps, and Bees, as Jonathan here explains it. A Fly indeed is observed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but though it have six feet, yet it goes only upon four, as not only Lucian, but Aristotle notes; the two fore-feets serving for other uses. See Bochart in his Hierozoic. P. II. L. IV. cap. 9  
Shall be an abomination to you.] It is observed by some, that the Birds here forbidden are either rapacious, and live on Flesh, (as Eagles and Hawks, etc.) or are Night-Birds, (as Owls, etc.) or haunt Lakes and Marshes, (as the Bittern, etc.) or are heavy, and not easily raised from the Earth, as the Ostrich; or live in Graves or in Dung, as the Vpupa, and some of those flying things mentioned in this Verse: and upon these accounts are forbidden by Moses; who allows all those that live upon a cleaner Food, as those that follow do.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 Yet these may ye eat, of every flying, creeping thing, etc.] In this Verse he excepts such flying Infects, as besides their four feet, wherewith they go, have two legs or thighs which enable them to leap upon the Earth, as well as to go. Such are all the Locusts mentioned in the next Verse: unto which Aristotle ascribes six feet, whereas Moses mentions but four. In which they do not disagree; for Aristotle plainly saith, they have six feet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if we take into the number the parts with which they leap, L. IU. cap. 6. Which two hinder leaping legs, Moses distinguishes from the other four wherewith they go.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 Even these of them ye may eat.] There are nine kinds of Locusts mentioned in the holy Books; four of which are here permitted to be eaten.  
The Locust after its kind.] The Hebrew word Arboh is sometimes a common Name for all Locusts; but here signifies a peculiar sort, of that kind , which leapt, as well as went.  
The bald Locust after its kind.] The Hebrew word is Solam: so called, as Aben-Ezra thinks, because it climbs up Roots, in which it delights.  
The Beetle after its kind.] This sort of Locust, called Chargol, seems to have its name from the vast company wherein they fly together. But it is not fitly translated a Beetle; for none ever eat Beetles; nor are they fourfooted, with legs to leap withal. Therefore Chargol is another sort of Locusts, unknown to us in these Countries; and so is that which follows; for a Grasshopper is not a sort of Meat: But there were Locusts of that shape, which were large and fleshy in the Eastern Countries, and very good Food.  
The Grasshopper after its kind.] The Hebrew word Chagab signifies (as I said) a sort of Locusts, the original of whose Name Aben-Ezra intimates may be found in the Arabic Tongue. In which Chahageba signifies to cover as with a Veil: And in such Troops these Locusts fly, that sometimes they seem to darken the Sun itself. But by what marks these were distinguished from one another, the Hebrews differ so much, that it plainly snows they are wholly ignorant in this matter. The most that can be made of what they say, is, (as a Man very learned in these things hath observed, (Job Ludolphus in his Dissertation de Locustis, P. I. cap. 23.) that Chargol hath both a bunch on its back, and a Tail also: Arbeh hath neither: Solam only a Bunch, and not a Tail; and Chagab a Tail, but no Bunch. Which, whether it be true or false, it doth not much concern us to know. But it is evident, that before our Saviour's time, they knew very well and certainly, what kind of Locusts are here meant; and accordingly perfectly understood what they might eat, and what not. For otherwise John the Baptist would have been hard put to it, who had no other Diet but this and Honey. And indeed in desert places, there was little other Food but this; by which whole Armies of Men have been relieved, when they were in danger to perish in Libya. For that Locusts were a common Food in the Eastern and Southern Countries, is so known, that I need not produce any Authorities for it. Nay, among the Greeks also, as Bochartus hath shown in his Hierozoic. P. II. L. IV. cap. 7. And Vossius, L. IU. de Orig. & Progr. Idol. c. 78. But no Body hath given such satisfaction in this matter, as the forenamed Ludolphus; who hath shown at large how many Nations live upon them, in his Commentary upon his  History: and more lately in his most excellent Dissertation concerning Locusts. Wherein he relates what Clouds of them came into Germany not long ago (in the Month of August, in the Year One thousand six hundred ninety and three) of which he seeing Hogs and Hens and other Creatures feeding greedily, he and his Family adventured to eat freely of them also; and found the taste of them like that of a Crab. And a Jew of Jerusalem, who was then in their Country, assured him that the Locusts in Judea were much of the same shape with these in Germany; which he demonstrated to him by a draught he had made of them.  
After his kind.] Here it may be fit to note, in the conclusion of all, that this phrase, after his kind, (which is so often repeated in this Discourse of Fowls and flying things) doth not necessarily signify that there are different kinds of every Bird or flying thing to which it is applied; but only imports every one of that kind. For he doth not speak in the Plural Number, according to their kinds; but in the Singular, after his kind: which only denotes that the whole Species is prohibited. And what he saith of some Fowls, is in reason to be applied to all; though, to avoid repetition, he doth not add these words [after his kind] to every one of them.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 But all other flying creeping things which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you.] Whether they were Locusts, or any other kind of Creature, who came under this Character, they were to avoid them carefully.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them, shall be unclean.] If they did either eat of them, or so much as touch the carcase of them, they might not be admitted to come into the Tabernacle, nor eat of any holy thing, nor converse with their Neighbours.  
Until the even.] He doth not say they were to wash themselves, or their Clothes (as in the following Verse) which would incline one to think, that their mere Separation for all the day, from Communion with God and with one another, was their Cleansing, without any other Purification. But there are so many Commands for washing themselves and their Clothes, in other Defilements no greater than this, that it hath persuaded some to think such Cleansing was necessary in this case also. See XV. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. and several other Verses in that Chapter.  
Ver. 25. And whosoever beareth aught of the carcase of them.] Though it were only to carry them out of the Camp or City; or remove them out of the way, that they might not infect the Air.  
Shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.] His Body also, in all likelihood, was to be washed; as was required in other Purifications. No time is appointed for this, which perhaps a Man might think fit to do presently; but notwithstanding he was to remain unclean till the Setting of the Sun.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 The carcase of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, etc.] He takes occasion from hence to inform them, that it was as unlawful to touch the carcases of Beasts before prohibited to be eaten (v. 3, etc.) as of the Fowl and flying things now mentioned. But while they were alive it was not unlawful to touch them; for they used Camels, and Horses, and Asses, for their necessary Service; and therefore it is so expressed in other things, v. 31. when they are dead.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, etc.] Hath feet with fingers like unto a hand; for so it is in the Hebrew, Whatsoever goeth upon his hands: Such as the Ape, the Lion, the Bear, Dogs and Cats, etc. whose fore-feets resemble hands: These might neither be eaten, nor their carcases touched, without incurring uncleanness till Sunset.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, etc.] See v. 25.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 These also shall be unclean unto you.] So that they might not so much as touch them (as it is explained v. 31.) when they were dead; much less eat them.  
Among the creeping things that creep upon the earth.] Among things that have such short feet, that some of their bellies seem to touch the ground.  
The weasel.] Though most Interpreters follow this Translation of the Hebrew word Choled, yet Bochartus hath alleged a great many probable reasons that it signifies a Mole. And one is, because it is joined here with the Mouse. See Hierozoicon P. I. L. III. cap. 35. where he treats of this very largely.  
The Mouse.] All acknowledge the Hebrew word Achbar signifies a Mouse; and more especially a field Mouse, which doth great mischief there; and thence hath its name, as the same Bochartus shows in the foregoing Chapter of that Book. But all sorts of Mice are here to be understood, as Jonathan observes who thus paraphrases this word, The black Mouse, the red and the white; for they are of so many colours.  
The Tortoise after its kind.] The same Author hath taken a great deal of pains to prove that Tzab doth not signify a Tortoise; but as the LXX. and St. Hierom take it, a land Crocodile. Which is a large sort of Lizzard, a Cubit long, with which Arabia abounds: out of which Language he endeavours at large to prove the truth of this Interpretation, Lib. IU. cap. 1.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And the Ferret.] Out of the same Language, and the Syriac and Samaritan Paraphrase, the same judicious Writer proves, that Anaka signifies another sort of Lizzard, which the Latins call Stellio, and in those Countries hath a shrill cry. See there cap. 2.  
And the Chameleon.] Most of the ancient Interpreters take Coach for another sort of Lizzard, which is the strongest (as this Name imports) of all other; and in these Countries was famous for its encounters with Serpents and Land Crocodiles; as the forenamed Bochartus shows out of the Arabian Writers, lb. cap. 3.  
And the Lizzard.] All the ancient Interpreters agree that the Hebrew word Letaa signifies a sort of Lizzard; but of what kind, it is hard to determine. The aforesaid Bochart out of the Arabian Writers hath shown, it is like to that which is of a reddish colour, and lies close to the Earth, infecting the Meat, which it touches, with its venom, Ib. cap. 4.  
The Snail.] The same admirable Person, with great probability, still thinks Moses speaks of a sort of Lizzard called here Chomet, because it lies in the Sand, which in the Talmudick Language is called Chometon, Ib. cap. V.  
And the Mole.] It is apparent that the word Thinsemeth, which we here translate a Mole, is of a very doubtful signification: For in the 18th Verse of this Chapter it signifies a sort of Fowl; as here, in all probability, another sort of Lizzard. And if we may guests what sort, by the original of the word, it probably signifies the Chameleon, which gapes to draw in Air. See Bochart. Hieroz. P. I. L. iv cap. 6. But after all that can be said, it must be acknowledged the significations of all these words are lost among the Jews; as Aben-Ezra confesses upon this Verse: Neither these eight sorts of creeping things, nor the Birds before mentioned, are known to us, but by Tradition. Which is as much as to say, they are not known at all; for there is no Tradition about them, as the Talmudists acknowledge; who send those who are doubtful what Birds are lawful, and what not, to be informed by those that are Masters of the Art of Fowling. Which might help to convince the Jews, were they not resolved to shut their Eyes, that difference of Meats is now ceased, because they know not what is forbidden, and what not, in many cases. And consequently the Messiah is come, to whom the gathering of the people was to be, (according to their Father Jacob's Prophecy, XLIX Gen. 10.) so that they should be no longer separated, but all Nations collected into one Body, and converse freely together, without any danger of being defiled. For Idolatry being abolished by him, there was no reason remaining for keeping up the discrimination between Jews and Gentles, by a different Diet. This some of the ancient Jews saw very well, who said, that in the days of the Messiah, it should not be unlawful to eat Swines-flesh, no more than it was while they were subduing the Land of Canaan. This Tradition is acknowledged by Abarbanel himself in his Rosch Amanah, where he disputes for the Eternity of their Law, and endeavours to elude this Tradition of the ancient Doctors by Allegorical Interpretations. See J. Carzovius in Schickard. Mischpat hammelech, c. 5. Theorem XVIII.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 These are unclean to you among all that creep, whosoever toucheth them when they be dead, shall be unclean.] The Jews understand this with respect to the touching the dead Carcases of these Creatures, and make the sense of it to be, These eight alone are unclean to you; all other Reptiles, as Serpents and Scorpions, etc. you may touch, and not be polluted. Thus R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CLII For nothing was unclean by Moses his Law, whilst it was alive, but only a Leper, and a Woman in her Separation. Worms, Dogs, Swine, etc. were unclean to be touched, only when they were dead.  
Until the evening.] v. 4. This was a plain document, as Pellicanus there observes, that there was no impurity in the things themselves; but it was merely a prudential Constitution, to make such Defilements end with the day wherein they were contracted.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean.] That is, it might not be used till it was cleansed. Whence the same R. Levi saith, the Jews are wont to call these the Fathers of Pollutions; because by their contact they defiled other things (Vessels, and Raiment, etc.) as well as Men, Precept. CLII where he acknowledges that the reason why these Creatures made things unclean, more than others, is not manifest. But he gives this pious Admonition thereupon; If by our reason we be able to discern the usefulness of some Precepts, let us be very thankful for it: but if we cannot find how they are any way profitable to us, let us believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, saw the benefit we should receive by it, and therefore commanded it.  
Whatsoever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, etc. so shall it be cleansed.] The Heathens purified all things, in a manner, by washing them in water; but Moses requires only these things, which were of common use, to be so purified, in case of any defilement. And therefore Maimonides faith, Such Laws as these were made to lessen their Labour and Service; and if there be any thing in them that seems too troublesome and tedious, it arises from our ignorance of the Rites and Customs of those times, which make such Precepts necessary. P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 47.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any other of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean.] It defiled both the Vessel, and that which was contained in it.  
And ye shall break it.] This is prescribed VI 28. because such Vessels were of no great value.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean.] The Jews have many Observations about these sorts of Pollutions: but the simple meaning is, that any Meat, which might otherwise be lawfully eaten, was made unclean, if any Water poured out of such a Vessel as is before named, had come upon it. For the Water being defiled, it made the Meat on which it came to be unclean also. This appears to be the sense, by what follows.  
And all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel, shall be unclean.] It might not be drunk out of such a Vessel, though otherwise it was not prohibited. But though liquid things were by such means made unclean, yet not dry things (such as Bread) because they did not so soon receive any Effluviums from a dead Carcase, as Liquid things did. This they gather from v. 37, 38.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth, shall be unclean.] Though the whole Carcase did not fall upon the things here named, yet if any part of it did, they were not fit to be used any more, but were to be broken in pieces. See v. 33. The design of all which Laws is very visible, that by making the Israelites very cautious how they touched these things, or any other on which they fell, they might much more abhor to eat any unclean Creature; and thereby be kept a separate People from all other Nations, from whose familiar Conversation they were by this means restrained, and consequently in less danger to learn their Idolatrous Customs.  
Whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, etc.] Some translate the last words simply pots: and Conr. Pellicanus hath pertinently observed, that those places where Meat and Drink were commonly prepared (such as Ovens, and Pots, and Wine-vessels, and Cellars) it became them to preserve very clean and pure: which is the reason that Moses requires them to be broken down, if any part of the Carcase of unclean Creatures fell upon them.  
For they are unclean.] Rendered hereby unfit for use.  
And shall be unclean unto you.] And therefore shall not be used by you as heretofore.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Nevertheless a fountain, or pit, (or cistern, as some translate it) wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean.] This Exception seems to have been a merciful Provision for their speedy Cleansing from such Pollutions as they frequently contracted; by allowing them to make use of any Collection of Waters (notwithstanding any such Carcase had fallen into them) in their own private Grounds, as well as in the public Baths; such as Bethesda seems to have been, which had five Porches; that they who laboured under the same sort of Pollution, might betake themselves to the same Porch, and go down into the Water together. If this had not been permitted, it might have been impossible (considering the few Rivers they had in that Country) to have cleansed themselves after their Defilements.  
But that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.] The Man who drew out these Carcases out of such Waters, was to be unclean till the Even; i. e. Separated, as I said before, from the Tabernacle and from common Conversation. Or the meaning may be, that the Instrument, whatsoever it was, which he used to pull the Carcase out of the Fountain or Cistern, should be unclean, and not used any more.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 If any part of their carcase fall upon any seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.] If a Mouse, for instance, was found dead among the Wheat that was to be sown, it might notwithstanding be used for Seed: But other Wheat, which was not intended for Seed, was made unclean, and might not be used till it was washed. The reason of this difference is plain, because the Seed that was to be sown, went through many alterations before it could become Food, which took away all the pollution.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.] Wet Seed might be supposed to have received some tincture from the Carcase, which dry did not: And not being so fit to be sown till it was dry, was in that time to be cleansed.  
Ver. 39 Verse 39 And if any beast of which ye may eat, die.] Either of itself, or torn by Wild-beasts; or be suffocated, so that the Blood remain in the Veins.  
He that toucheth the carcase thereof, shall be unclean until the even.] Such Meat became unlawful, not only to be eaten, but to be touched.  
Ver. 40. Verse 40 He that eateth of the carcase of it, shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase, etc.] See v. 24, 25. He speaks of such as eat of this Meat ignorantly: for if they did it knowingly, it was a presumption to which cutting off is threatened, XV Numb. 30.  
Ver. 41. Verse 41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.] Except those  v. 21, etc.  
Shall be an abomination: it shall not be eaten.] Such as Worms and Serpents: which for this very reason are counted vile and filthy, because they crawl upon the Earth.  
Ver. 42. Verse 42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, and whatsoever hath more feet, etc.] This Verse seems to be an Explication of the foregoing. For some creeping things have such short feet, that they are not to be discerned by our naked Eyes, but they appear as if they went upon their Bellies. Others have feet apparently; and some only four (as Moles, etc.) others have many more than four, as Caterpillars, and Hoglice, which we call Millepedes, and those called Centapees in the Philipine Islands (mentioned in Dampier's late Voyage round the World, p. 320.) not because they have really a thousand, or an hundred feet, but because they have a great many. And the Scolopendra, which the Arabians call Nedall, is another of this sort, which, they say, hath precisely XLIV feet, viz. XXII. on each side, as Bochart notes Lib. IU. c. 6. p. 1. And so the English call the Centapees , forty legs, which are on each side of the Belly.  
Among all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.] Here Nachmanides is something curiously critical, and bids us observe, that Moses speaking (both here and in the foregoing Verse) not merely of creeping things, but of such as creep upon the Earth; doth not intent such little Worms as are in Pease, or Figs, or Dates, or other Fruit, which were not included in this Precept, but might be eaten.  
Ver. 43. And ye shall not make yourselves abominable by any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.] They made themselves abominable if they did eat them: and they made themselves unclean if they did but touch them. R. Levi of Barcelona fancies, that in this Verse Moses speaks particularly of things creeping in the Waters; as in the foregoing, of things creeping on the Earth. And then, as all those Worms which are in Fruit, were not to be deemed unlawful; so all those little Animals which move in the Waters, might be drank together with the Water which was drawn out of Wells, or Pits, etc. and which were bred in Water kept in Vessels.  
Ver. 44. Verse 44 For I am the LORD your God.] See III Exod. 15, 18.  
Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves.] By this separate sort of Diet, and other  Observances.  
And ye shall be holy, for I am holy.] The word holy signifies sometimes that which is most excellent, and highly exalted above all other things. In which sense God here puts them in mind, that he being the most eminent in all Perfections, incomparably above all the Gods of the Nations, both in his Nature, and in his Works, (particularly in their Redemption out of Egypt, v. 45.) it was but reasonable that they should be distinguished from all other Nations, in their manner of living; and particularly by abstaining from all the Defilements . For he having declared them an holy People (XIX Exod. 6.) it was but just that they should live after another fashion, than the rest of the World; and look upon those things as unclean to them, which were not so to other People. See XXII Exod. ult.  
Neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.] Here being a different word used in the last Clause from that in the foregoing (both which signify creeping things) Maimonides here distinguishes between them; and saith, that the first word Scheretz signifies such creeping things as are produced by Male and Female; and Romesch (which is the other word) such as arise out of Putrefaction. Which is now discovered to be an Error; there being no such Animals as are produced merely by the power of the Sun, out of putrified matter; but all out of some Seed or other which comes from Male and Female. This therefore is only a Repetition of what was delivered before, and now confirmed by an unanswerable reason.  
Ver. 45. For I am the LORD your God that bringeth you up out of the Land of Egypt.] This was a benefit so fresh in their minds, that he speaks of it as if it were now a doing: and being the first and greatest benefit, (the very foundation of the rest) there could not be a higher aggravation of Gild, than to be insensible of this Obligation, XXXII Exod. 8.  
To be your God.] He having redeemed them out of Slavery, made them thereby his own People; over whom he had a peculiar Dominion, in the right of this Redemption. See XX Exod. 2.  
Ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.] They being his peculiar People, he separated them from all other Nations by peculiar Laws; which made them different from all other People, as he himself was, from all other Being's.  
Ver. 46. Verse 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, etc.] That is, this is the Rule you are to observe in eating of Beasts, and Fowl, and Fishes, and things that creep on the Earth. Of which four sorts of living Creatures Moses had treated in this Chapter, though not in that very order wherein they are set down in this Verse: but first of Beasts, v. 2, 3, etc. then of Fishes, v. 9, etc. then of Birds, v. 13, etc. and lastly of creeping things, v. 20, etc. Some of all which kinds he forbade them to eat, for such reasons as I have already mentioned: unto which this may be added, that by not allowing them an entire liberty to eat every thing, but rather laying many Restraints upon them, he intended to prevent that Gluttony and Luxury which is the ruin of a State; unto which nothing administers more than too great variety of Meats, the desire of which is insatiable.  
Ver. 47. Verse 47 To make a difference.] To direct you how to make a difference.  
Between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten.] There was no uncleanness in any of these things, but what was made by this prohibition of them. But there being great reason to prohibit them, it was very necessary that both Priests and People should observe, and be well skilled in, the Marks whereby what was lawful to be eaten, might be known from what was unlawful. Upon which account this is so oft repeated, and the same here expressed twice in different words.   

CHAP. XII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] The Directions in this Chapter are given to Moses alone; whereas those in the foregoing were delivered unto Aaron also; as those are in like manner which follow about the Leprosy (XIII. 1.) because Aaron and his Sons were peculiarly concerned in those matters, to make an exact difference between clean and unclean, (X. 10, 11. XIV. 57) in which there was some difficulty; and therefore they are charged by God himself to attend carefully to the Laws he gave about them. But there was no such difficulty in what belonged to the Purification of Women; and therefore it was sufficient that they received Admonitions from Moses concerning it.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 If a woman have conceived seed, and born a manchild.] Whether it were born alive, or dead; were an Abortive, or come to its full time: this made no difference, as the Hebrew Doctors understand it.  
She shall be unclean seven days.] For the first seven days after the Birth of the Child, she was neither to partake of any holy thing, nor to have common Conversation with others; her Husband not being permitted to eat and drink with her all that time: for they that attended her became unclean also. And so they were accounted among the Heathen, as Dilherrus observes out of Plautus (in his Dissert. Special. de Cacozelia Gentilium, cap. 3. where he saith, the Women that assisted at the Labour solemnly washed their hands, and had a Sacrifice offered for them on the fifth day after the Delivery. Plautus' his words indeed will not warrant all this, which I find in his Truculentus, Act. 2. Scen. 4. where the Harlot says, she will Sacrifice for the Child on the fifth day according to the Custom. 
Quin Diis Sacrificare hodie pro puero volo  
Quinto die, quod fieri oportet.—  Where Scaliger observes that the Greeks were wont to purify their Children on the fifth day; but the Latins on the eighth, if they were Daughters, and on the ninth, if they were Sons; which was called Dies lustricus.  
According to the days of the separation for her infirmity, shall she be unclean.] That is, her Case shall be the same with that of a Menstruous Woman, who was in a state of the highest Uncleanness, XV. 19, 20. For every thing she touched was unclean, and made those so, who touched that thing.  
Ver. 3. And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.] This is here mentioned to show, that one reason for not Circumcising the Child till the eighth day, was its Mother's Uncleanness the first seven days of her lying in; which made the Child unclean also.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And she shall then continue.] From the seven days end.  
In the blood of her purifying.] In the Purification of her Blood: For all the following days were days of Purification; not of entire Separation.  
Three and thirty days.] All the days of her Uncleanness were forty: And for the first seven days, she was to be separated from all Conversation with her Neighbours; but the following three and thirty, she had free Conversation with them, and was only excluded from the Sanctuary, and from eating of the Peace-offerings, or the Paschal Lamb, and (if she were the Wife of a Priest) of the Tithes, and other lesser holy things; of which otherwise she might have eaten.  
She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification be fulfilled.] If Maimonides may be credited, the Zabijs, an ancient sort of Idolaters in those Eastern parts, had a great number of tedious and tiresome Customs about the Purisication of their Childbed-women; from all which God freed his People, by restraining them only from coming into his Sanctuary, or partaking of holy things; but otherwise leaving them at liberty to perform all manner of Offices in their Family, during the time of their Purification, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47. It is apparent also that other Gentiles kept their Women from their Temples, a long time after their Childbirth; and that Superstitious People would not so much as go within their doors. See Dilherrus in the forenamed Book and Chapter.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if she bear a Maid-child, then shall she be unclean two weeks, as in her separation.] The time of strict Separation, when they brought forth a Female, was double to that which was prescribed (v. 2.) when they brought forth a Male. And so also was the time of their Purification: which lasted threescore and six days, as they in the other Case by thirty and three. The reason of which difference, not only the Jews, but others also derive from the greater redundancy (as R. Levi Barcelonita calls it, Precept. CLXVI.) of Blood in the latter Case, than in the former; and from the flowness of Nature in its operation, which made the Purgation longer before it was effected. Hypocrates himself treats of this difference (in his Book de Natura Puerp.) where he saith, Women are sooner purged after the Birth of Males, than of Females: See Joh. Meursius in his Syntagma de Puerperio, cap. 6, 7. The natural weaknesses of Women also, during this time, required quiet and little Company: from which the very temper of their Blood in those Climates made a longer Separation more necessary, than in these colder Regions. But if there were no such apparent reason to be given of these things, yet vel ex ipsa veneranda antiquitate, & simplicitate suscipienda forent, & minimè contemnenda (as Conrade. Pellicanus speaks upon the foregoing Chapter, v. 35.) they ought for the sake of their venerable antiquity and simplicity to be duly regarded, and not to be despised.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And when the days of her Purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter.] Which was not till the end of the fortieth day for a Son, and the eightieth day for a Daughter. And therefore the Offerings here mentioned, were not offered till the day after, viz. the LXI. day for the one, and the LXXXI. day for the other; because till then her Purification was not perfected, as Maimonides observes in his Book de Sacrificiis, Tract. V sect. 5. where he observes also, that they might not eat of holy things, till these Sacrifices had been offered for them.  
And she shall bring a Lamb of the first year.] Which then was in its greatest Perfection, as hath been often noted.  
For a burnt-offering.] In gratitude to God for giving her a safe Deliverance, and bestowing a Child upon her, and raising her up to her former strength, and bringing her again to his Sanctuary. Where, by this Offering she also commended herself and Child to his continued Care and Blessing, and implored his Divine Guidance and Assistance in its Education. For these Offerings, as I observed before, were a kind of Supplication which they that brought them made to God: and there was nothing that pious People could more earnestly desire on such occasions, than that God would take their little ones into his tuition. Who are continually liable to so many Dangers, that without the special Favour of God, and the Custody of his Angels, they could never grow to be able to take any care of themselves. They are the words of Conradus Pellicanus upon this place; who thence infers how necessary it is, that the People of the Church should be admonished frequently, to commend their Children unto God both by private and by public Prayers, and take care of their Instruction, lest they become like the Horse, and the Mule, that have no Understanding.  
And a young Pigeon, or a turtle Dove for a sin-offering.] To complete her Purification from her Uncleanness. For that is here meant by Sin; the impurity which the Law made, by Separating such Persons from others, and from the Sanctuary, for a time. And thus a Sin-offering is commanded to be brought by a Leper, when he was cleansed; who was charged only with a Legal Uncleanness, not a Moral. And it is more plain, from what is ordained concerning menstruous Women, whose Courses were purely natural, and yet they were to offer a Sin-offering when they were gone, XV. 30. because the Law accounted that a state of Uncleanness. And from the case of a Nazaarite, who had unwillingly touched a dead Body, V Numb. 11. where it is said, he had sinned by the dead; i.e. was legally polluted. And this may be the reason, perhaps, why a Burnt-offering is here mentioned before the Sin-offering, which is wont to precede the other, v. 7, 8.  
It may be conceived indeed that in all the forementioned Cases, those Persons (especially Lepers) had some way offended God, before or in their state of Separation; and therefore were to have their sin (properly so called) expiated by a Sin-offering. And R. Bechai also gives another probable account of it; that this Sacrifice was offered not for her own Sin, but the Sin of her first Parent, the Mother of all Living, who brought Sin and Sorrow into the World: for from a bad Stock, there cannot sprout good Branches; and therefore God appointed this Offering for the Expiation of that primary Sin.  
Unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, unto the Priest.] It was a most wise Constitution (as a Person of excellent Learning, Dr. Alix, observes) which bond this People, from their first coming into the World, to their going out of it, to have a dependence upon the Priests and the Levites (who for that purpose were dispersed through all the Tribes of Israel, that People might be instructed by them, how to govern themselves in all the passages of Human Life) For there are Laws not only about Marriages and Successions, but about their lying in, whether of a Son or Daughter, and about all they were to do while that time lasted, and when it ended; and indeed all the time they lived, and when they went out of the World; in their Funerals, and Mourning for the Dead.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her.] By this Offering she was restored to the liberty of God's House, and to partake of holy things. For so it follows,  
And she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.] No longer separated from holy Society.  
This is the Law for her that hath born a male or a female.] All this principally respected the Women; yet not excluding her Child; who (it appears by S. Luke II. 22.) was on this day of his Mother's Purification, presented unto the LORD. That indeed had respect to the Law about the Firstborn: but a very ancient MS. and the Syriac, and Origen, taking this for the day of their Purification, and not merely of hers (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) it plainly shows the Child could not be admitted into the Divine Presence, no more than the Mother, till the days  were accomplished.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if she be not able to bring a Lamb, than she shall bring two Turtles, and two young Pigeons, etc.] This was a merciful provision for the poorer sort, as in other cases, V 7, 11. And from this very place we may learn, in how mean a Condition the Mother of our LORD was; who for her Purification did not bring a Lamb (unto which her Piety, no doubt, would have prompted her, if she had been able) but only this lower sort of Offering, as we read TWO Luke 24.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.] This Sacrifice was as available, as the other, to restore her to Communion with God's People. The Greeks imitated this; among whom the fortieth day was insignis (as Censorinus speaks) famous or remarkable upon more accounts than one. For Women with Child did not go to the Temple ante diem quadragesimum before the fortieth day: and after their Delivery, commonly they were not fit to go out till forty days more, (his words are, quadraginta diebus pleraeque foetae graviores sunt, nec sanguinem interdum continent) during which time their little ones were sickly, never smiled, nor were out of danger. Which is observed by that great Physician Celsus, Lib. II. cap. 1. Maxim, omnis pueritia primum circa quadragesimum diem periclitatur. And therefore, when this day was past, they were wont to keep a Feast (as Censorinus there tells us, cap. 11. de Die Natali) which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at which time, it is likely, they offered Sacrifices also, as the Jewish Women did.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses and Aaron, saying.] Here God speaks to Aaron again, as well as unto Moses, (See XI. 1.) because he and his Posterity were peculiarly concerned in the following Laws about the Leprosy; both in judging and cleansing of it.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh.] For there this Disease lay, and shown itself.  
A rising, a scab, or a bright spot.] The Leprosy appeared in one of these three forms; either as a tumour or swelling; or a scab; or a bright spot in the skin.  
And it shall be in the skin of his flesh, like the plague of Leprosy.] There were some Swell, and Scabs, and Spots, which were not the Leprosy, but only like it. And therefore Moses here teaches the Priests how to discern between a true Leprosy, and the resemblance of it; that accordingly they might either pronounce a Person clean, or unclean; shut him up, or let him have his liberty; shave him, or let his Hair grow.  
Plague of Leprosy.] If we may believe Pliny, Lib. XXVI. cap. 1. this Disease was peculiar to Egypt, which he calls genetrix talium vitiorum: And if Artapanus in Eusebius saith true (Lib. IX. Praepar. Evang. cap. 27.) Pharaoh, who sought to kill Moses, was the first who was struck with this Disease, and died of it. So false is the story of Manetho, who, to hid the true cause of the Israelites departure out of Egypt, saith that they cast out a company of leprous People, of whom Moses was the Captain. Out of Egypt, it is likely, this Disease spread into Syria, which is noted likewise to have been much infested with such foul eruptions in the Skin: which have as many various names, as there are Rise, or Breaking's out, or Spots there; and are commonly all comprehended under the name of Leprosy, as P. Cunaeus observes, L. II. de Republ. Judaeorum, cap. ult. But Moses here distinguishes them, and seems to instruct the Israelites, that the Leprosy which he speaks of, was no common Disease, but inflicted by the Hand of Heaven. So the Hebrew Doctors understand it; particularly R. Levi Barcelonita (Precept. CLXVIII.) a leprous Man ought not to look upon his disease as a casual thing; but seriously consider and acknowledge that some grievous sin is the cause of it. Which made the knowledge of their Priests so admirable (as the Author of the Book Cosri speaks, P. II. sect. 58.) that they were able to understand what was divine in the Leprosy, and what was from natural temper. For that there was something Divine in it, is confirmed by the story of Naaman, 2 Kings V. 7. where the King of Israel plainly declares none but God could cure a Leper: whom therefore they looked upon as smitten by God; and thence called the Disease the Plague, or stroke, of Leprosy, and sometimes simply the Plague or Struck, v. 3, 5, 17, 22. of this Chapter. For they could not understand how such a Pestilent Disease, as infected not merely men's bodies, but the very Walls of their Houses and Garments, should proceed merely from ordinary Causes, and therefore they thought there was an extraordinary hand of God in it.  
Then he shall be brought to Aaron the Priest, or unto one of his sons the Priests.] Not to the Physicians, but to the Priests; who were the only Judges, whether it was a true Leprosy or no: And if it were, could best direct him to his cure (by Repentance and Prayer to God) and cleanse him when he was cured. But they might resort to any Priest whatsoever, as Mr. Selden observes out of the Talmud (where there is a large Treatise of this matter) though he was maimed in any part of his Body, and so unfit to minister at the Altar, provided his eyes still continued good, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 14. num. 5.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the Priest shall look on the plague in the skin of his flesh.] When there is a suspicion that it is the Leprosy. The same great Man observes, that this inspection might be made upon any day of the Week, but the Sabbath or Festivals. Yet not in the night, nor in any hour of the day, but the IVth, Vth, VIIIth, and IXth: For they accounted the morning, evening, and noon, not such proper times to make this inspection. Which they say also might be made by any Israelite; though none but the Priest could pronounce one clean, or unclean. For though perhaps the Priest was ignorant, and stood in need to be informed by wiser Persons than himself; yet that Man who was not a Priest, could only direct him what to judge, but not give the Judgement. According to that Law, XXI Deut. 5. Out of their mouth, or by their word, shall every stroke be tried: which particularly relates to the Leprosy, XXIV. 8.  
And when the hair in the plague is turned white, etc.] He gins with the last of the three Indications of a Leprosy, viz. the bright Spot. In which, if the very Hair was turned white, and it was not only a superficial whiteness, but the Spot seemed to have eaten deeper into the very Flesh, than it was to be judged a true Leprosy. R. Levi Barcelon. expresses it thus; when there was one or more places so white, that their whiteness was like that of an Eggshell, or more glossy, than it is the Leprosy.  
And the Priest shall look upon him.] Having made this inspection, and found it to be the Leprosy.  
And pronounce him unclean.] Command him to be separated from the Congregation, and shut up by himself, v. 46.  
But though all the Israelites, Children and Servants, as well as others, were under this Law, yet no Gentile nor the Proselytes of the Gate were; as Maimonides and the rest of the Hebrew Doctors tell us.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh.] i.e. If there be barely a white Spot in the skin, which hath not altered the Hair.  
And in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white.] The forenamed R. Levi explains this passage thus; If it were not a perfect white, but something duskish, below the whiteness of an Eggshell, he was to look upon it as that which might prove a lesser sort of foulness in the Blood and Skin, short of the Leprosy; which infected the very Hair in that place.  
Then the Priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days.] He had something like the Plague, which might prove to be it; and therefore he was to be separated from others so long, that some judgement might be made, whether it was, or would be so or no: for seven days commonly make considerable Alterations in the state of all Diseases.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And the Priest shall look on him the seventh day.] Until which it was not likely any certain Judgement could be made.  
And behold.] Observe this.  
If the plague in his sight be at a stay.] In the Hebrew the words are, If the plague standeth in his sight; i. e. seemeth to him not to have spread itself at all in the Skin, as it follows in the next words. Or, as it may be translated, If it continue in the same colour, which it had before, and were not altered: For the Hebrew word signifies colour, as well as sight. And if this Translation be right, then here are two Marks which the Priest was to observe (viz. whether the Spot had not altered its complexion, and whether it had not spread further in the Skin) but according to our present Translation there is but one; the next Clause being but the Explication of this.  
Then the Priest shall shut him up seven days more.] The case remaining dubious, he was to make a further Trial.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Priest shall look on him again the seventh day, and behold, if the plague be somewhat dark.] The Priest was to mark diligently, whether there were any alteration in the colour, and that which was bright before, now looked dark; which justifies the second Interpretation of the first Clause in the foregoing Verse.  
And the plague spread not in the skin.] This was another token, by which the Priest was to be governed in his Judgement.  
The Priest shall pronounce him clean.] He was to be shut up no longer, but left at liberty, to go abroad and freely converse with his Brethren.  
It is but a Scab.] An ordinary Scab, or Scurf, short of the Leprosy: Such as is now in Guam and Mindanao, which Dampier (in his late New Voyage round the World, chap. 12.) describes to be a dry Scurf, all over the Body, that causeth great itching, and raiseth the outer Skin in small white flakes, like the Scales of little Fish, when they are raised on end with a Knife. But he did not perceive, that they made any great matter of it; for they did not refrain any Company for it.  
And he shall wash his Clothes, and be clean.] Having been suspected to have a Leprosy, and something like it appearing, which had kept him separate from his Brethren several days, he was to use this small Purification; because there was some kind of Impurity in his Blood, which broke out into the Skin, though not infectious.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if the scab spread much abroad in the skin.] The second sort of Leprosy was a Scab, (v. 2.) which seems to have been of two kinds: One of which Moses joins to what he saith of the swelling; and the other to what he saith of the bright Spot.  
After he hath been seen of the Priest for his cleansing.] That is, after the Priest hath pronounced him clean, v. 6.  
He shall be seen of the Priest again.] A new inspection was to be made by the Priest. And if any Man (as Maimonides saith) was so profane as carelessly to neglect it, by not going to the Priest, and showing him his case, his punishment was to have his Leprosy cleave to him for ever.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if the Priest see, that behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin.] Though it lurked for a time, yet this spreading of it in the Skin, was to be taken for an evident mark that it was the Leprosy.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man.] That is, when there is a suspicion of the first sort of Leprosy mentioned v. 2. and called a Rising, or Swelling.  
Then he shall be brought unto the Priest.] By those who feared his Company might be infectious; but good Men went of themselves to him.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the Priest shall see him.] Diligently view and consider the nature of the Scab.  
And behold, if the rising be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising.] If upon Examination the Priest found a third mark, besides the two former, (whiteness in the Skin, and the hair turned white) viz. that it had eaten into the very Flesh; he was to look upon it, as an undoubted Leprosy.  
Quick raw flesh in the rising.] Quick or living Flesh (as the Hebrew word is) signifies sound d Flesh not corrupted. So the meaning seems to be, if it have broken through the Skin, and in the raw sound Flesh there appeared white Spots, there needed no further consideration; for it would soon taint the whole mass of Blood.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh.] The two first signs were very bad, particularly the second, the hair turning white (just as a Plant, saith Procopius Gazaeus, or a Flower dies, together with the Earth in which it grows) but this last was far worse; being a mark of an inveterate Evil that had been long breeding, and got not only into the Skin and the Hair, but into the very living Flesh, which, as the same Procopius speaks, it began to corrode, and would devour.  
And the Priest shall pronounce him unclean.] Without any further Examination.  
And shall not shut him up.] Because there was no need of any more proof, nor any doubt, whether it was the Leprosy, or no.  
For he is unclean.] It was apparent from the Tokens, which were already very visible.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin.] He calls that a Leprosy, which was not truly so, but was by some thought to be so, because it had a likeness to it.  
And the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plagne.] i. e. Seemeth to have it.  
From his head even to his foot, wheresoever the Priest looketh.] An irruption in every part of his Body, which was spread all over with Scabs.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 He shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague.] This sort of breaking out, from top to toe, as we speak, was not to be looked upon as the Plague of Leprosy; being rather a relief to the Body, than a disease.  
It is all turned white, he is clean.] There was no danger in this irruption; Nature having only discharged those putrid salt Humours which were in the Blood. Just as those among us, who have the Measles and Small Pox, are likely to do well, when they come out every where; but not when they stick in the Skin.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.] When the sound Flesh appeared speckled with the  Spots, it was an evident token that it was a settled Leprosy: Nature being not able to throw out the ill Humour into the Skin; but working inward into the Flesh.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean.] When he sees the sign beforenamed, he shall make no further Examination, but declare him to be unclean.  
For the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy.] This was so undoubted a mark, that there needed no more. Which makes Moses repeat it, that the Priest might observe it the more carefully, when he made his inspection.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 Or if the raw flesh turn again.] If there was such an alteration in it, that it was freed from these pestilent Spots.  
And be changed into white.] Look like other Flesh, which hath a white Skin upon it.  
He shall come unto the Priest.] Desire him to make a new Examination of the state of his Body.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the Priest shall see him.] Take a view of his Body; especially in those parts where the Leprosy was suspected to be.  
And behold, if the plague be turned into white, etc.] If upon due consideration, his Body appear alike white every where, and no Spots to be seen in the Flesh, the Priest was to declare him to have no Leprosy remaining.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 The flesh also, in which, even in the skin thereof, was a bile, and is healed.] In this and the following Verses, he treats of such a Leprosy, as arose out of Ulcers, which had been healed: and afterward there was a new eruption which might prove a Leprosy.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And in the place of the bile.] Where the Bile formerly broke out; but seemed to be healed.  
There be a white rising, or a bright spot white.] These two are the first and the last Indications of a Leprosy mentioned v. 2.  
And somewhat reddish.] This is a mark not hitherto mentioned: which some render exceeding shineing; or an inflammation which looks very red. For so the Hebrew word adamdameth seems to import; it being certain, that the doubling of the Radicals of any word increases the sense. This is apparent from abundance of instances in other words; which are heaped up together by Bochartus in his Hierozoicon, P. II. L. V cap. 6. where he observes with respect to this word, that it being impossible, that the same thing should be both very white, and very red, it hath made most Interpreters expound this word adamdameth, as we do, somewhat reddish; quite contrary to the true sense of the word, which imports an high degree of some colour, and therefore aught to be translated exceeding glister. For Adam signifies not only red, but also to glister: and accordingly, Persons very leprous are said in Scripture to be as white as Snow, IV Exod. 6. XII Numb. 10. 2 King's V. 27. See v. 49. of this Chapter.  
And it be showed to the Priest.] That he might pass his Judgement upon it, whether it were the Leprosy, or no.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And if when the Priest seethe it, behold, it being in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white, etc.] If upon a serious search, it appear to have the two marks here mentioned (which are those before set down v. 3.) the Priest was to declare him unclean.  
It is a plague of leprosy broken out of the bile.] In the place where the Bile formerly was, v. 19  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 But if the Priest look on it, and behold, there is no white hair therein, and it be not lower than the skin.] If he find upon search, neither of the two marks beforenamed.  
But be somewhat dark, etc.] Though it had not eaten into the Flesh, (which was a certain sign of a Leprosy) yet if it changed colour, there was some ground of suspicion: and therefore he was to be shut up seven days. See v. 4.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And if it spread much abroad in the skin, than the Priest shall pronounce him unclean.] The spreading of the Spot was a token the Blood was much vitiated, and that this foul Disease was begun in the Body.  
It is a plague.] Of Leprosy.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 But if the bright spot stay in its place, and spread not, etc.] If it continued in the same condition, and made no progress, it was an indication the Bile was breaking out again; which did not make him unclean.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 Or if there be any flesh in the skin, whereof there is a hot burning.] In the Hebrew the words run thus, Or the flesh, when it shall be in the skin a burning fire. That is, when there is an inflammation made in the Skin and the Flesh, by an hot burning Coal, or some such thing, falling upon it. For in the foregoing Paragraph (v. 16, etc.) he speaks of Ulcers which arose of themselves from bad Humours in the Body; and here of such as were made by fire.  
And the quick flesh that burneth.] The part of the Body that is burnt.  
Have a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white.] Very shining. See v. 19 For this was a sign of the Leprosy broken out in that  place, which otherwise would have looked black.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 If the hair in the bright spot be turned white, etc.] See v. 20.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 But if the Priest look upon it, and behold, there be no white hair, etc.] The same direction is given here, as in the foregoing case v. 21.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And the Priest shall look upon him the seventh day, and if it be spread abroad much in the skin, etc.] This Verse and the next contain the same marks with those v. 23, 24.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 It is a rising of the burning.] A tumour made by fire, or a hot iron, etc. which burned the part. A mere inflammation (as he calls it in the end of this Verse) arising from that burning.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 If a man or woman hath a plague upon the head, or the beard.] Such a kind of Disease, Pliny saith, came into Italy in the middle of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar, which they called Mentagra, because it commonly began in the Chin; and was so filthy, ut quaecunque Mors praeferenda esset, that any death was preferable to it, Lib. XXVI. Nat. Hist. cap. 1.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 Then the Priest shall see the plague, and behold, if it be in the sight deeper than the skin, etc.] There are the same marks of this sort, with those of the former: only, instead of a white Hair, which there was in other kinds of Leprosies, there was a yellow Hair in this; and not so thick as the white.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 If it be not in sight deeper than the skin, etc.] This was some indication that it was not a Leprosy; yet if there were no black Hair in it (as it here follows) which was a sign of Soundness and Health, v. 37. the case was not certain, but doubtful; and therefore he was to be shut up seven days, to see what it would prove.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And in the seventh day the Priest shall look on the plague.] So he calls it, because it had a resemblance of the Leprosy.  
And behold, if the scall spread not.] For this was the nature of the Disease, which Pliny describes in the place , that it spread itself in many Persons, from the Chin all over the Face, except the Eyes; and went down to the Neck, the Breast, and the Hands, foeda cutis furfure, with a filthy Scurf of the Skin, which is here called a Scall.  
And there be no yellow hair in it.] This, with the foregoing and the following sign (that it was, not in sight deeper than the Skin) made it probable it was not the Leprosy. Yet he was not upon this immediately discharged; but a further trial, as the next Verse tells us, was to be made before he was set at liberty.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 He shall be shaved, but the scall shall he not shave, etc.] For sureness sake, the Head and Beard were to be shaved (which might be performed by any Body) that the Priest might the better discern, whether the Scall spread or no. Only the place where the Scall appeared was not shaved; because the Priest was to observe, of what colour the Hair in it was. So R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CLXXII. They shave round about the Scall, leaving only the two next hairs; that they may know the decrease or increase of the Disease.  
And the Priest shall shut him up that hath the scall, seven days more.] In which time some considerable alteration would be made one way or other.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 And in the seventh day.] Before it was completed.  
The Priest shall look on the scall, and behold, if it be not spread, etc.] Here are the same marks which were mentioned before; that if the Scall did not spread in the Skin, nor eat into the Flesh, he was not to be shut up any longer, but pronounced clean; and, after he had washed his Clothes, be admitted into the Society of God's People again. See v. 6.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 But if the scall spread much in the skin after his cleansing.] It fell out sometime, that the Scall, which had stood at a stay for a Fortnight, and seemed neither to spread, nor corrode at all, began to go on to the neighbouring parts.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Then the Priest shall look on him, and behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, etc.] If he found this single mark, that after the Scall had been at a stand a good while, it began to spread much, he was not to trouble himself for any further token, by seeking for the yellow hair (v. 30.) but immediately declare him to be a Leper.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 But if the scall be in his sight at a stay, etc.] If after this, the Scall stopped again, and made no further progress; and withal there was a black hair appeared in it, (which the Priest could not find before, but now was grown up in it) he was to take it for an evident sign that the Man was cured of his Leprosy. For the Hair being restored to its natural colour, was a certain indication that the Blood was cleansed from its impurity.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 If a man or woman, have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots.] i.e. No other sign of the Leprosy, but only this.  
Ver. 39 Verse 39 Then the Priest shall look, and behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh is darkish white, etc.] In this case the Priest was to observe, whether the Spots had any thing of a cloudiness in them; for if they had, it was not a Leprosy: if they were perfectly clear, and bright, than it was.  
Ver. 40. Verse 40 And the man whose hair is fallen off his head.] i. e. From the hinder part of it.  
Ver. 41. Verse 41 And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head towards his face, etc.] The design of these two Verses is, to instruct the Priest, that the mere falling off of the hair from his head, which made him bald, either behind or before, should not be taken to be a sign of the Leprosy.  
Ver. 42, 43. Verse 42, 43. And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore, etc.] If either in the hinder, or forepart of a bald head there appeared a white sore, exceeding bright (as it should be translated) like that which appeared sometimes in the Skin, v. 24. then, as it here follows, he was to be looked on as a leprous Man.  
Ver. 44. Verse 44 The Priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean.] As unclean, as any of the forenamed Persons.  
His plague is in his head.] The Leprosy appears in his head, as in other Persons it appears in the skin of their Bodies.  
Ver. 45. Verse 45] And the leper in whom the plague is.] Any of the forenamed sort, of Leprosies.  
His clothes shall be rend.] After the manner of Mourners (as some take it) that he might sensibly declare his afflicted Condition. For upon any sad occasion, they were wont in those Countries to rend their Clothes, IX Ezra 3, 5. TWO Job 12. Others indeed think this was intended only for a mark of his uncleanness: but I do not see why it might not serve to both ends.  
And his head bare.] This was another token of mourning. But the Hebrew Writers unanimously translate these words quite contrary: the Phrase in the original being, his head shall be free; i. e. say they, from cutting or shaving: which was as much as to say, he should let his hair grow long. This also was a sign of sadness and sorrow. See X. 6.  
And shall put a covering upon his upper lip.] Either he was to cover it with his hand, or with the skirt of his Garment, which they threw over their heads, when they were in a state of mourning. Of which this was another sign, XXIV Ezek. 17, 22. as it was also of shame, III Mich. 7. Some will have all these to be marks only for Men to avoid them: but that is sufficiently taken care of, in the last words of this Verse.  
I shall only add, That the Hebrews well observe that none were bound to any of these things, who were shut up on suspicion of Leprosy; but only such as were absolutely pronounced to be leprous.  
And shall cry, unclean, unclean.] Give notice to Passengers not to come near him, by crying out aloud, so that they might hear him, I am in the most unclean condition wherein any man can be. Some fancy this was required, that Men might avoid infection: but the true reason was, that they might avoid legal Pollutions by conversation with them; as appears by the next Verse. Jeremiah seems to allude to this, IV Lament. 15. And there seems also to have been the like care among the Heathen, to give notice of any place which was unclean, that none might be defiled by it. So Servius tells us upon IV Aeneid. that the Romans were wont to set a Cypress-tree (which being cut down, could not grow again) before the door of a dead Man's House, Ne quis sacram rem facturus, imprudens domum praeteriret, lest any Man, who was going to perform Sacred Offices, should unawares pass by his door.  
Ver. 46. Verse 46 All the days wherein the plague shall be in him, he shall be defiled.] Remain in that desolate state.  
He is unclean.] Separate from Company.  
He shall dwell alone.] 2 Kings XV. 5.  
Without the Camp shall his habitation be.] There were three Camps, (as the Hebrews commonly observe) that of the Divinity (or the Sanctuary) that of the Levites, and that of the Israelites: out of all which a leprous Man was to be removed, that no Man might have conversation with him, but only such who were leprous like himself; who in after times were shut out of the Cities, as now out of the Camp, 2 Kings VII. 3.  
Ver. 47. Verse 47 The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in.] This is a matter which we do not now understand; that a Leprosy should not only cleave to a Garment, and infect it, but appear and be seen in it. As, in the next Chapter, Moses speaks also of Leprosy in an House (XIV. 34.) which he doth not mention here, because they had no Houses in the Wilderness, but dwelled in Tents covered with Skins, and such like things: in which, as well as in Garments, he supposes the Leprosy will be. See XIV. 34. But what kind of Disease this was, which appeared in insensible things, the Syrians and Egyptians perhaps might then understand, but we now are ignorant, as P. Cunaeus speaks; Cujusmodi id vitium in rebus inanimatis fuerit, Sylli fortasse & Egyptij tunc intellexerunt; nos hercle ignoramus, L. II. de Republ. Hebraeor. cap. ult. And indeed it seems to have been a Divine stroke, as Moses himself signifies, XIV. 34. and appears not only from the place , 2 Kings V. 7, 27. but from XV. 5. of the same Book. And so the Jews have always understood it, particular Maimonides, who in his Treatise on this Subject, cap. 16. sect. 9 saith, That this change in Garments and Houses, did not proceed from natural causes, but was a sign and a miracle in Israel. That is, an extraordinary punishment inflicted by God, as a token of his high displeasure. And it is not at all incredible, that such a strange Plague should then infest them, which is not now known in the World; when we consider what unusual Diseases there have been in other Countries, unknown in former times; which afterwards have also vanished, and are now to be found only in Books. Pliny mentions several new Diseases, omni priori aevo incognitos, unknown to all Ages past; some of which were peculiar to some Provinces, and touched not others. Concerning which he did not know what to say, but only this: Quid hoc esse dicamus, aut quas Deorum iras? What shall we call this? or from what great anger of the Gods doth it proceed, that the Diseases which already certainly infest men's bodies (which in number are above three hundred) should not be sufficient; but new ones are still to be feared? Lib. XXVI. Nat. Hist. cap. 1. He looked, that is, upon these strange Diseases, as sent by God, when Men had highly incurred his displeasure. The last Century was famous for such an extraordinary Plague (as Johannes Wierus, who then lived, often calls it) when the Scurvy, which was confined before to some Northern Regions, near the Sea, over-ran the Low-Countries, being at that time unknown in Germany, Italy, France, and Spain, which were entirely free from it. See his Observationum Medicarum, Lib. I. sect. 1.  
Whether it be a woollen garment or a linen.] There is a great dispute among the Talmudists, whether Garments made of Camel's hair (which they called the Wool of Camels) were comprehended under these words, or no.  
Ver. 48. Verse 48 Whether it be in the warp, or woof of linen or of woollen.] In the inward or outward part of it.  
Whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin.] They were more likely to be infected, than woollen or linen Garments; because they had been part of the body of living Creatures.  
Ver. 49. Verse 49 And if the plague be greenish, or reddish in the garment, etc.] There seems to be great reason in what Maimonides saith, in his Treatise of the Leprosy, that the Hebrew word Jerakrak (which is made by the doubling of the Radical Letters) should be interpreted the most intense green; such as is in the Wings of a Peacock (as he speaks) or in the Leaves of a Palmtree. As the word Adamdam, in like manner, signifies the highest degree of another colour, viz. redness; such as the brightest Scarlet: See v. 19 And if a spot of these colours were found in a Garment or Skin, as broad as a Bean, it was a sufficient ground to think it might be the Leprosy; if it were not so broad, it was accounted clean.  
It is a plague of leprosy, etc.] It was justly to be suspected; and therefore was to be brought to the Priest, for his judgement to be passed upon it. Who was to make a trial what it would prove, by shutting up that Garment or Skin wherein the Spot was, for the space of seven days; as is directed in the next Verse.  
Ver. 50. Verse 50 And the Priest shall look upon the plague, etc.] If upon his inspection, he found the forenamed tokens, he was to do with it, as he did with Persons who were under a suspicion of a Leprosy.  
Ver. 51. Verse 51 If the plague be spread in the garment, etc.] There were three certain marks (as Maimonides notes) of the Leprosy in a Garment; the extreme greeness or redness of the Spots in it; and the spreading of them after they were first discovered.  
The plague is a fretting leprosy.] The Hebrew word Mamereth, which we translate sretting, is very variously rendered by the ancient Interpreters; as Bochart hath observed in his Hierozoicon. P. I. L. II. cap. 45. where, from the Arabic Tongue, he thinks it may be best translated an exasperated, or irritated Leprosy: That is, very sharp and pricking (which suits well with our Translation) eating into the Garment or Skin, till it was consumed. Abarbanel translates it painful: because this sort of Leprosy in the body of a Man, was full of anguish. And so this word is used in XXVIII Ezek. 24. where a Thorn is called Mamir; and translated by us a grieving Thorn.  
Ver. 52. Verse 52 He shall therefore burn that garment, etc.] It seems this Leprosy could never be got out of the Garment or Skin wherein it was; which therefore was ordered to be burnt, as never likely to be fit for use.  
Ver. 53, 54. Verse 53, 54. If it be not spread in the garment, etc.] If the Spot was at a stay, and did not proceed further, than the Garment, as the following Verse directs, was to be washed, and shut up for seven days; in which time it appeared whether the impurity were quite gone, or still remained.  
Ver. 55. If the plague hath not changed its colour.] If washing had not altered that vicious colour, but it still continued very red or green.  
And the plague be not spread.] Or, though it be not spread; yet it was to be pronounced unclean, and adjudged to be burnt.  
It is fret inward.] Though it did not spread in breadth, yet it fretted in depth.  
Whether it be bare within or without.] In the Hebrew the words are, In the baldness of the hinder part, or in its forepart: which seems to be a manner of speaking taken from v. 42, 43. where he treats of bald heads. And the meaning is, whether it eat into the right side of the Garment (which is compared to the forehead) or into the wrong side (which is compared to the hinder part of the head) making it as bare as a bald head is, when there is not a hair left. For this sort of Leprosy was wont to eat off the nap of the Cloth, and make it threadbare.  
Ver. 56. Verse 56 And if the Priest look, and behold, the plague be somewhat dark, after the washing of it, etc.] If it had changed its colour, from very green or red, and become duskish (or, as Abarbanel understands it, the Spot was contracted or shrunk up in the washing; so that it was gone in part, if not in whole) then the Priest was to cut out that part of the Garment where the Spot was; there being some indication that the whole Garment might not be tainted.  
Ver. 57 Verse 57 If it appear still in the garment, etc.] If after that Spot was cut out, the neighbouring parts appeared to have a tincture of a very green or red colour, it was to be taken for a demonstration that there was a spreading Leprosy (as it here follows) in the Garment or Skin, which would proceed till it was entirely infected with it.  
Thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is, with fire.] Therefore, the Leprosy being incurable, there was no other remedy but to destroy the thing wherein it was.  
Ver. 58. Verse 58 And the garment, either warp or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, etc.] Whatsoever, after washing, had no appearance of such Spots as are  (v. 49, etc.) remaining in it, there was no further trial to be made of it, but being washed a second time, it was to be accounted clean; i. e. fit for common use.  
Ver. 59 Verse 59 This is the Law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of  or linen, etc.] By these Rules the Priests were to judge, whether Garments were lawful to be used or no; and accordingly to determine: as by the Rules in the foregoing part of the Chapter, they were to judge and pronounce whether Men and Women were fit to be allowed to keep company with others. And when we consider how nice and diligent many Nations were, and still are, in their washings, after any sort of defilement, it is no wonder (as Conradus Pellicanus hear glosses) that some Laws of Cleanliness, even about their Garments, were prescribed to the Jews; which admonished them of that inward purgation of their hearts from all impure affections; about which they were to be far more solicitous. I have forborn to apply what is here said of the Leprosy, in this Chapter, to the various degrees of Pollutions that are in men's minds; because that would have made this Book too large; and it is done already by a great number of Commentators, both Modern and Ancient; particularly, among the later, by Procopius Gazaeus, and Hesychius Presb. Hierosolymorum, who, sometimes, have done it very ingeniously.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] All that is said before, concerning the Rules whereby they were to discern the Leprosy, from the like Diseases, were given unto Aaron as well as unto Moses, XIII. 1. For Aaron and his Posterity were constituted the Judges of such matters, in which they had need to be well studied and versed. But the way and manner of cleansing a Leper is delivered only to Moses, to be by him given unto Aaron and his Sons, who were to depend on him as God's great Minister, and their Instructor in all Religious Rites.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing.] The manner and means which God hath ordained of purifying a Leper (as Maimonides expounds it) and restoring him to the Communion of God's People.  
He shall be brought unto the Priest.] Not to the House of the Priest; for he was to go out to the Gate of the Camp, (as appears by the next Verse) and thither the Leper was to be brought to him. But these words seem to import the Leper was first to come towards the Camp (unto some place which the Priest, it is likely, appointed) and then the Priest, having notice of it, was to go out, and look upon him.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the Priest shall go forth out of the Camp.] To the place where the Leper was, XIII. 46.  
And the Priest shall look.] Diligently examine in what condition the Leper is, by the Rules mentioned in the foregoing Chapter.  
And behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper.] The Priest, no doubt, had been informed, before he went to make the inspection, that there were good grounds to believe the Man was freed from his Leprosy.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then shall the Priest command to take for him, etc.] That some of his Friends, or such as he ordered, should provide what follows for his Purification.  
Two birds alive, that are clean.] The margin of our Bibles translates it two Sparrows: and they who take the word in this sense have some pretty conceits about it. Particularly this; That it signifies him who had lately sat alone, like a solitary Sparrow on the House top (as the Psalmist speaks) to be now admitted into the Society of others again. But Origen takes these Birds to have been Hens, (and so Scaliger shows out of Nicander, that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anciently signified; Exerc. 230.) and the LXX. better translate it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, two little Birds, of any sort whatsoever, provided they were clean, i. e. lawful to be eaten, as the Vulgar truly interpret it. For to restrain it to Sparrows had been very absurd, whether they had been clean Birds or unclean; because it had been in vain to say a clean Sparrow, when the whole Species was so by the Law; and more unaccountable to require a clean Sparrow, if all had been unlawful, as Bochart rightly observes Lib. I. Hieroz. cap. 22. P. II.  
Grotius takes this to have been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gift, which is mentioned VIII Matth. 4. which was presented by the Leper in the day of his Cleansing; rather than those mentioned v. 10. of this Chapter. But I can see nothing of the Nature of a Gift or Present in these Birds, which were not to be offered at the Altar.  
And cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop.] Why his Purification was to be made by these things, Maimonides saith he could never understand (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.) But Abarbanel adventures to guests at the reason, and imagines that these four things, the living Birds, the Cedar, the Scarlet, and the Hyssop, signified the Leper to be cured of the four Evils under which he had laboured; in his Flesh, his Humours, his Colour, and Smell, which were represented by the four things ; and were now all become sound and good. For the living Birds, he thinks, were a sign that his dead-flesh was restored to vigour and life again. And the Cedar-wood, which is not easily corrupted, denoted the Putrefaction was cured which the Leprosy had made in the Humours of his Body. The Scarlet thread or wool, was an indication of his good Complexion restored to him: for this is a bright and grateful colour, as the Leprosy was livid and loathsome; signifying (saith he) his Blood was purified, which made a lively colour return into his Countenance. And lastly, the Hyssop, which in that Country was a very odoriferous Plant, signified the nastiness and stench of that Disease was gone. Whatsoever any one may judge of this account of these things, I think it is very plain, that the Jews being possessed with a great detestation of the filthiness of the Leper, it was necessary (as Pellicanus observes) that they should be as strongly persuaded, by a great many prolix, laborious, and public Ceremonies used for men's Purification from it, that they were fit for their Society again.  
I omit the moral Reasons which are given by R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CLXXIII. for the use of the  things; and the mystical significations of these, and all the following Rites of Purification: which the most learned and ingenious Bochartus hath drawn out in near twenty particulars, Hierozoicon P. II. Lib. I. cap. 22.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And the Priest shall command, that one of the Birds be killed.] Not as a Sacrifice; for that could be made no where but at the Altar; whereas this was without the Camp, at a great distance from the Sanctuary; and therefore was used only as a Rite of Cleansing. See v. 49.  
In an earthen vessel, over running water.] There seems to be a transposition (as is very usual) in these words; the sense being, over an Earthen Vessel, that hath running, i. e. Spring-water in it. For so R. Levi Barcelonita, in the place before named, describes this Ceremony, The Priest takes a new Earthen Vessel, and pours into it living water, till it be a quarter full: which was the measure, according to the Tradition of the Scribes. Who say also, that the best and fattest of the two Birds was killed over the Water, and the the Blood pressed out so long, that the Water was discoloured with it; and then he digged a hole, and buried the dead Bird before the Leper.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 As for the living Bird, he shall take it, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet-wooll, etc.] He took a stick of Cedar-wood (as R. Levi Barcelonita describes this Rite, and Maimonides saith the same) which was a Cubit long; and tying the Bird to it, with its Tail uppermost, together with a bunch of Hyssop, of a handful long, and as much Scarlet-wooll as weighed a Shekel; he then dipped the Birds Tail and Wings, with the Hyssop and Scarlet-wooll, in the Water tinctured with the Blood of the other Bird.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from his Leprosy.] R. Levi will have it, that he sprinkled the back of his Hand, towards the top of it, with this Water and Blood.  
Seven times.] In token of a perfect Purification. See IV. 17.  
And shall pronounce him clean.] So as to let him come into the Camp, (from whence he had been excluded) as, in after times, into the City.  
And shall let the living Bird lose, into the open field.] The manner of doing it (as the same R. Levi relates) was, the Priest going into the City, threw the Bird over the Walls towards the Wilderness. The intention of which was, to show that the Leper was restored to a free Conversation with all his Neighbours, as the Bird was, with the rest of its kind. See v. 53.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes.] He was to do this, and what follows, before he could be admitted into the Camp.  
And shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water.] i. e. Wash his whole Body. All which contributed to cleanliness.  
And after that, he shall come into the Camp.] But not enter into his own Habitation; as appears by the words following.  
And tarry abroad out of his Tent seven days.] They lived in Tents while they remained in the Wilderness, which every Man had apart, for himself and for his Family. Unto which a Leper was not restored immediately after his Admission into the Camp; for fear there should be any undiscerned remainder of his Disease, whereby his Wife and Children might be endangered. For which reason he might not lie with his Wife, till seven days were over.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 But on the seventh day he shall shave all his hair off his head, etc.] This may be thought to have been the time appointed for the shaving mentioned in the foregoing Verse: but R. Levi, and other Hebrew Doctors, understand it of a second shaving at the seven days end, that they might be assured nothing of the Leprosy remained.  
Even all his hair he shall shave off.] Under his Armholes, and in other places of the Body where it uses to grow; as well as the Hair of his head, and his beard, and his eyebrows.  
And he shall wash his clothes.] This seems to be a second washing, after the first, at the end of seven days. And the Hebrew Doctors note, that the kill of the Bird, the shaving and the sprinkling, were all to be done in the day time; the rest might be done either by day, or by night.  
Also he shall wash his flesh in water.] His whole Body. For which end such a measure is prescribed by the Hebrew Tradition, as would cover it entirely.  
And he shall be clean.] So as to be not only restored to his Tent, but admitted to go to the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and offer the Sacrifices appointed (in the following part of this Chapter) for his complete Purification. Till which time he was called Mechussar Kapparah, one that needed Expiation; and was not permitted to eat of the holy things.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And on the eighth day.] If we may believe the Hebrew Tradition, he washed himself again on this day, in the Court of the Women; where there was a Room, called the Chamber of the Lepers, provided for that purpose. So Maimonides. Which great Caution was imitated by the primitive Christians, who would not receive great Sinners into their Communion again, till they had made a long trial of the Truth of their Repentance.  
He shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb without blemish.] There were three kinds of Sacrifices to be offered upon this occasion, viz. a Trespass-offering, a Sin-offering, and a Burnt-offering: for which these three Lambs were to be provided.  
Of the first year.] Such were all the Lambs to be, both Male and Female.  
And three tenth deals of fine flour for a Meat-offering.] To each of these Sacrifices there was a Meat-offering appointed, consisting of a tenth part of an Ephah of fine Flour, i. e. an Omer. See XVI Exod. 36. Which is a thing unusual; for we read of no Meat-offerings ordered (in the iv and Vth Chapters of this Book, which treat of them) to accompany either Trespass-offerings or Sin-offerings. But there were peculiar Rites belonging to the cleansing of a Leper, different from the common Usages; to make him sensible how great a Mercy he had received from God, who alone could cure this Disease which his hand had inflicted.  
Mingled with oil.] As the manner was in Meat-offerings. See Chap. II. v. 1.  
And one log of oil.] Which served to another purpose, mentioned v. 15, 16. of this Chapter. And Oil being of an healing virtue, may be thought to denote the perfect Health and Soundness to which the Leper was now restored; as the fragrancy of it put him in mind of the Happiness he now enjoyed.  
A Log was the smallest Measure among the Jews, containing about half a Pint of our Measure, as a very learned Prelate of our own (Dr. Cumberland) hath computed in his Scripture Weights and Measures, p. 86.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the Priest that maketh him clean.] Who performeth this office of declaring the Leper perfectly clean.  
Shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things before the LORD, at the door, etc.] He set the Man in the first place at the East-gate of the Court of the Israelites (which in after times was called the Gate of Nicanor) with his face towards the Sanctuary. For here all those, who needed Expiation, stood: it being unlawful for them to enter into the Court of the Israelites, until the Expiation was made. So Maimonides observes in his Treatise called Mechussare Kapparah, sect. 4.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And the Priest shall take one he-lamb, and offer him.] Next he was to bring one of the Lambs to the same place, and present him to the LORD; as is directed in the end of the Verse: For that's meant here by offering him; the slaying of him following in the next Verse.  
For a Trespass-offering.] After the manner that the Trespass-offerings were offered (of which see Chap. VII.) that he might beg pardon of God (as Abarbanel understands it) for such sins as he had ignorantly committed.  
And the log of oil.] Which was presented at the same time with the Lamb.  
And wave them.] Both the Lamb, and the Log of Oil.  
For a wave-offering before the LORD.] Which was done by waving them to and fro, up and down, and turning towards all the four quarters of the World, as was noted before. But Maimonides saith, this was waved towards the East: and if he waved them both together, or separated one from the other, the Lamb first, and afterward the Log of Oil, it made no difference.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And he shall slay the Lamb.] The Lamb was brought, saith the same Author in the forenamed Treatise, to the Door of the Court where the leprous Man stood; who stretched out his hands into the Court, and laid them upon his Sacrifice: after which it was killed, as is here directed.  
In the place where he shall kill the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering.] See VI 25.  
In the holy place.] In the Court of the Tabernacle, at the North-side of the Altar of Burnt-offering, (Chap. I. 11.) which was a place more holy than the Entrance, or East-end of the Court, where the Peace-offerings were to be killed, III. 2.  
For as the sin-offering is the Priests, so is the trespass-offering.] See VII. 7. Both of them were to be eaten by the Priests in the Court of God's House; and therefore were equally holy.  
It is most holy.] See II. 3.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the Priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass-offering.] There stood two Priests, as Maimonides represents it (in his Treatise , sect. 4.) ready to receive the Blood of the Lamb: one, in an holy Vessel, with which he sprinkled the Altar; the other, in his right hand, which he poured into his left: And then with the forefinger of his right hand, put it upon the right Ear, etc. of him that was to be cleansed.  
And the Priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot.] The Priest standing within the Court at the Entrance of it, and the Man standing still without; the Man thrust his Head within the Gate, and the Priest put some of the Blood which he held in his hand upon the tip of his right Ear. After which, the Man stretched out his right Arm, and the Priest put some of the same Blood upon the Thumb of his right Hand: and next, his right Leg, on the great Toe of which he likewise put some more Blood. Thus Maimonides in the same place. Where he saith, If the Priest had put the Blood upon the left Ear, Thumb, or Toe, all had been of no effect. And he adds, (sect. 5.) that the Blood was put upon half of the flap of his Ear; and upon the whole breadth of the top of his Thumb, and great Toe; for if he put it on the sides, or beneath, it was ineffectual. Which is very reasonable to believe, because there was no natural efficacy in these things to cleanse a Leper; but it depended wholly upon the will and pleasure of God, which was punctually therefore to be observed; that by the exact performance of all these Ceremonial Signs (as Pellicanus speaks) in the face of the Church, all Men might be satisfied that he was perfectly purified; and he might be publicly authorized to associate himself with the rest of God's People, and be no longer abominated by them for his impurity. For the signification of these Ceremonies some think to have been, that he was restored to free Communion with God, and with Man. See XXIX Exod. 20. And Abarbanel looks upon them as a signification also, that the Leprosy began in those parts of the Body (which are less fleshy and fat) and were now therefore particularly declared clean. But whatever the intention of them was, there was a just and wise reason, no doubt, for them; though at this distance from those Ages, Countries, and Customs, etc. we may not be able to discover it.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand.] Or, as Maimonides saith, he might pour some of it into the left hand of the other Priest, who sprinkled the Blood at the Altar.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Priest shall dip his right finger in the oil, etc.] The forefinger of his right hand, as the same Hebrew Doctor observes.  
And shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger, seven times before the LORD.] At every sprinkling he dipped his finger in the Oil, and directed it towards the most holy place, where God dwelled: though if it were not exactly directed to it, the same Doctor saith, the sprinkling was good.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand, shall the Priest put upon the tip of the right ear, etc.] Then the Priest returned to the Man who was to be cleansed, upon the tip of whose Ear, and Thumb, and Toe, he had put the Blood of the Trespass-offering, and put some of this Oil upon that Blood. Which seems to have been a Token of Forgiveness by the Blood; and of Healing by the Oil.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the Priest's hand, he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed.] Which one thing, if it were omitted, the Leper was not cleansed. As for the rest of the Log of Oil, which was not all poured into his hand, but only some of it (v. 15.) that was distributed to the Priests (as the same Maimonides observes) who alone might eat it, in the Court of the Tabernacle, as they did other holy things. But none might taste of it, before the sprinkling, and other things , were performed. If any Man did, he was beaten; as he was who are the holy things before the sprinkling of the Blood. For that was a great profaneness for any Person to take his portion, before God had that which belonged unto him.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD.] This seems to suppose that the Leprosy was inflicted as a Punishment for some Sin, which by this Sacrifice was taken away. But the word make atonement doth not always signify the taking away Sin; but sometimes merely making a thing fit for holy uses. Thus Moses is said to make an atonement for the Altar, XXIX Exod. 36, 37. (See there.) and in the same sense may an Atonement be said to be made for the Leper by this Sacrifice; which restored him to be made partaker of the holy things offered at the Altar. See below v. 53.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And the Priest shall offer the Sin-offering.] The other He-lamb mentioned v. 10. which was to be offered after the manner of the Sin-offering, for such Offences (as Abarbanel understands it) as he knew he had committed.  
And make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed.] His atonement was begun by the Trespass-offering (v. 18.) and was advanced by this. Which Abarbanel thinks was added, to make Men more cautious how they contracted any sort of Impurity, which would put them to great charges, before they were purged from it. For he could find no other reason, he saith, for the like Sacrifices which were offered by him that had an Issue, or had meddled with a menstruous Woman, or been defiled by the dead, or tasted swines-flesh, or any creeping thing.  
And afterward he shall kill the burnt-offering.] This being a Present to God himself, was not accepted till by the other Offerings for Trespass and Sin, the Man was purified. And this I take to be properly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gift, mentioned by our Saviour, VIII Matth. 4.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And the Priest shall offer the burnt-offering, and the meat-offering upon the Altar.] There were so many Offerings made, to show the greatness of his Uncleanness, and now his perfect Cure. We read of no Meat-offering made with the two former Sacrifices, but the three tenth deals of fine flour (mentioned v. 10.) seem to signify, every one of these Sacrifices, the Trespass-offering, the Sin-offering, and the Burnt-offering, had its proportion of a tenth deal of Flour offered with it. But if we think the whole was appropriated to the Burnt-offering, yet it was the same thing to the Leper, whose cleansing cost him as dear one way as the other. Only by understanding it thus, the Priest perhaps had a greater reward for his pains; if we suppose he only burned an handful upon the Altar, (as the manner was in these Offerings) and had all the rest to his own use. See Chap. II. v. 2, 3.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.] By this, his Atonement was completed; and he was made so perfectly clean, as to be admitted to be partaker of the Altar, when Peace-offerings were sacrificed.  
But this very long Process, through so many different Rites, and for so many days, before Men could be purified from a legal defilement in their Bodies, was a plain instruction to all Persons of good sense, how much more difficult it would prove to cleanse their Souls from those moral Impurities which they contracted by long habits of sin: and what great pains must be taken both by the Sinners themselves, and by God's Ministers, to root them out; and with what repeated Prayers the Mercy of God towards them was to be implored; of which they ought not hastily to presume.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And if he be poor, and cannot get so much.] The Divine Goodness always made a merciful provision, that his Service should not be burdensome to Men; and therefore took care the Poor should not be charged with too costly Sacrifices; and yet partake of the benefit of them, as much as the Rich. See I. 14, 17. V 11, etc.  
He shall take.] After he had undergone all the Purgations , from the fourth Verse of this Chapter to the tenth: which continued for seven days together. For though his Poverty excused him from such chargeable Sacrifices, as others of greater ability were to offer; yet he was to be at all the trouble and pains that others took for their Purification; there being not one of the Rites before prescribed, which are omitted in the following Verses, only they were less expensive.  
One Lamb for a trespass-offering.] It is not determined whether it should be an He-lamb or an Ewe-lamb; and therefore it was left indifferent, for the greater ease of his Poverty; only it was to be of the first year, and without blemish, as is prescribed v. 10.  
To be waved.] According to the directions given v. 12.  
To make an atonement for him.] Which was effected by this, as well as by a more valuable Sacrifice; when it was the best he had to offer.  
And one tenth deal of fine flour, mingled with oil.] Instead of three tenth deals, which the richer sort were to offer, v. 10. But if a poor Man had vowed he would offer all that is prescribed in that Verse, in case God would be pleased to cure him, he was bound thereby (as Maimonides says in the forenamed Treatise) and this smaller Sacrifice would not serve for his Cleansing; but by the help of his Friends, or Neighbours, he was to procure all that he had vowed.  
And a log of oil.] This is the same quantity, the better sort were to offer; for Oil was not dear in this Country.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And two turtle doves, or two young pigeons.] Instead of the other two Lambs, required of those who could provide them v. 10.  
Such as he is able to get.] The best he could procure: but the meanest would be accepted, if he could get no better.  
And the one shall be a sin-offering, and the other a burnt-offering.] Neither of which were to be omitted, though the things offered were but mean. See I. 14. V 11. it being necessary he should perform all Religious Services, according to his Ability. And I think, the observation of Conr. Pellicanus is not absurd, that though there was an exchange made of two Lambs for two Turtle Doves, or two young Pigeons, in consideration of a Man's Poverty; yet no Person whatsoever, whether Rich or Poor, could be cleansed without the Sacrifice of one Lamb: which may well be looked upon as a figure of the Lamb of God, who alone taketh away the Sins of the whole World.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And he shall bring them on the eighth day.] This plainly suggests, that this poor Man had done all that was prescribed on the seven days foregoing, as well as the rich.  
For his cleansing unto the Priest, unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, etc.] See v. 10, 11, etc. where all that follows here, unto v. 33. is explained: there being the same Rites prescribed, and in the same words, about a poor Man, which were used for the Cleansing of the rich.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And the Priest shall take the Lamb of the Trespass-offering.] See v. 12.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And he shall kill the Lamb.] See v. 13.  
And shall take some of the blood of the Trespass-offering, and put it upon the tip, etc.] See this explained v. 14.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And the Priest shall pour of the oil into the palm of his own left hand.] See v. 15. It is not said either there or here how much, but only some of the Oil (as it is there translated) that is, as much as the Priest thought would be sufficient.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And the Priest shall sprinkle with his right finger, etc.] According to the Directions given before v. 16.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 And the Priest shall put of the oil that is in his hand, upon the tip of the right ear, etc.] See v. 17.  
Upon the place of the blood of the trespass-offering.] It being not said here, upon the blood of the Trespass-offering, (as the words are v. 17.) but upon the place of the blood. The Jews infer from thence, That if the Blood laid upon the tip of the Ear, Thumb, or Toe, were by any means wiped off, it was sufficient to lay the Oil in the very place where the Blood had been. So Maimonides in the forenamed Treatise, concerning those that wanted Expiation, sect. 5. But that which he there adds is very unreasonable; That if a Man wanted the Thumb of his right hand, or the great Toe of his right Foot, or the Lap of his right Ear, he could never be purified from his Uncleanness. For it is not to be thought that God would make his Cleansing impossible, who was maimed or defective in any of these parts: which had been to add one Misery to another. Therefore in this Case the Blood and the Oil might be put upon the parts next to these.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And the rest of the oil that is in the Priest's hand, he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, etc.] See v. 18.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And he shall offer the one of the turtle doves, or of the young pigeons, such as he can get.] i. e. The best that he is able to procure.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 Even such as he is able to get.] He repeats it again, that the Man might not be troubled if he was not able to procure the very best, provided he did his endeavour to bring the best that his Estate could reach.  
The one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, etc.] See v. 19, 20.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy.] Who was shut out of the Camp, because of the Leprosy, which formerly appeared in him.  
Whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing.] Who is so poor, that he cannot procure what is prescribed to those that are able to make such Offerings as are  (v. 10, etc.) for their reception into the Congregation again, when they are found to be free from their Leprosy.  
But here Maimonides puts this Case; Suppose a Man having brought the Offering of the Poor, suddenly becomes Rich; or on the contrary, having brought a rich Man's Offering, immediately becomes poor, what is to be done? He answers; If this happen before the Sacrifices be finished, he is to proceed according to the state in which he was when his Sin-offering was offered: that is, offer the Sacrifice of a rich Man, viz. another Lamb, if he was then rich; or the Sacrifice of a poor Man, if he was then poor.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, and unto Aaron, saying.] Now he again speaks to them both conjunctly, (which he did not v. 1.) as he had done XIII. 1. because Aaron and his Sons were peculiarly concerned to judge concerning the Leprosy in Houses, as well as in their Inhabitants.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 When ye come into the Land of Canaan.] This seems to import that the Leprosy did not infect their Habitations, till they came into the Land of Canaan. When some of the Rabins say (as R. Levi Barcelonita observes, Precept. CLXXVII.) that God sent this Plague for the good of the Israelites, into certain Houses, that they being pulled down, the Treasure which the Amorites had hidden there, might be discovered. But this looks like one of their Dreams, who are not willing to think themselves, at any time, out of the Favour of God.  
Which I give you for your possession.] From these words (and those in the conclusion of this Verse, where Canaan is called the Land of their Possession) Moses bar Nachman draws a better conclusion; That the Leprosy was a Divine Stroke in this Country, and no where else; because it was a holy Land, bestowed upon the Israelites by God, who dwelled here himself, and punished great Offences against his Divine Majesty with this sore Disease; whereby he banished them from his Presence, till they amended.  
And I put the plague of Leprosy upon a House, etc.] These words seem to be a good ground to think, that this Plague was a supernatural stroke: not like the Contagion which now adheres to the Houses and Clothes of those who have the Pestilence. Thus Abarbanel understands it, when he saith, I put the Plague, it shows the thing was not natural; but proceeded from the special Providence and Pleasure of the blessed God. And so the Author of Sepher Cosri (Parson II. sect. 58.) God inflicted this Plague of Leprosy upon Houses and Garments, as a punishment for lesser Sins: and when Men continued still to multiply Transgressions, than it invaded their Bodies. So that it began in the Houses which were not infected by the Inhabitants; but the Inhabitants by the Houses. And Maimonides will have this to have been the punishment of an evil Tongue; i.e. of Detraction and Calumny; which began in the Walls of his House, and went no further, but vanished, if he repent of his Sin. But if he persisted in his rebellious Courses, it proceeded to his Householdstuff: and if he still went on, it invaded his Garments; and at last his Body, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47. The very same is quoted by Muscatus out of Midrash Ruth, to this sense; That God is so very merciful, as not at first to inflict Punishment on men's Bodies, as appears in the Case of Job; whose Goods were first destroyed, and then his Children, before his Body was touched. And in the Plagues of Egypt itself, whose Vines and Figtrees God smote, and then their Cattle, before he killed their Firstborn. In the same manner the Plague of Leprosy, first invaded a Man's Habitation; though not the whole House, but some Stones only, in the beginning of it. Then it spread all over, till the House was pulled down. From thence it went to men's Garments; and, if they did not amend, to their Bodies; till in the issue they were shut out of the Camp, from the Company of their Brethren. R. Levi Barcelonita explains it after the same manner, in the place . And Abarbanel thinks the end and intention of this Miracle (as he calls it) was, to be a Caution and Admonition from God, that the Man might be converted from his Sins: as if the Stone in the Wall had cried out, and the Beam out of the Timber answered it (as Habbakkuk speaks, II. 11.) to the Master of the House, saying, Turn unto the LORD thy God, O Israel: behold the Plague is come into thy House; and if thou wilt not be converted, it shall abide upon thee and thy Children. And this he saith is the Opinion of their Rabbins.  
In an house.] They had no Houses till they came into Canaan; but dwelled in Tents.  
Of the land of your possession.] The Jews were so fond of Jerusalem, that they have excepted it from this Plague; because, saith the forenamed R. Levi, Jerusalem was not divided among the Tribes; and therefore cannot be comprehended under the name of their possession. This he had out of the G●mara of Bava kama, where this is reckoned among the ten Privileges of the holy City, That it was not defiled with the Plague of Leprosy. See Const. L'Empereur in his Annotations on Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 7.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 And he that oweth the house, shall come and tell the Priest, etc.] As soon as any Inhabitant (for he is meant by him that oweth the House) had a suspicion that this Plague was in his Dwelling, he was bound to give notice of it to the Priest; or else was in danger to incur a further punishment.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Then the Priest shall command that they empty the House.] Of all the Householdstuff; and that the Inhabitants also should go out of it.  
Before the Priest go into it to see the plague.] To see whether that which the Man suspected, was the Plague or no.  
That all that is in the House be not made unclean.] Till the Priest had given his Judgement, all things in the House were accounted clean: as till a Man was pronounced by him to have a Leprosy, no body was bound to avoid his Company.  
And afterward the Priest shall go in to see the House.] When it was cleared of every thing that might hinder his exact inspection.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 And behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house.] They were principally to be searched, together with the Pavement, and the Roof; where this Plague appeared.  
With hollow strakes.] There was the same kind of mark of a Leprosy in an House, that there was of it in the Body of a Man: For if a Spot was deeper than the Skin of the Flesh, (XIII. 3.) it was a bad token: in like manner, when there were hollow or depressed strikes in the Wall of an House (or, as it is in the latter end of this Verse, in sight lower than the Wall) it was a sign of the Leprosy, which began to corrode and eat into it. This seems to be the import of the Hebrew word Schickharuroth, which signifies something that lies deep, and is sunk into the place where it is. For that's a more probable derivation of the word, from Schakah, than that of Forsterus, who derives it from Schakar, which signifies false. And so the LXX. translate it by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying the Leprosy had so eaten into the Stones, as to have pitted them, (as we speak in our Language) i. e. made a cavity in them. Which the Jews justly look upon as a thing very extraordinary; a miraculous effect (as Maimonides calls it) of the Divine hand.  
Greenish or reddish.] Which was the mark of a Leprosy in a Garment, XIII. 49.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 Then the Priest shall go out of the House, to the door of the house.] Where he was to stay till he had seen the House shut up; that none might go into it, and thereby be endangered to be defiled.  
And shut it up seven days.] In which time he might be able to make a certain Judgement, whether it was the Leprosy or no, (See XIII. 4.) For the Plague would sooner appear, when the House was not inhabited.  
Ver. 39 Verse 39 And the Priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look.] Make a new inspection, as he did when a Man, or a Garment were suspected to have the Leprosy, XIII. 6, 51.  
And behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house.] This was a bad sign, in a Man's Body, or Garment, XIII. 5, 51.  
Ver. 40. Verse 40 Then the Priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is.] As far as it was spread in the Walls of the House; which it seems were generally made of Stone, when they came to Canaan. Meaner Houses, the Jews say, were not infected with the Leprosy: nor an Habitation called a House (as their Doctors affirm) unless it had four Walls of four Cubits high, built of Stones and Timber, v. 45.  
And they shall cast them into an unclean place, without the City.] Where they threw their Dung, and all manner of Filth. For such places there were without their Cities; as there were others where no manner of Filth might be thrown; which were called clean places. See IV. 12.  
Ver. 41. Verse 41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, etc.] All the rest of the Walls, where no Spots as yet appeared, were to be scraped; that if any of the Contagion stuck to them, it might be taken away, and the spreading of it prevented. For which end, these Scrape were also thrown out into the same unclean place, where the Stones were laid.  
Ver. 42. Verse 42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones.] Put fresh untainted Stones, in the room of the other which were taken out of the Walls.  
And he shall take other mortar and plaster the house.] Command them to lay fresh Plaster all over the Walls, where they were scraped.  
Ver. 43. Verse 43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, etc. after he hath taken away the stones, etc.] If after all the  care (of putting in new Stones, scraping, and new plastering the Walls) the same marks appeared again, which are mentioned v. 37. the House was to be pulled down, as it is directed in the next Verse but one.  
Ver. 44. Verse 44 Then the Priest shall come and look.] Upon notice given him; or perhaps he was bound to come after a certain time, and examine the state of it.  
And behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy.] Of the same nature with that in a Garment, which could not be stopped. See XIII. 51.  
It is unclean.] Uncapable to be cleansed from the Leprosy, and therefore (as it follows) to be demolished.  
Ver. 45. Verse 45 And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house.] This was a damage to the Owner, but it was to prevent a greater unto him, and unto others: and was not done till there was no remedy. For if he had harkened to the Stones that cried out of the Wall, (as Abarbanel speaks) saying, Repent and amend, etc. (which was the meaning of this Plague) the Infection would have spread no further. See v. 34. The same Author fancies, that this Plague in their Houses, was an Emblem of the Idolatry they would exercise there, when they came into Canaan: And that the pulling down of their Houses, was a sign of the destruction of the Sanctuary itself, because of their iniquities. This seems to be something forced: but we may not unfitly look upon this manner of proceeding with their Houses, when they were infected (some of the Stones whereof were taken out, etc. before all was pulled down) as a representation of God's proceed with them, when they rebelled against him: For first, some of them were removed; and then the whole Nation, by degrees, very much impaired: before they were all carried captive out of their own Land.  
And he shall carry them forth out of the City, into an unclean place.] Order them to be carried to the place, where the Stones and the scrape of the House, mentioned v. 40, 41. were thrown. Which may well be looked upon as a Figure of their being carried away for their wickedness into Heathen Countries, which in Scripture are called unclean Lands. Such the Land of Canaan was before they came into it, IX Ezra 11. and such were all People uncircumcised, LII Isa. 1.  
Ver. 46. Verse 46 Moreover, he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up, etc.] If he did but enter within the door of the House, while it remained under a suspicion of being defiled, he contracted a defilement himself, under which he lay till Night. Which strict care to keep the Israelites free from all such Pollutions, is an admonishment to us (as Conradus Pellicanus well notes) to avoid all suspected Places, and Company: according to the Exhortation of the Apostle, Abstain from all appearance of evil.  
Ver. 47. Verse 47 And he that lieth in the house, shall wash his clothes.] It sufficed for the cleansing of him that only entered into such an House, but made no stay there, to be separated for a short time from Society: But he that lay there all night, was to do more for his Purification; being in more danger to bring away the Infection, if there were any.  
And he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes.] He that made a Meal there, was also exposed to danger, and therefore was bound to wash his Clothes (which were very apt to catch the Infection) though he did not stay so long as to lie there.  
Ver. 48. Verse 48 If the plague hath not spread in the house, after it was plastered, than the Priest shall ponounce the house clean.] Just as it was in the Leprosy in men's Bodies, or Garments, XIII. 6, 53.  
Because the plague is healed.] A stop being put to its progress, it was a sign the House was free from the Plague, of which it was suspected.  
Ver. 49. Verse 49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop.] The very same Rites are used for the cleansing of an House, which were appointed for the cleansing of a Man, v. 4. And the reason of it was, as Abarbanel well conjectures, to denote that the House was smitten for the Man's sake; who was to look upon himself as saved and preserved by the Divine Mercy.  
It is not said here indeed that these two Birds should be alive and clean (as is directed v. 4.) but that is necessarily understood; for he is ordered immediately to kill one of the Birds, and let the other fly away, (as in the former case) and nothing unclean could be of effect to cleanse a Man from Uncleanness.  
Ver. 51. Verse 51 And he shall take the cedar-wood, and the hyssop, etc.] This whole Verse is explained before v. 6. which differs not from this in any thing; but only, that the living Bird is there mentioned in the first place, and here in the last: and in this Verse is more distinctly declared, that all these things should be dipped, in the blood of the slain Bird, and in the running water.  
Ver. 52. Verse 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, etc.] There is nothing to be observed here, more than before, but only this, That the House is said to be cleansed by the living Bird, as well as by the blood of that which was slain: its flying away being a declaration the House was free for any Man's Habitation. Thus the Scape-goat, which was let run into the Wilderness, took away the Sins of the People, as well as the Goat offered at the Altar. See XVI. 5.  
Ver. 53. Verse 53 And he shall let go the living bird out of the City, into the open field.] This justifies what the Jewish Doctors say upon v. 7. See there.  
And make an atonement for the house.] An Atonement was made for the House, no otherways than for the Altar (See upon v. 18.) by cleansing it so, as to make it fit for any Man to dwell in it.  
And it shall be clean.] The Owner (who was commanded to forsake the House, v. 36.) or any one else might return to it, and inhabit it, as before it was suspected to have the Plague in it.  
Ver. 54. Verse 54 This is the law for all manner plague and leprosy, and scall.] The Rule whereby to judge and to cleanse all Leprosies in the Bodies of Men; and that Leprosy in the Head or the Beard, called a Scall, XIII. 30, 31, 32, to v. 38.  
Ver. 55, 56. Verse 55, 56 And for the Leprosy of a garment, and of an house, and for a rising, etc.] The foregoing Verse, and these two, are a recapitulation of the Laws delivered in the XIIIth Chapter, and in this.  
Ver. 57 Verse 57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean.] To guide the Priest in judgement, when to pronounce a Man, a Garment, or an House infected with the Leprosy; or when to declare them free from it.  
This is the Law of Leprosy.] Here is a Conclusion of what belongs to this Matter. Which profane Minds, who love to disparage the Holy Scripture, and admire no ancient Authors, but such as Homer, Virgil, and Plautus (to use the words of Pellicanus upon v. 39) may deride as unworthy to be made a part of a Divine Law. But Men better disposed may discern herein the great goodness of God to the Israelites, whom he had adopted for his peculiar People, in taking care to give them Precepts about all manner of things, which were many ways profitable, both for the regulating their Manners, and preserving their Health; and accustoming them to an exact Obedience to him, in every thing. And who doth not see that by these external Rites and Ceremonies, he admonishes us to keep pure Consciences void of Offence, both towards God and Men; in a strict observance of all the Rules of our most holy Religion?   

CHAP. XV.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, and to Aaron, saying.] For Aaron was particularly concerned to see these Laws observed, as well as the foregoing.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them.] Moses, it is likely, first delivered these Laws to them, in the presence of Aaron; who afterward instructed and exhorted them to the observance of them.  
When any man hath a running issue.] He speaks of that Disease, which Physicians call a Gonorrhaea: which commonly proceeded from an ill course of Life, and had in those Countries a great virulency in it. If it proceeded merely from some strain in the back, by carrying too great a Burden, or by violent leaping (and several other natural Causes, (which Maimonides enumerates in his Mechuss. Kapparah, cap. 2.) the Man was not defiled with it, nor concerned in this Law. And therefore the Causes from whence it proceeded, were diligently to be considered, as Maimonides there admonishes; which might be discerned by such effects, as made it a very nasty and offensive Disease in those hot Countries, as it is sometimes here in these colder Climates.  
Out of his flesh.] The word Flesh signifies the Secret Parts, as it doth VI 10. XVII Gen. 13. XVI Ezek. 26. and other places.  
Because of his issue he is unclean.] Upon that account alone he was to be kept from the Sanctuary, and separated from Company. See v. 31.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue.] The Rule whereby to judge of it.  
Whether the flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness.] Whether there were a continued distillation of the corrupt Matter, or it was so coagulated as to stop in the passage: either way, it made the Man unclean.  
Be stopped from his issue.] Rather, with his issue; as the Hebrew words will bear.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Every bed whereon he lieth that bath the issue, is unclean: and every thing whereon he sitteth, etc.] This, and the following Verses, unto v. 13. are a demonstration that this Disease made a Man legally Unclean to a very high degree: being so offensive, that not only every thing he touched became unclean, but whosoever touched such things, was made unclean also. There is little in them, that needs any Explication: the only difficulty was to know, whether a Man laboured under this Disease. Which was not wholly left unto his Conscience to determine; but his Countenance discovered it: the continual Flux making a great alteration in the whole habit of his Body. For virulent Gonorrhaea's sometimes last several years, (as Th. Bartholinus saith he knew one that had it ten years, and was reduced to skin and bone) being frequently accompanied with Inflammations and Ulcers in the neighbouring parts, from which the filthy Humour flows, Bartholin. Histor. Artatom. Cent. II. Hist. XXXVI.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And whosoever toucheth his bed.] Upon which he hath lain.  
Shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water; and be unclean until the even.] Which was the Law in other Cases, when Men bade touched an unclean thing, XI. 28.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he that sitteth on any thing, whereon he sat that hath the issue.] Though he did but just sit down, and did it ignorantly; presently rising up a-again as soon as he knew his Error; he became defiled, and might not go to the Sanctuary till he was purified, by washing his Clothes and himself in water.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue.] That is, any part of his Body.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean, etc.] By the same reason, if he blowed his Nose upon him, it defiled him.  
Then he shall wash his clothes.] i. e. The Man upon whom the Spittle fell.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And what saddle soever he rideth upon, etc.] By the same reason that the Seat he sat upon, was defiled, v. 4.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him, etc.] Either the Saddle, or any thing else that was under him when he road.  
And he that beareth any of those things, etc.] Removeth them from one place to another; though it be to carry them out of the way, that others may not be defiled by them unawares.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue (and hath not rinsed his hands in water) he shall wash, etc.] It is somewhat doubtful, whether these words (hath not washed his hands in water) belong to him that had the Issue; or to him that his hands touched. Most understand it of the former, That if the Man who had an Issue touched any other Man, and had not first washed his hands, that Man whom he touched should be defiled. But the Syriack takes it to refer to the Man that was touched by him, who, if he did not immediately wash his hands with water, was to be cleansed after a more laborious manner, by washing his Clothes, and bathing himself in Water. But I do not see how washing of his hands could cleanse him; when the Man that had the Issue, touched perhaps some other part of his Body.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And the vessel of earth that he toucheth, which hath the issue, shall be broken, etc.] That it might not be employed hereafter to any use. See XI. 33. VI 28.  
And every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.] Such Vessels were not broken, but only well washed, because they were not so easily made as the other; and were of more value. There are so many washings prescribed here, and on other occasions, that it is reasonable to believe, there were not only at Jerusalem, and in all other Cities, but in every Village, several bathing places contrived, for these Legal Purifications; that Men might without much labour be capable to fulfil these Precepts. And one cannot but think, that such frequent washings were enjoined, to admonish them how carefully they ought to preserve Purity of Heart and Life.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue.] It having ceased for some time.  
Then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing.] That there might be sufficient proof made, whether the Issue was stopped: that is, he was really cured.  
And wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh.] In the conclusion of the seventh day.  
In running water.] i. e. Spring-water (as we speak) which was most pure. Riverwater was the same which comes from Springs.  
And shall be clean.] So that he might keep Company with his Neighbours; but not have Communion with God at the Sanctuary, till after the following Sacrifices were offered. For, if in the end of the seventh day, after his washing, the Flux returned again, all this labour was lost, and he was to stay seven days more; as Maimonides observes in his Treatise on this Subject, cap. 3.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And on the eighth day.] If he continued free from the Flux, after his washing on the seventh day, in the Evening.  
He shall take to him two turtle doves, or two young pigeons.] These were the Sacrifices appointed for the meaner sort of People, who were not able to be at the charge of a Lamb, or other Sacrifices of the Flock or Herd, V 7. XII. 8. And perhaps the great trouble the Man had endured, and given others while he laboured under this Disease, might be considered so far, as to put him to as little charge as might be, for his Purification.  
And come before the LORD, unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] But not into the Court of the Israelites, till his Sacrifices were offered.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Priest shall offer them, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.] As in the Case of a poor Leper, (XIV. 31.) who was bound also to offer a Trespass-offering of greater value.  
And the Priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD, for his issue.] Perfectly restore him to partake of holy things; of which he was debarred while he had his Issue. And here it may be fit to observe, That the greater part of all the Legal Defilements, depended upon the Seat or Place of the Divine Majesty; (as the Author of Sepher Cosri speaks, Pars III. sect. 49.) whose Presence there made their Country be called the Holy Land, and was the ground of all these Injunctions about Cleanliness. To which, he thinks, they have no Obligations at this day, now that they live in an unclean Land, (i. e. among us Gentiles) and want the Presence of the Divine Majesty among them.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And if any man's seed of copulation.] Though the holy Writers speak very plainly of some things, that we think it not so modest to name in that manner; yet it is observable on the other hand, that in things of the same nature, they use Circumlocutions to express them, which we stick not to speak of in blunter words. As when they say, The water of the feet, meaning Urinal; and call going to Stool, Uncovering of the feet: which shows that it is nothing but the vast difference of Times, and Places, which makes that Language seem uncivil to us, that was not so to them; and on the contrary, made them very cautious in their Expressions, where we think it unnecessary.  
Go out from him.] Involuntarily; in his sleep, or otherwise: which the Hebrews call keri, i. e. accidental.  
Then he shall wash all his flesh with water, and be unclean until the even.] This was one of the smallest Legal Pollutions, from which they were soon cleansed without any Sacrifice. And which some of them think did not oblige them to wash, unless they intended to go to the Sanctuary. But though that Opinion be true, yet this Rite had such a respect to the Sanctuary, that now they have none, they do not think themselves bound to use it on such occasions.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And every garment, and every skin, etc.] These things were made so unclean by such Accidents, that they might not be used the next day; nor till they were washed.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 The woman also with whom man shall lie, with seed of copulation.] It is no wonder the holy Writers speak so plainly of these Matters; being Men of great simplicity, free from all wantonness, commonly far advanced in years; among whom Marriage, and a numerous Issue, were accounted the greatest Blessings; and therefore coveted by all, and renounced by none.  
They shall both bathe themselves in water, etc.] There is no sort of Pollution in the act of Marriage, which is of God's own Institution, but what this Law made: and the Law made it, as Theodoret thinks, that the trouble of such constant Purification after it, might preserve them from the immoderate use of it. So those words of his signify, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quaest. XX. in Levit.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood.] In the Hebrew the words run much clearer; And a woman when she shall have an issue of blood, and her issue be in her flesh. The latter part of which are added, to distinguish this from bleeding at the Nose, or from the Haemorroids, (which did not pollute any body) For the word Flesh here signifies, as it doth v. 2.  
She shall be put apart seven days.] From her Husband, and from the Sanctuary: to which these sorts of Uncleanness have a peculiar respect, as I before noted. And Maimonides here, not unfitly, observes, That whereas the Zabijs accounted a Man polluted if he did but speak with a menstruous Woman, or if the Wind, which came from the quarter where she was, blew upon him; God only required her not to meddle with Holy Things, nor to approach to the Sanctuary. Otherwise, she might eat all manner of common Meat, and perform all Domestic Offices for her Husband, as formerly; only not lie with him while she remained in this condition. So he explains this More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.  
And whosoever toucheth her, shall be unclean until the even.] If they were grown Persons, as Menochius well observes; for Infants were excepted from this Pollution, by their Age, and the Necessities of Nature. The same is observed by Maimonides, in the Chapter forenamed; That the more frequent any of these Uncleannesses were, the greater and longer Purifications were required. As touching of a dead Body, especially of Friends and Neighbours, being the most usual, it could not be cleansed but by the Ashes of the red Heifer, (which were not easily had) and not till seven days were passed. In like manner Fluxes, and menstruous Pollutions, because they oftener happened, and were more grievous, than touching the unclean, those therefore that laboured under them, had need of seven days Purification; but they that touched them, of one day only, before they became clean.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation, shall be unclean, etc.] The very same sort of Uncleanness was contracted in this Case, as in the foregoing v. 4, etc. For if we believe some Authors, it might not only be properly called her sickness; but such an one as had some infection in it (at least something offensive) in those hot Countries. See Pliny Lib. VII. 5. and L. XXVIII. 2.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed, etc.] This and the two following Verses, contain the very same Prohibitions in this Case, which were given in the other. See v. 5, 6, etc.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 If a man lie with her at all.] i. e. Unwittingly, not knowing in what condition she was: for if he did it knowingly, both of them were liable to be cut off, XX. 18.  
He shall be unclean seven days.] As having contracted one of the greatest sorts of Uncleanness, v. 19 For though this Flux was natural, and beneficial, and therefore could have no sort of Uncleanness in it, but what was made by this Law; yet there was a great reason for the keeping Men from the Company of Women in this condition, if Leprosies and such like Diseases were thereby propagated, as Theodoret says some think; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Especially since they were so libidinous a People (as he describes them, in words of a very bad signification) that it was highly necessary to lay such restraints upon them; and to make even involuntary Pollutions very penal, that they might learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that all wilful Uncleannesses were far more detestable.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And if a woman have an issue of blood many days, out of the time of her separation, etc.] As before he spoke of the natural Course of the Blood, so here of a Disease: which Procopius Gazaeus calls malum immedicabile, an incurable Evil. So it sometimes proved, as appears by the story of the Woman in the Gospel; whose case this was, IX Matth. 20.  
All the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation.] She was to be in the same condition with the Woman mentioned v. 19 who was put apart seven days; i. e. as long as her Uncleanness lasted. Which made the case of those that laboured under this Infirmity very lamentable, because it continued in some many years.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue, shall be unto her as the bed of her separation, etc.] Like the Bed and the Seat of her mentioned v. 20.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And whosoever toucheth these things shall be unclean, etc.] As in the case  v. 21.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue.] Cured of her Disease.  
Then shall she number to herself seven days.] For a trial whether it was a perfect Cure or no.  
After that.] If there were no return of the Flux.  
She shall be clean.] So as to be restored to common Conversation: but not to the Sanctuary, till the following Oblations were made.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And on the eighth day, she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, etc.] The same Sacrifices which were prescribed in the case of a Man, who was cured of an Issue, v. 14. And this relates only to the extraordinary Flux, out of or beyond the usual Course of Nature, (v. 25.) for it would have been too burdensome unto some Persons, if they had been bound to offer thus once a Month.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And the Priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD, etc.] See v. 15.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 Thus shall ye separate the Children of Israel from their uncleanness.] Take care that they separate themselves; by instructing them, when they are under any of the forenamed Impurities, to observe the Directions now given. Thus the LXX. and the Vulgar Latin understand these words.  
That they die not in their uncleanness.] Lest I punish them with death, if they approach unto my Sanctuary, having any of the  Uncleannesses upon them.  
When they defile my Tabernacle that is among them.] This shows what is meant by Separation and Putting apart, in the foregoing Verses: which was principally from the Tabernacle, where God dwelled. Out of respect to which, and to preserve their due regard to it (that is, to God himself) all these Cautions were given, as I observed before v. 15. of this Chapter. And see Chapt. XII. v. 4. what I noted out of Maimonides, who discourses excellently on this Subject, in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47. where he observes, That there could not well be a more notable means contrived to maintain an holy fear and reverence of the Divine Majesty upon their Minds, than to forbid every Person, that was any way polluted, to come unto his Sanctuary. For there were so many sorts of Pollutions, made by the Law, that it was very hard to avoid falling under some of them: and consequently a business of great care, circumspection, and labour, to approach, as they ought, into the Divine Presence. For if a Man escaped defilement by a dead body, yet he could not easily avoid being defiled by some of the eight creeping things, which he might chance to tread upon; or might fall on his Meat, or his Drink: And if he escaped these, yet he might be defiled involuntarily by the means mentioned here v. 16. or by touching a menstruous Woman, or one that had a Flux of Blood; or at least by touching their Bed, their Seats, or something belonging to them, etc. All which kept a Man from the Sanctuary; which he could not enter therefore when he pleased, but was to stay a certain time before he could be admitted to worship God there; and not then neither till he had washed himself. By all which actions, reverence, affection and devotion was preserved to the Sanctuary; and Men were excited to great humility, which in this was principally regarded.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, etc.] In this and the next Verse, he recapitulates the Matter of this Chapter; as he did, in the latter end of the foregoing, sum up the Contents of that.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And of him that hath an issue, of the man and of the woman.] Even of the Person that hath an issue, whether it be Man or Woman, etc.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron.] This Chapter would have naturally followed the Tenth Chapter, where the death of those two Persons is related, if that had not occasioned the inserting some other Laws about Uncleanness, (See Preface to Chapter XI.) which being delivered, Moses now goes on to give direction about the great Sacrifice, in which the whole Nation was concerned: as he treated of lesser and common Sacrifices, in the beginning of the Book.  
When they offered before the LORD, and died.] See X. 1. This is mentioned again, to make the Priests careful not only to Sacrifice unto the LORD alone, but after such a manner as he ordered.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto thy brother Aaron, that he come not at all times into the holy place, within the vail.] Into the holy place without the Veil, he, or some of the other Priests, were bound to go every day, Morning and Even, when they offered Incense: But into this, as none of them might go at all, so he not at all times, when he went into the other; but only upon one particular occasion, which is mentioned here in this Chapter.  
Before the Mercy-seat, which is upon the Ark.] This being the place of God's special Presence, none might enter into it but his principal Minister; and he no oftener than the Divine Majesty allowed; which was only once a year, (it appears from v. 29.) when he offered the great Sacrifice here prescribed. And so much was intimated to Moses before, XXX Exod. 10. And the Jews add, That on this day of the year he might go in but four times; once to burn Incense; a second time to sprinkle the Blood of the Bullock; then to sprinkle the Blood of the Goat; and lastly to fetch out the Censer wherein he burned Incense. If he went in a fifth time, he died for his presumption, as they say; particularly R. Levi Barcel. Precept. CCLXXXVI. Such sacred places the Gentiles had in some Countries, which, according to this pattern, were opened only once a year. Particularly Pausanias mentions in his Book Boeotica the Temple of Dindymene: which they thought it was not lawful to open more than one day in the year: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the same he saith of another in the same Book; and in his Eliaca of the Temple of Orcus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is opened once every year. See Dr. Owtrams excellent Book De Sacrificiis, Lib. I. cap. 3.  
Lest he die.] As his Sons had done for their Presumption, in offering with other fire than God allowed. In the like danger Aaron himself had been, if he had come into the Divine Presence without his leave, and without such caution as is given v. 13. which is the reason of this order here delivered to Moses, and by him to Aaron, for the prevention of any such dangerous mistake.  
For I will appear in the Cloud upon the Mercy-seat.] That was God's own Dwelling-place, where his GLORY appeared; into which therefore none might enter, but when he appointed, and as he directed. The only difficulty is, what is meant by the Cloud, wherein he saith he will appear on the Mercy-seat. One would think he meant, as usually, the Cloud wherein the Divine Glory resided, XL Exod. 34, 35. 1 Kings VIII. 10, 11. But the Cloud seems to have been on the outside of the Tabernacle; and within a Glory or great Splendour only unclouded. And therefore most, I think, understand this of the Smoke of the Incense, that the Highpriest burned when he entered into the most holy place; which was the Cloud wherewith the Mercy-seat was then covered, v. 13. And there is great reason for this Opinion: for if there had been a Cloud in the most holy place, over the Mercy-seat, before the Highpriest entered, what need had there been to make a new Cloud of Smoak, (as he is ordered v. 13.) when the Divine Glory was sufficiently obscured already. Besides, in the place  (XL Exod.) the Cloud, as I now observed, is said to be without the Tabernacle, and to cover it; the Glory only being within: and in the other place of the Book of Kings (and 2 Chron. V. 13, 14.) it is said only to fill the House of the LORD, i.e. the Body of the Temple: but not to be settled upon the Mercy-seat. Where we may very well doubt whether there was any Cloud, or no; but only the Divine GLORY. The only ground that I can see for it, is, that God is said there to dwell in thick darkness: which seems to import, that the Divine GLORY was wrapped up in a Cloud. But however that be expounded, these words which we here translate, I will appear in the Cloud upon the Mercy-seat, may very well be rendered, I will be approached in a Cloud (i. e. of Incense) For so this word we translate appear is used XXIII Exod. 15. not for God's appearing to them, but for the People's appearing before him: and this sense the 13th Verse seems to enforce, as Campegius Vitringa hath observed, Lib. I. Observe. Sacr. cap. 11.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place.] As he might come into it, only once a year; so then with such preparation, and in such a manner, as is here prescribed. And the Jews say, that he was separated from his own House and Family seven days before, and dwelled apart from them in a Chamber of the Temple; that he might the better prepare himself for the Offices of this day, by sprinkling the Blood of the daily Sacrifice, burning Incense, and such like things. And lest he should be either ignorant of his Duty, (as some proved, in the latter end of their State, when the High-Priesthood was bought for Money) or forgetful, the Sanhedrim sent some to read before him the Rites of this day; who adjured him also to perform every thing according to God's Command. The night before also they let him eat but little, that no accident in the night might make him unfit to officiate the next day; and that he might awake the sooner, and begin the Service of the day betimes, as they did upon all great Solemnities. All this, and a great deal more, is related in Codex Joma, cap. 1. And Mr. Selden likewise hath observed out of Sepher Schebat Jehuda, with what a magnificent Pomp the Highpriest was conducted from his own House, when he went to the Temple, seven days before this Day of Atonement, accompanied by the King, and the whole Sanhedrim, the Royal Family, and the whole Choir of Priests, etc. Lib. III. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 7. Something like this was the Triumph wherein our blessed Highpriest Christ Jesus was conducted to Jerusalem, five days before he offered himself there, for the Sins of the whole World, XII John 1, 12, 13.  
With a young bullock for a sin-offering.] To be offered for himself, and for his Family, as appears from v. 6. For no other Sacrifice was allowed for the Sin of the Highpriest (though it were dubious) but only a young Bullock, IV. 2, 3.  
And a ram for a burnt-offering.] Which accompanied the Sin-offering at his Consecration, VIII. 18. But first of all the Morning Sacrifice was offered, with the Additionals usual on this Day, (as the Jews say) viz. a Bullock, a Ram, and seven Lambs, all for Burnt-offerings.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, etc.] There were eight Garments-belonging to the Attire of the Highpriest: four of which are here mentioned, which the Jews call his white Garments; and four more mentioned XXVIII Exod. 4. which they call the golden Garments; because there was a mixture of Gold in them; whereas these were all made of fine Linen. Upon other days, when the Highpriest officiated, he was bound to put them on all (not one of the eight being wanting) but on this day, when he went in to the most holy place, he put on only those four, which were the Habit of the ordinary Priests, as well as his. This, some conceive, was in token of Humility, because this day was appointed for Confession of Sins, and Repentance, etc. Upon which account they imagine also, these Linen Garments were courser than those which he wore every day with his golden Garments. But all the Jews agree, that these Garments, which he wore on the Day of Expiation, were made of the purest and most precious Linen of all other: which they call (in Massechet Joma, cap. 3.) fine Linen of Pelusium, which was a City in Egypt, famous for the richest and whitest Linen, as our Sheringham shows (in his Notes on that Treatise) out of Pliny and Silius Italicus. And if we may believe the Talmudists, as the Highpriest put on fine Linen of Pelusium in the morning of this day, so he put on fine Linen of India (i e. in their Language, of Ethiopia or Arabia, as Braunius observes, Lib. I. de Vest. Sacerd. cap. 7. n. 9) in the evening of it; which was not of much less value than the other. And this is not disagreeable to Moses, who saith God commanded the Priest's Garments to be made for glory and beauty, XXVIII Exod. 2. And therefore the High Priest appeared even upon this day, in a splendid and noble Habit; which was not inconsistent with inward Humility and Lowliness of Mind; whereby the comely and beautiful performance of God's Service, was not to be obstructed. For whereas upon other days, the Highpriest washed his hands and his feet in the Brazen Laver; on this day, if we may believe the Jews, he washed them in a Vessel of Gold, as the same Braunius observes out of Massechet Joma, c. 4. There are those who fancy the Highpriest went into the most holy place, with the Ephod and Breastplate, whereon were the Names of the Children of Israel: but that is quite contrary to what Moses here delivers, who mentions not other Garments but these of fine Linen which he wore upon this day; no not when he went into the holy place (v. 23.) And the Hebrew Doctors all thus understand it, as Mr. Selden shows out of them and Josephus, Lib. II. the Succession. in Pontific. Hebraeor. cap. 7. p. 250.  
Yet the Roman Church hath grounded a solemn Practice upon the  fancy; the Priests, and Bishops too, being wont on Good-Friday to minister only in the Habit of Deacons, while they are reading or singing the Office of the Passion: But when they come to the Sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) than they put on richer Vestments, proper to their order. Which is a mistaken Imitation of the Ceremonies under the Law, upon this great Day of Atonement; when the Highpriest never put on any of his golden Garments for the Service of it.  
And he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh.] To cover his secret parts. For the word Flesh is to be understood here as in XV. 2.  
And shall be girded with the linen girdle, and with the linen mitre, etc.] These two, with the two foregoing, make up the four white Garments: which might possibly, as the Jews say, be made of the finest and richest Linen that could be got, that the Highpriest might appear splendid, in the simplest Habit wherein he ministered. But it is evident he was not allowed to appear in those Garments which were wrought with Gold, and Scarlet, and Blue, and Purple, (XXVIII Exod. 6, 8, etc.) because such very sumptuous Apparel, it must be acknowledged, was not so suitable to the Service of the day. On which the Highpriest (as the Hebrew Gloss notes upon this place) did not so much put on the Person of a Patron, as of an Accuser; Confessing their Sins before God, and begging pardon for them.  
These are holy Garments.] To be used only when he ministered in the Sanctuary, XXVIII Exod. 2.  
Therefore he shall wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.] There was no need, upon other days, to wash more than once, in the beginning of Divine Service; but on this great Day he washed five times, as oft as he shifted his Garments, and went from one ministry to another; as appears in part from v. 23, 24. where see what I have observed. Here he seems to speak of his washing after he had offered the Morning Sacrifice, etc. in his golden Garments: and then began the Service of the day in these white Garments alone.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And he shall take of the Congregation of the Children of Israel.] The former Sacrifices v. 3. were for himself: these for all the People.  
Two Kids of the Goats for a Sin-offering.] These two Goats made but one Sin-offering; which is described more largely and particularly, v. 8, 9, 10. The former perhaps, which was sacrificed to the LORD, was to procure those good things which they had forfeited by their sins: and the other (the Scape-goat, as we translate it) to avert those Evils which they had deserved: For the name that is commonly given it by the Greeks signifies its power to turn away Punishments. Or the simple reason of it might be, that the Israelites by this double Sacrifice (for both were presented before the LORD) might be the more fully satisfied of the Expiation of their Sins. There is the like example before, of two Birds appointed for the cleansing of a Leper's House; one of which only was killed, the other let fly away; but both of them are said to cleanse the House, and to be for atonement, XIV. 49, 52, 53. In which some of the ancient Father's thought they saw a notable Type of our LORD Christ. Whose Sacrifice, as it was prefigured by all the Legal Sacrifices (for the Paschal Lamb itself was a Type of him sacrificed for us, 1 Corinth. V 7.) so by this more especially on the Day of Expiation. Which was of greater and more universal efficacy than all the rest, and therefore represented him more fully than the other did. Insomuch that these two Goats joined in one Sacrifice, may be thought to represent one Christ, consisting of two Natures. For since it was not possible, as Theodoret expresses it, to adumbrate both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which was mortal, and that which was immortal in Christ; he commanded two to be brought, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Goat which was offered in Sacrifice, might prefigure the passable Nature of his Flesh: and that which was let go, might show the impassable Nature of his Divinity, Quaest. XXII. in Levit. And St. Cyril Discourses, to the same purpose, in his ninth Book against Julian.  
And one Ram for a Burnt-offering.] Which was no more than was appointed for Aaron himself, v. 3. who herein is equalled with all the Princes of the People; in whose name this Ram seems to have been offered.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Aaron shall offer his Bullock of the Sin-offering, which is for himself.] Not by killing it, which was done afterwards (v. 11.) but only by presenting it before God to be sacrificed; which was done with a solemn Prayer, wherein he beseeched God to be propitious unto him and his. The form of it is set down in Massechet Joma, cap. 3. sect. 8. He laid his hand upon the head of the Bullock, and said, I have done amiss, and been rebellious, and sinned before thee, I and my House. I beseech thee now, O LORD, remit my Rebellion and my Sin which I have committed, and my House, etc.  
And make an atonement for himself, and for his house.] For his Family, as I said v. 3. and for all the Priests; who are called the House of Aaron, CXV Psal. 10, 12. CXXXV. 9 And I do not see why all the House of Levi should not also be understood: For they are not comprehended under the name of the Congregation of the Children of Israel (mentioned in the Verse before) and therefore must be contained here under the name of the House of Aaron. See I Numb. 49.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he shall take the two Goats.] Mentioned v. 5. which were to be of equal stature, of the same colour, and the same price (as the Hebrew Doctors say in Joma, cap. 6.) both designed to the same end, the Expiation of their Sins.  
And present them before the LORD at the door of the Tabernacle, etc.] All the Sin-offerings which were made for the Congregation, were presented either by the Highpriest, or by the Elders (IV. 15.) and by them devoted to God, to be sacrificed on his Altar. For this presenting of the Goat, is the same with his offering of the Bullock in the Verse foregoing; in which was nothing else but his solemn Consecration of them, as I said, to be sacrificed. According to which pattern, our blessed LORD and Saviour, a little before he suffered upon the Cross, and made himself a Sacrifice for us, voluntarily offered himself to die for our sins. Which is the meaning of those words of his XVII John 19 where praying for his Apostles, he saith, For their sakes I sanctify myself: that is, offer myself to die as an Expiatory Sacrifice for them. For that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dr. Owtram hath demonstrated, Lib. II. de Sacrificiis, cap. 3. And so St. Chrysostom here expounds these words, I sanctify myself, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I offer thee a Sacrifice; or consecrate and devote myself to be sanctified. And it is not an improbable Conjecture of another very learned Friend of mine, now also with God (Dr. Spencer) that the appointing of two Goats to be both presented to God at the same time, and with the same Rites, was to preserve the Jews in a belief that there is but one principle of all things; who both bestows good things, and inflicts evil. Contrary to the opinion of the Gentiles, who made two Principles, one good and the other bad; which was the ancient belief of the Chaldaeans, and other Eastern People, and from them propagated to the Greeks and Romans. Most of whose Sacrifices (as another very learned Man of our own Country hath observed) had respect to these two Principles; to one of which they offered in the Morning, and to the other at Night. See Dr. Windet de Vita Functorum statu, sect. 3. where he observes that there are plain footsteps of this old Error at this day, through all the East, as far as China: for there was an endeavour to infect Christianity with it, by Manes the Persian, in the Reign of the Emperor Aurelian; nor was there any Heresy that spread so far as this Dotage did.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two Goats.] The manner of it is described in the same Treatise (Massechet Joma, cap. 3. sect. 9) The Highpriest went to the East-part of the Court, on the North-side of the Altar, having the Sagan (his Vicar) on his right hand, and the head of the House of the Fathers on his left. There stood two Goats, with an Urn or Box, which they call CALPI (the very same name which Lucian, and the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, give to the same thing, as our learned Sheringham upon that Book, and Bochart in his Hierozoicon, have observed). Into this Urn the two Lots were cast, which were made of Box-wood (as the Misna here says) and in after times came to be of Gold. But Maimonides in his Treatise on this Subject, saith they might be made either of Wood or Stone, or any Metal; provided one of them was not bigger than the other, (nor one of Gold, the other of Silver, etc.) but both every way equal, as the Goats were to be. Upon one of these Lots was written the name of the Goat which was for the LORD; and on the other that which was for Azazel. And then the Priest shaking the Urn, and putting in both his hands (as it there follows in Joma, cap. 4.) took up a Lot in each. And if he brought up God's Lot in his right hand, the Sagan, who stood there, said, My Lord, lift up thy right hand: If in his left hand, the Head of the Fathers said, Lift up thy left hand. And so the Priest let the right hand Lot fall upon the Goat that stood on the right hand; and his left hand lot upon the other.  
One lot for the LORD.] To be offered unto the LORD at the Altar.  
The other lot for the scape-goat.] Or, as it is in the Hebrew, for Azazel; as some have anciently translated it. Now why a Goat was offered in Sacrifice, and another Goat let go free, laden with their sins, rather than any other Creature, may be understood, perhaps, from the inclination of the Heathen World in those days, when they worshipped Daemons in the form of a Goat. The Egyptians were famous for this, and the Israelites themselves (it appears from the XVIIth Chapter of this Book, v. 7.) were prone to offer Sacrifices le Seirim; which signifies Daemons in that form. And therefore to take them off from such Idolatrous Practices, God ordained these Creatures themselves to be sacrificed and slain, to whom they had offered Sacrifice. And the young ones he appointed for this purpose, (for so Seirim signifies) which the Egyptians most of all honoured, and abhorred to offer or kill. So Juvenal: 
— Nefas illic foetum jugulare Capellae.  satire. XV. V II. Now from hence perhaps it was that some fancied Azazel signified the Devil; as R. Menachem and R. Eliezer among the Jews; Julian among the Heathen; and some great Men lately among us. Who conceive that as the other Goat was offered to God at the Altar, so this was sent among the Daemons, which delight to frequent desert places, and there appeared often in the shape of this Creature. But this will not agree with the Hebrew Text, which says this Goat was for Azazel, as the other was for the LORD. Now none sure will be so profane, as to imagine, that both these Goats being set before the LORD, and presented to him, as equally Consecrated to him, he would then order one of them to be for himself, and the other for the Devil. We must therefore be content with our own Translation, which derives the word Azazel from Ez, a Goat; and azal, to go away; and fitly calls it the Scape-goat: So Paulus Fagius, and a great many others: against which I see nothing objected, but that Ez signifies a she Goat, not a he. Which made Bochartus fetch this word from the Arabic; in which Language Azala signifies to remove, or to separate. And this agrees well enough with the name of this Goat, according as the ancient Translators understood it; some of which, as Symmachus, render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Goat going away: others, as Aquila, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Goat let lose: and the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In which they had no thought of the notion of this word among the Greeks, who called those Daemons by this name, who were esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as J. Pollux speaks) averters of evil things from them: But simply meant, as Theodoret interprets it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Goat sent away into the Wilderness. And so St. Hierom expounds it, Hircus emissarius: which agrees with the notion which Bochartus puts upon the word out of the Arabic Tongue. This Goat being sent away into remote places, there to remain separate from the Flock to which he belonged; and that upon a Mountain (as the Jews fancy) in the Wilderness of Sinai, which from this Goat was called Azazel: But I see no ground for this.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And Aaron shall bring the Goat upon which the LORDS lot fell.] In the Hebrew the word is, went up: For he first took it up out of the Urn, and then let it fall upon the Goat.  
And offer him for a sin-offering.] Devote him to God to be a Sacrifice for their Sins; beseeching him to accept of this Sacrifice for that end. So the word offer, I observe, signifies v. 6. order being given afterwards for the kill of the Goat, v. 15.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 But the Goat on which the lot fell to be the Scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the LORD.] This shows that the Scape-goat was equally consecrated and devoted to God, as the other was: though not to be killed, but sent away alive; after the other had been offered in Sacrifice.  
To make an atonement with him.] For this was a Sin-offering, though not slain, no less than the other: as appears from v. 5. which shows these two Goats made but one Sin-offering: Which was partly slain at the Altar, and partly let go (as it here follows) to run whether he would; the more perfectly to represent the taking away of their Sins, and removing their iniquity (as the Prophet speaks, III Zach. 9) by virtue of this Offering for them.  
Some indeed have thought that this Goat was not sacrificed, but only presented alive before God, and so let go; lest it should be thought God could not forgive their Sins, unless he was appeased by some slain Beast: which imagination was destroyed by letting this Sin-offering be left alive, at full liberty to run quite away. But I can see no ground for such a Construction; because these were not two, but one Sin-offering, as I said before: which being slain in part, established that opinion in them, of the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation, without a bloody Sacrifice. Certain it is, that the whole Law supposes this, that without shedding of blood is no remission, as the Apostle observes IX Hebr. 22. And therefore it will be more agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, if we think, as some do, That the first Goat represented our LORD in his Sufferings, and this other in his Resurrection; whereby he was freed from the Bands of Death: both his Death and his Resurrection being for our Deliverance, as the Apostle shows IV Rom. ult.  
And let him go free.] Whether he pleased. For so the Hebrew word Schalac (send him away, or dismiss him) signifies in Scripture, entire liberty, such as God demanded for the Israelites from Pharaoh, IV Exod. 23. V 1.  
For a Scape-goat.] Into remote places.  
Into the Wilderness.] In token their sins were quite carried away, to be found no more: for the Goat was not merely sent into the Wilderness, but into the most desert places of it, as appears from v. 22.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And Aaron shall bring the Bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, etc.] This former part of the Verse is word for word the same with v. 6. which shows that offering there (as we translate it) was nothing else, but bringing it to be offered; or presenting it before the LORD, to be a Sacrifice for himself, and for his Family. But now his bringing it, was, that it might be killed immediately, as it follows in the latter part of this Verse.  
And shall make an atonement for himself and his house.] By killing it, as the next words tell us.  
And shall kill the Bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself.] He was first to offer for himself, before he could acceptably offer for the People, as the Apostle observes V Hebr. 3. IX. 7. And, as the Jews tell us (in Massechet Joma, cap. 4. sect. 2.) he again put his hand upon the head of the Bullock, and made the Confession and Supplication , upon v. 6. And when he had done, than he killed the Bullock with his own hands. For though all other Sacrifices might be killed by any person, yet the Highpriest himself was bound to kill this; as they say in the same place of the Misna, sect. 3. And having received the Blood of the Bullock in a Basin, he delivered it to another Priest to keep it in continual agitation, till he had offered Incense in the holy place; that so it might not grow thick and be clotted; but be kept liquid and thin, fit to be sprinkled before the Mercy-seat.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And he shall take a Censer full of burning coals of fire.] Which he held in his right hand.  
From the Altar before the LORD.] From the brazen Altar where the Bullock was slain: for Coals were burning before God no where else but there.  
And his hands full of sweet Incense, beaten small.] With his left hand he took as much of the Incense mentioned XXX Exod. 34, 36. as his hand would hold (besides the Incense which he burned every Morning and Evening, which was a whole pound) and put it into a Cup.  
And bring it within the vail.] With both these, the Censer of Coals, and the Cup of Incense, (the former in his right hand, the other in his left) he went within the Veil, which divided the holy place from the most holy: And set down the Censer; and then (as it follows in the next Verse, see there) threw the Incense upon the burning Coals. This the Hebrew Doctors take to have been so difficult a work, that in the Gemara upon Joma (cap. 1.) they say some of the elder Priests were sent to him beforehand, to show him how he should fill his hand with the Incense. And the Misna there says, that they adjured him in these words; We are the Legates of the great Sanhedrim, and thou art our Legate and theirs; we adjure thee, we adjure thee by him whose name dwells in this House, that thou change not any one thing of all that we have said unto thee. And so they parted with tears on both sides. The reason of which solemn Adjuration, they say, was, That the Sadduces affirmed, he might burn the Incense without the Veil, and so enter into the most holy place; directly contrary to this Text, which required him to do it within; where no body could see what the Highpriest did, and consequently could not tell whether he performed the Service there aright. Therefore they took this Oath of him, in the latter Ages of their State, when some of the Faction of the Sadducees were thrust into the Priesthood, as Mr. Selden probably conjectures, Lib. III. de Synedriis, cap. 11. n. 2. This was the first time of the High-Priests going into the Holy of Holies on this great Day.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And he shall put the Incense upon the fire before the LORD.] He entered (as the Misna saith in Joma, cap. 5.) with his Face towards the South; and so went side-ways (for he might not look upon the Ark, where the Divine Glory was) till he came to the Staves of the Ark; where he set down the Censer, and put on the Incense. And having filled the House with a Cloud of Smoak, he went out backward (out of reverence to the Divine Majesty) into the holy place without the Veil. Where, when he was come, he made this short Prayer, May it please thee, O LORD God, that this year may be hot and also wet; that the Sceptre may not departed from the Family of Judah, nor thy People Israel want food; and that the Prayer of the wicked may not be heard. And then he presently went out of the Sanctuary, and showed himself to the People; that they might not suspect he had done amiss, and miscarried in his Office. For so, they say, it sometimes happened, that the Highpriest, having violated these holy Rites appointed by God, was struck dead in the holy place.  
The Incense which was burnt every day in the holy place, at the Golden Altar, representing the Prayers of the Saints, as St. John teaches us (VIII Rev. 3, 4.) this Incense which was burnt in the Holy of Holies, may well be thought to represent the Prayers of the Highpriest himself, which he made upon this occasion; as our blessed Saviour did before he offered the great Sacrifice of himself, (XVII John, of which more hereafter) with the Blood of which he now appears in the Heavens before God for us.  
That the Cloud of the Incense may cover the Mercy-seat that is upon the Testimony. So that nothing of it might be seen: it being the place of the Residence of the Divine Majesty, (XXV Exod. 21, 22.) whose Glory was inaccessible.  
That he die not.] By gazing on the Divine Glory. See v. 2. and XXXIII Exod. 20.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And he shall take of the blood of the Bullock.] Having done what is commanded in the foregoing Verses, he came out of the Sanctuary, and went to the Priest, whom he left at the Altar of Burnt-offering, stirring the Blood in the Basin, which he delivered to him (as I observed v. 11.) And taking it from him went with it (the second time) within the Veil; and standing where he did before, when he burned the Incense, sprinkled it as is directed in the words following.  
And sprinkle it with his singer.] The very root or essence of a Sacrifice (as the Maxim of the Jews is) lies in the sprinkling of the Blood.  
Upon the Mercy-seat.] One would think, by this Translation, that he sprinkled the Mercy-Seat itself, with some of the Blood. But all the Jews understand it quite otherwise: and indeed the Hebrew words are Al pene, over against the Face, i. e. as they interpret it (in the Misna , cap. 5.) towards the Mercy-Seat. And so it follows in the next words, and before the Mercy-seat shall he sprinkle. Only this difference there was in the sprinkling, that this Particle all, they think, imported that he was to make the first sprinkling, here mentioned, toward the top of the Mercy-Seat. The Vulgar Latin, wholly omits this part of the Verse, and only mentions the latter sprinkling, seven times contra propitiatorium over against the Mercy-Seat Eastward.  
Eastward.] I should have thought the observation of our learned Countryman (Mr. J. Gregory) very remarkable, if he had been commanded only to sprinkle the Blood Eastward. For then there might have been room for his Conjecture, that though Aaron at all other times turned his face towards the West (where the most holy place was) and at the very killing of the Goat and the Bullock, not only looked that way himself, but turned their Faces towards the West (as the Jews say in Joma) yet when he came to perform the chief part of this Mystery, he turned his back upon the beggarly Elements of the World, and sprinkled this Blood eastward, to represent the Man, whose name is the East, i. e. Christ. But I do not see how this agrees with this sprinkling the Blood before the Mercy-seat; which could not be done without looking towards the West. And therefore it must be confessed that he did not sprinkle it Eastward; but standing Eastward of the Mercy-Seat, with his Face towards it, he performed this Office, as Mr. Selden observes, Lib. III. de Synedr. cap. 16. p. 426. Or it may be said to be done Eastward, because that part of the Ark before which he sprinkled, looked Eastward.  
And before the Mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.] This is a distinct sprinkling from the foregoing, which was done but once, and towards the upper part of the Mercy-Seat; but this was done seven times, towards the lower part of it, as the Jews understand it: who say he sprinkled eight times in all, but none of the Blood touched the Mercy-Seat. So the Gemara on that place, and Maimonides in his Jom hakippurim and Obediah Bartenoca, whose words are these; The drops of Blood did not come upon the Mercy-seat, but fell upon the Ground; as two of our very learned Countrymen have observed, Mr. Sheringham upon Joma, and Dr. Owtram, Lib. I. de Sacrificiis, cap. 16. n. 4.  
Seven times.] Concerning this Number seven, See before IV. 6. This was the second time of going into the Holy of Holies upon this Day.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 Then shall he kill the Goat of the sin-offering, that is for the people.] The Blood of which was received in a Basin, as that of the Bullock was, (See v. 11.) and he carried it within the Veil, (as here follows) and did just as he had done before, v. 14. But whether he first burned Incense, as he had done before he brought in the Blood of the Bullock, is uncertain: It is likely the Fume that had been then made, still remained; so that there was no need to renew it.  
And do with that blood, as he did with the blood of the Bullock, and sprinkle, etc.] For he stood in the same place (as the Misna observes) and there sprinkled once towards the top of the Mercy-Seat; and then seven times before the bottom of it. Which is not here expressly said, but is to be understood from what goes before; which order him to do with this Blood as he had done with the other.  
This now was the third time of his going into the most holy place, upon this day. See v. 2.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place.] By the sprinkling  (both of the Blood of the Bullock and of the Goat, as I gather from v. 18.) God's own dwelling place was purified: the Blood (which was sprinkled seven or eight times before the Mercy-Seat) being thrown, it is probable towards both sides of it.  
Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel; and because of their transgressions in all their sins.] The many sins whereby they had transgressed God's holy Laws, the whole year before, had made them so unclean, that it provoked God to leave them, and made this most holy place unfit for his Habitation; unless he were reconciled to them: For it was seated among an unclean People, as the rest of the Sanctuary was; and on that score might need an Atonement. See XXIX Exod. 36, 37.  
And so shall he do for the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] When he had done all this within the Veil, he was to do the same without, in the Sanctuary: where he sprinkled first the Blood of the Bullock, and then the Blood of the Goat, against the Veil which parted the Sanctuary, from the Holy of Holies. So the Misna in the place ; and R. Solomon Jarchi upon these words; As he sprinkled part of the Blood of both Sacrifices, once above, and seven times beneath, in the inward Sanctuary; so he sprinkled towards the Veil without, once above, and seven times below. For they all agree the Blood was not sprinkled upon the Veil, but before it: by which sprinkling the Sanctuary was purified, as the Apostle observes, when he saith, Almost all things were, by the Law, purged with Blood, etc. IX Hebr. 21, 22, 23.  
That remaineth among them, in the midst of their uncleanness.] Surrounded by a sinful People, who were full of Legal, as well as other Impurities: and had been likewise defiled by many, who had ignorantly come into it, in their uncleanness. So Maimonides judiciously observes. It could scarce be avoided, but some or other would ignorantly, and some presumptuously offend, by going into the Sanctuary, or eating holy things when they ought not: and therefore God commanded this Expiation to be made for the Pollutions of the Sanctuary and its Utensils, by such means, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And there shall be no Man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place.] During this action, none of the Priests, who used to attend in the Tabernacle, were to come into it, till the Highpriest had expiated its Uncleanness; which it was supposed to have contracted, by their coming into it all the year before.  
Until he come out.] Of the holy place.  
And have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the Congregation of Israel.] Finished all that he had to do there, for the Expiation of his own Sins, and his Families, and all the People's. That is, from the time of his going to offer Incense, till he came out to purify the Tabernable. Some of which time he spent in Prayer to God, (as I observed v. 13.) for all the People; as he had done before when he presented the Sin-offerings to him; with solemn Supplication, for himself and for his Household, and for all the Congregation of Israel; the Forms of which are extant in their Books. In conformity to which, when our blessed Saviour consecrated himself to be a Sacrifice for us (as I noted upon v. 7.) he first commended himself to God, in that solemn Prayer before his Death, XVII Joh. v. 1, 2, etc. and then his Apostles, who were his Household, v. 9, 10. and so forward to the 20th Verse; and then prayed for all that should believe on him; i. e. the whole Congregation of Christian People, from v. 20. to the end. Immediately after which he went to the place, where he was apprehended, and led to be Condemned and Crucified, XVIII John 1. See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis, Lib. II. cap. 3. n. 3.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he shall go out unto the Altar that is before the LORD.] These words, before the LORD, seem to restrain this to the Golden Altar, where Incense was offered in the Sanctuary: and so I find it is generally interpreted, even by the Jews themselves (in Joma, cap. 5. sect. 5.) as well as Christians. But the words, he shall go out, plainly signify his coming from the Sanctuary, where the golden Altar was (and had been cleansed, we may well suppose, together with it, v. 16.) into the outward Court, to the Altar of Burnt-offering, which was also before the LORD, (XXIX Exod. 11.) though at a greater distance from him: and which, one would think, stood in need to be cleansed, as much as the Altar of Incense. Now unless it was ordered to be cleansed in these words, I can see no care taken about it at all. In XXX Exod. 10. there is express mention indeed made of making an atonement upon the Altar of Incense once a year; and nothing said of the other: and if we will so understand it here, than the words, he shall go out, must have respect to his going into the holy place, mentioned in the Verse before.  
And make an atonement for it.] This is generally understood, as I said, of the golden Altar, because such express mention is made of its Purification yearly, in the place now mentioned, XXX Exod. 10. And no doubt, that which is here commanded, was done there, when he made Atonement for the Table, where it stood: But there being the same need, as I said, to expiate the other Altar (where no fewer Errors had been committed than here, and which stood nearer to an unclean People, who encompassed it) I cannot but think that it's here included.  
And shall take of the blood of the Bullock, and of the Goat.] He put the Blood of the Bullock and of the goat together; and then poured them into another Vessel, that they might be well mingled. For here is no command in this place, that he should go round the Altar twice; and tip the Horns of it, first with the Blood of the Bullock, and then of the Goat, separate one from the other; as the Misna in Joma observes, cap. 5. sect. 4.  
And put it upon the horns of the altar round about.] He began at the North-east corner, and so went to the Northwest; and from thence to the South-west, and lastly to the Southeast: and as he came near to each corner, he put the Blood upon it. So the Jews describe this matter in the same place, sect. 5.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times.] Not upon the middle of the Altar, but nigh the corners; viz. in the place where he ended when he put the Blood upon the horns of the Altar. So the Jews say in the place , sect. 6. And I do not see, why the Particle upon should not be expounded here, as in v. 15. (if their interpretation be true) to signify that he sprinkled the Blood before the Altar; which he did not touch.  
And shall cleanse it and hollow it, from the uncleanness of the Children of Israel.] The Jews refer this cleansing to his taking the Coals and the Ashes from the Altar, that he might sprinkle the Blood in a clean place. And then the words are to be translated, He shall sprinkle the blood, etc. having cleansed and hallowed it. But the conclusion of the Verse determines us to another fence, which is, That by sprinkling the Blood he cleansed and sanctified it, from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, whereby it had been defiled: the Priests having either come in their uncleanness thither, or not performed their Service as they ought there; and the People thereby remaining in their Impurities.  
Now when the Highpriest had done all this, the Jews say (in the Misna beforenamed) he poured the rest of the Blood of the Bullock and Goat, at the bottom of the Altar of Burnt-offerings, (where, I conceive, he concluded this Atonement) for there was a conveyance to carry it away, as I observed upon IV. 7. And they make account also, that if every thing was not done in this order, it was ineffectual, and was to be done over again. For example; If the Blood of the Goat, was sprinkled before the Blood of the Bullock (contrary to the directions v. 14, 15.) he returned, and sprinkled the Blood of the Goat, after that of the Bullock, etc.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place.] Making it fit to continue God's dwelling place, v. 16.  
And the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] By this I think is meant the Sanctuary, and every thing in it; particularly the golden Altar.  
And the Altar.] Of Burnt-offerings, where he ended his Atonement for the whole House of God.  
He shall bring the live Goat.] Two had been presented to the LORD, v. 7, 10. that is, solemnly consecrated and devoted to be expiatory Sacrifices; one of which having been slain, the other was now brought to be made an Expiation for Sin, after another manner. And he was brought, no doubt, to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, where they were wont to lay their hands upon other Sacrifices, I. 3, 4.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live Goat.] Laying of the hand upon the head of the Beast, was a Rite used in all sorts of Sacrifices, whether Burnt-offerings, Peace-offerings, or Sin-offerings. See I 4. III. 2. iv 4, 33. In which places, mention is made only of laying on his hand: But here the Highpriest is commanded to lay on both hands, as he and his Sons did, in the Sacrifice of the Bullock, and the Ram at their Consecration, VIII. 14, 18. The meaning of which was, the more solemnly and entirely to devote the Sacrifice to the uses for which it was designed; which, in this Sacrifice, was to bear all their Sins. For they were all laid upon this Sacrifice, unto which the punishment of them was transferred: This Rite signifying as much as if they had said, Whatsoever we have done amiss, let not us, but this Sacrifice be charged with it: that is, let it bear the punishment which we deserve. Such phrases there are 2 Sam. I 16. IX Esther 25. VII Psal. 16. and other places.  
And confess over him.] This must have been understood, if it had not been expressed: for imposition of hands was always accompanied with Prayer, of one sort or other, according to the occasion of it. Insomuch that the Jews say, Where there is no Confession of Sins, there is no Imposition of Hands; for Imposition of Hands belongs to Confession. See Dr. Owtram de Sacrif. Lib. I. cap. 15. n. 8. And it is observable, that the Highpriest made Confession three times on this day. First for himself, and then for his Brethren the Priests, and now for the whole Congregation; saying this Prayer, (as they tell us in Joma, cap. 6. sect. 2.) I beseech thee, O LORD; this People the House of Israel, have done wickedly, and been rebellious, and sinned before thee. I beseech thee, now O LORD, expiate the Iniquities, the Rebellions, and the Sins, which thy People the House of Israel, have done wickedly, transgressed and sinned before thee. According as it is written in the Law of Moses thy Servant (viz. in the 30th Verse of this Chapter) on that day he shall make an Atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your Sins before the LORD. Which last word (LORD) as soon as all the Priests and the People, that were in the Court, heard pronounced by the Highpriest, they bowed and fell down flat upon their Faces, and worshipped, saying, Blessed be the LORD; let the Glory of his Kingdom be for ever.  
All the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions, in all their sins.] These three words, Iniquities, Transgressions and Sins, are the very words used by the Highpriest in his Confession ; which comprehend all manner of Offences, whether committed deliberately, or not, against Negative, or Affirmative Precepts, (as they call them). Grotius in his Notes on this place, hath thus distinguished them, but whether exactly, or not, cannot be determined. But it is probable that Sins, signify Offences committed by Error, not deliberately; Iniquities, such as were deliberately committed against the prohibiting Precepts; and Transgressions, those that were deliberately committed against commanding Precepts. All except those to which cutting off was threatened, which were not expiated by any Sacrifice.  
Putting them upon the head of the Goat.] By putting his hands on the head of the Goat, and confessing their Sins over him (with Prayer to God to remit them) they were all charged upon the Goat, and the punishment of them transferred from the Israelites unto it. Just as the Sins of all Mankind were afterwards laid upon our Saviour Christ (as the Prophet speaks, LIII Isa. 6.) who his own self bore our sins in his own body, (saith S. Peter 1. II. 24.) the punishment passing from us to him, who was made Sin for us, 2 Corinth. V 21. Which Expressions are manifest Allusions unto this Sacrifice on the great Day of Expiation: which was the most illustrious Figure of the Sacrifice of Christ; and shows, beyond all reasonable contradiction, that Christ suffered in our stead, and not merely for our benefit. For it is very evident, the Sacrifice offered on this day, was put in the place of the People; and all their Sins, that is, the punishment of them, laid upon its head. And it appears by the form of all other Sin-offerings, which were occasionally offered at other times, that he who brought them put off the guilt, which he had contracted, from himself, and laid it on the Sacrifice, which was to die for him. Which he did by laying his hand on the head of it at the door of the Tabernacle, while it was yet alive. Then with his hand so placed, he made a Confession of his Sins, for which he desired forgiveness by the offering of this Sacrifice: That is, he prayed by these Rites, that the Beast being offered and slain, he might be spared from punishment; which was a plain transferring the guilt from himself unto his Sacrifice. Which being yet alive, and thus laded with his guilt, was then brought to the Altar, and there slain for the guilty Person: That is, it died in his stead; for there was no other reason of its being put to death there, and in that manner.  
I have insisted the longer on this, because nothing can better explain the true meaning of Christ's dying for us: which was by transferring the suffering due to our Sins, upon him; as the manner was in the Legal Sacrifices. Which was a thing, let me add, so notorious in the World, that other Nations from hence derived the like custom, to that here mentioned by Moses. Particularly the Egyptians, as David Chytraeus hath long ago observed, and since him many others out of Herodotus: who tells us (Lib. II. cap. 39) that they made this Execration over the Head of the Beast which they sacrificed; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if any evil was to fall, either on themselves who sacrificed, or upon the whole Country of Egypt, it might be turned upon the head of that Beast. And this, he saith, was the custom over all the Land of Egypt; and the reason why no Egyptian would taste of the head of any Animal. Nor was this the Notion of the Egyptians only, but of other Countries also; who called those Sacrifices which were offered for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being sacrificed in their stead; and the Life of the Beast given for theirs. Thus the Greeks sometimes sacrificed Men, when some very heavy Calamity was fallen upon them, whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Expiations to purge them, for their Sins, by suffering in their room. For they prayed thus over him, who was devoted every year, for the averting Evils from them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be thou our Cleansing; that is, our Preservative and Redemption, or Ransom. And with these words they threw him into the Sea, as a Sacrifice to Neptune. And thus the Massilienses did, as Servius tells us (upon the 3d Aenead.) in time of a Plague, praying ut in ipsum reciderent mala totius Civitatis, that on him might fall the Evils of the whole City.  
And shall send him away.] As soon as the Confession was over, the Goat was sent away.  
By the hand of a fit man.] By a Man prepared before hand, (as the Ancients interpret it) or, that stood ready, for this purpose. Jonathan saith, he was designed for it the year before; others say only the day before; and that the Highpriest appointed him: who might appoint any body, whom he thought fit; but did not usually appoint an Israelite, as they say in Joma, cap. 6. n. 3.  
Into the wilderness.] It is not certainly known what Wilderness this was; but the Hebrews call it the Wilderness of Tzuk, which, they say, was ten Miles from Jerusalem. And they say, that at the end of each Mile there was a Tabernacle erected, where Men stood ready with Meat and drink, which they offered to him that went with the Goat, lest he should faint by the way. And the Nobles of Jerusalem, they add, accompanied him the first Mile; further than which they might not go, because this day was a Sabbath. After which, they that were in the first Tabernacle accompanied him to the next; and they that were there to the third; and so forward to the last; that they might be sure to have this great work done, of carrying their Sins quite away from them. So we read in the Treatise on this Subject, called Joma, cap. 6. sect. 4, 5. which Maimonides hath explained, as I have now done.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.] This shows more fully still, the nature of this Sacrifice, in which all their iniquities, i. e. the punishment of them was laid, that he might carry them away. For this Goat was not capable to bear their sins, but only their punishment; as Christ also did, who knew no sin, and yet was made sin; by having the punishment of our sins laid on him. For that this Scape-goat, which was loaded with their sins, was a Sin-offering, is plainly said before in this Chapter; and consequently represented Christ (who is our Sin-offering) as well as the other part of this Sin-offering did, whose Blood was carried into the holy place. And in some regard this Scape-goat was a very notable representation of him; if it be true, that our Saviour entered upon his Office, of being the Mediator of our reconciliation with God, upon this great Day of Atonement, which was the Day on which he was Baptised, as our Dr. Jackson, together with some good Chronologers think. For though the Tradition of the Western Church be, that his Baptism was on the Sixth of January, yet as Jansenius, and some others of the Roman Communion, do not think fit to follow it, so he judges it more probable to have been on the Tenth of September. In the beginning of which Month, when the Feast of Blowing of Trumpets was celebrated (as we read XXIII of this Book, 24.) John Baptist began to lift up his Voice like a Trumpet, and call the Jews to Repentance. Who accordingly flocked to him, and confessing their sins, were baptised by him in Jordan; where our Saviour also being baptised on the Tenth day, which was the Day of Atonement, and being declared the Son of God by a Voice from Heaven, was immediately driven by the Spirit into the Wilderness, as St. Mark tells us I. 12. Which was a manifest indication (he thinks) to John Baptist, that this was the Redeemer of the World prefigured by the Scape-goat; who going into the Wilderness on the Day of Atonement, immediately after the People had made Confession of their sins, gave him to understand (who was well acquainted with the meaning of the Legal Rites) that he was sent by God to take upon himself the Sins of the World, and carry them away, by being, in due season, offered to God, and slain as a Sacrifice to God for them. And this he did at that very time, when the Paschal Lamb was killed, (as I have shown upon XII Exod. 6.) to the end that they might take notice he was the Lamb of God, whose Sacrifice that Lamb prefigured: as by being led into the Wilderness on the same day the Scape-goat was carried thither, he showed that the Mystery represented by that Ceremony, was exactly fulfilled in him.  
This Notion of his I thought good to mention (though as far as I know, he is singular in it) because it carries some probability in it, if what the Apostle saith, 2 Coloss. 17. be well considered, That the Law contained shadows of things to come, the body of which was Christ. Who was a Body consisting of so many different parts, and so complete (as he observes) that no one, nor a few Legal Ceremonies, could perfectly fore-shadow it: But as the Ceremonies were many, and almost infinite; so every one did fore-shadow some part or piece of this complete Body: That is, no remarkable part of it, no special Event or Action, which concerned our Saviour Christ, but was foreshadowed by some or other Legal Ceremony. See Christ's Answer to John's Question, numb. 62, 63, 64. And his Ninth Book upon the Creed, concerning the Consecration of the Son of God, (which was printed several years after) sect. 4. chap. 24. n. 5, 6, 7, 8. where he resumes this Argument, and endeavours to answer this Question; Why, since Christ was to accomplish the Legal Priesthood and Sacrifice, by his bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross, he did not offer himself, and die upon this very Day of Atonement. To which he gives full satisfaction: but it is too long here to be inserted.  
Unto a land not inhabited.] So the LXX. translate the Hebrew word gezera, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Land into which no body came, or a desolate Country. The Hebrew word properly imports a Land cut off (as Bochart. observes, Lib. II. Hierozoic. cap. 54. P. I.) that is, from habitable Countries: not which cuts off what is sent into it, by its rugged and sharp stones, as the Jews expound it. This still sets out the design of this Sacrifice, which was to free Men so perfectly from the punishment of their sins, that they should not fear the return of them any more. For this Goat was not merely sent into the Wilderness, but into the most inhabitable and inaccessible part of it (as the Greek word properly signifies) where none were likely ever to see it again.  
And he shall let go the Goat in the wilderness.] When he came to the last stage, no body accompanied him that led the Goat, any further; but he went the tenth Mile alone by himself; and the Men in the Tabernacle only stood looking to see what he did with it. And the Misna saith (in the place beforenamed) that he threw it headlong down the Rock Tzuk; where, they say, it was broke in pieces before it came to the middle of it; or, as Jonathan saith, God raised a storm which blew the Goat down with a mighty force. But this is contrary to the very words of Moses, who saith, he was to let the Goat go, or dismiss him, in the Wilderness, to run whither he would. And it seems contrary also to the intention of this Law, which was that only one of the Goats should be killed, the other let go alive. Whereby was represented, that their sins, which were expiated by the Blood of the Sacrifice, should not return again to be charged upon them. Or, that they were as free from their Sins, as the Leprous Person was from his Confinement, when the Bird was let fly into the Fields. Which perfect freedom from the punishment of their sins, was further signified by the burning of the Flesh, the Skin, and the Dung of the Sin-offering, without the Camp: which denoted that all memory of the sins, for which this Expiation was appointed, was clean removed and abolished.  
The Jews will have it, that a piece of Scarlet Cloth being tied upon the Horns of this Scape-goat (as another was about the Neck of the Goat which was sacrificed) when the Man had brought it to the top of the Rock Tzuk, he divided the Cloth into two pieces, and let the Goat go away with one, but tied the other to the Rock, that he might see when it changed colour, and became white, as they say it did when the Goat was thrown down headlong. Anciently indeed they say, this Scarlet Cloth was tied to the Gate of the Temple, and if it turned white when the Goat was sent away, (as they pretend it usually did) there was great joy among the People; because it was a sign their sins were forgiven, according to that of the Prophet, I Isa. 18. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, etc. But if it did not change its colour into white, they hung down their heads, and were full of sorrow; they looking upon it as a Token of God's anger. Which I relate only for this purpose, that I may take notice how the same Authors, who tell this story, confess, that for forty years before the destruction of the second Temple, that is, from the time of our Saviour's death, this shred of Cloth never changed its colour at all. Which, if it be true, was a notable Token of the Wrath of God coming upon them, for their crucifying the LORD Christ.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And Aaron shall come into the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] All that the Highpriest did about the Scape-goat, was performed at the Door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; where he laid his hands upon him, and confessed over him all their sins, (See v. 20, 21.) which being done, and he having sent the Goat away, he is now ordered to come into the Sanctuary itself.  
And shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place.] See v. 4. The Jews say there were two sorts of white Garments, which he wore on this day: One in the Morning, which were made of fine Linen of Pelusium, which was a third part of greater value than those he wore in the Evening, which were of Indian Linen. Now here he speaks only of the Garments that he wore in the Morning, wherein he had hitherto officiated; but is ordered, after he had done all this, to put them off; there being many other things to be still performed upon this day; yea, he was to go once more into the holy place, in order to which he put on other Garments; as will appear in what follows.  
And shall leave them there.] Never to be used more, either by him, or by any body else. But they were laid up when they were left; and new ones made against the next year, as the Gemara upon the third Chapter of Joma relates. And the same is affirmed by Maimonides, R. S. Jarchi, and others mentioned by Braunius, L. II. the Vest. Sacerd. cap. 25. n. 9 R. Levi Barcelonita also gives the same Exposition of it, Precept. 99 and see Mr. Selden, Lib. III. de Synedr. cap. 11. p. 143.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place.] Either in the Laver which stood in the outward Court, or in a Room in the Tabernacle, which in after time was called Happervah; where the Priest, they say, washed himself upon this day, every time he changed his Garments. And this agrees well enough with the words of Moses, which here follow, that when he had put on his Garments, he should come forth; that is, from this Chamber, to perform such Offices as are after mentioned. The end of this washing, in this place, seems to have been, that he might purify himself after he had touched the Goat, which bore all their iniquities, v. 21. as the Man that carried him into the Wilderness was to wash, after he had done that business, v. 26. Though others will have it, that it was in token he had now finished the Expiation. Certain it is, here is another washing distinct from that mentioned v. 4. when he put on the white Garments. Which in part justifies what the Misna saith in Joma, cap. 3. sect. 3. that the Highpriest washed five times upon this day; all in the House Happervah, except the first; which could not be in the Court of the Tabernacle, because he was to wash before he entered into it. For there were five Ministeries to be performed upon this day, at each of which he changed his Garments; and between every Ministry, when he changed his Garments, he washed himself. There is a long Discourse about this, and about washing his hands and his feet, in Torah Cohanim, quoted by our learned Countryman Mr. Sheringham, in his Annotations upon Codex Joma, p. 57 etc. which they endeavour to ground upon the very words of this Verse.  
Now as the leading of Christ into the Wilderness, upon the Day of Atonement, was foreshadowed by the Ceremony of the Scape-goat; so his Baptism on the same day was as expressly foreshadowed or prefigured, as any event concerning him, either was or could be, by the Legal Ceremony here mentioned, of Aaron's washing his Body in the holy place. They are the words of Dr. Jackson in Christ's Answer to John's Question, sect. 64. where he endeavours to make out this.  
And put on his garments.] Viz. His other Garments, wherein he officiated upon other days; which the Jews call his golden Garments, to distinguish them from the white Garments; which alone he wore when he went into the most holy place. And the Jews call by this name of golden Garments, all the eight Garments of the Highpriest: four of which were common to him with the lower Priests, and were made only of Linen, (yet they never call them by the name of white Garments, which they appropriate to those in which he went into the most holy place) the other four, which gave the name to all the rest, were proper only to the Highpriest himself; viz. the Robe (which had Bells of Gold at the bottom) the Ephod, the Breastplate, and the Golden-plate upon his forehead: which being put over the other four common Garments, made him appear as if he were all clothed in Gold. For they either consisted of solid Gold, as the Plate on his forehead; or had solid Gold appendent, as the Robe had; or had Gold interwoven, as the Ephod, and the Breastplate. Now he put on these, after he had put off the Linen Garments mentioned v. 4, 23. which were never used, but when he ministered in the Holy of Holies; where he did not appear with the Breastplate of Vrim and Thummim, and the rest of the golden Garments, as some learned Men have imagined; particularly Corn. Bertram in his Book de Republ. Hebr. cap. 7. where he saith, Hujus Sacerdotis erat semel in anno adytum sanctuarij adire, indutus ipso Ephode. It belonged to the Highpriest to go once in the year into the most secret place of the Sanctuary, clothed with the Ephod. Which is directly contrary to v. 4. of this Chapter. But many other great Men have fallen into the same mistake. See J. Braunius de Vestitu Sacerdot. Hebr. Lib. II. cap. 20. n. 29. & cap. 25. n. 9, 10.  
And come forth.] From the place where he put on his golden Garments, unto the Altar of Burnt-offerings.  
And offer his burnt-offering, and the burnt-offering of the people.] I take this for the daily Evening Sacrifice, which usually was one Lamb; but on this day was two Rams, one for himself, and another for the People; unto which there was an additional offering of seven Lambs of the first year; as they tell us in Joma, cap. 7. sect. 3. But before this, they there say, he went and read to the People out of the Book of the Law, which was with great Ceremony delivered to him. And he might read either in his Pontifical Habit, or in his own Robes (which he pleased) for Reading was no Ministry, as the Gemara there observes. This pleading began at XXIX Numb. 7. etc. where the Sacrifice of seven Lambs is ordered upon this day.  
And make an atonement for himself and the people.] Rather, having made an atonement: which was already done by other Sacrifices; not by these.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And the fat of the sin-offering shall be burnt upon the Altar.] This also, I think, should be translated in the same manner, having burnt the fat of the sin-offering: which was done, I suppose, in the Morning when both the Bullock and the Goat were offered for Sin, v. 11, 14. but was not mentioned till now, to show that their Sacrifices were not perfected, till both Aaron and the People were reconciled to God; after which their  Sacrifices were acceptable to him. This burning of the Fat was ordered in all Sin-offerings, IV. 8, 10, 26. and therefore was not now to be omitted. And perhaps it was reserved to be burnt, when the Flesh of the Bullock and the Goat was burnt without the Camp, v. 27. which was in the conclusion of all the Services of this Day.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And he that let go the Goat for the Scape-goat.] After the Man had dismissed the Goat, it was not lawful for him to return further back than one Mile, to the last Tabernacle; where he was permitted to rest himself after his labour, and not remain all Night in the Wilderness. So they tell us in Joma, cap. 6. sect. 6.  
Shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water.] This Goat being a public 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Purgation (upon whom all their sins were thrown) was extremely impure: and therefore could not be touched, without rendering the Person, who led him away, unclean in the highest degree. Which was the reason that he was bound to wash both his Clothes, and also his whole Body in water, before he could so much as come into the Camp. Porphyry observes the same custom among the Heathen, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as his words are) in such kind of Sacrifices as those for the averting Evils, permitted no Man who had meddled with them, to come into the City, or to go to his own House, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who had not first washed his Clothes and his Body in some River, or in Spring-water, L. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sect. 44. For nothing is more known than that such a kind of Purification for washing themselves, was a Custom all the World over; and continues to this day in the Eastern or other hot Countries; not only among the Mahometans, but the Pagans; who plunge themselves frequently three times one after another into their Rivers, rising up with their faces to the East, as all Travellers into those parts tell us.  
And afterward come into the Camp.] Have free Conversation with his Brethren; and I suppose, without any further Ceremony, be admitted to the Sanctuary.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And the Bullock for the sin-offering, and the Goat for the sin-offering.] Mentioned v. 11, 15.  
Whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place.] Of which we read in the same place, v. 14, 15.  
Shall one carry forth.] But first they were ripped up, and the Imurim, as they call them, (mentioned IV. 8, 9) taken out, to be burnt upon the Altar. And then the Priest dissected them, (as the Misna saith in Joma, cap. 6. sect. 7.) not into pieces, as was wont to be done in Burnt-offerings; but made only deep Incisions, letting the parts hang still together. Which being done, four Men, saith R. Solomon, carried them forth upon two Staves or Bars; one being not able to do it: and accordingly the LXX. translate these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they shall carry forth. But one Person, it's likely, had the principal care, to see them burnt; which is the reason he only is mentioned.  
Without the Camp.] Into a clean place, where the Ashes were wont to be poured out, IV. 12. There were three Camps (as I noted before, XIII. 46.) the Camp of the People, unto which Jerusalem answered in after times; the Camp of the Levites, unto which answered the Mountain of the House (as they called it) the whole Circuit about the Temple; and the Camp of God, or the Sanctuary with all its Courts, unto which answered the Temple and its Courts. So Maimonides in his Treatise called Beth Habbechira, cap. 7. Now as these Sacrifices were carried to be burnt without the Camp of the People, when they were in the Wilderness; so they were burnt without the City of Jerusalem, after the Temple was built there.  
Which illustrates the words of the Apostle, XIII Hebr. 10, 11, etc. where he takes it for granted, as a thing they all knew, that Jerusalem answered to the Camp of Israel: And from thence shows, that the Mystery prefigured by this Goat, whose Blood was brought into the holy place to make atonement (as he speaks in this Verse) was accomplished in our blessed LORD and Saviour, who, that he might sanctify the People with his own blood, suffered without the Gate, as the Apostle there observes: that is, without the City, yet near the Suburbs of Jerusalem; whose Type or Figure was the Camp of the Israelites in the Wilderness.  
And the intent of the Apostle in this, and other such like Observations, was to show, that our Saviour's Sufferings on the Cross, were a most true and proper Sacrifice; a Sacrifice fully satisfactory for the Sins of the World: or rather, more satisfactory for all the Sins of Men against the Moral Law of God, than the Sacrifices on the Day of Atonement, the Passover, or other Anniversary Solemnities, were for sins merely against the Law of Ceremonies: As the Apostle shows in the foregoing part of that Epistle, IX Hebr. 13, 14.  
And they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.] Here it is plain, there was more than one, who carried the Bodies of these Beasts without the Camp; they being too heavy for any single Person to bear. And they burned them entirely, (See IU. 11, 12.) except what was offered upon the Altar. Yet Josephus is pleased to except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which he seems to mean their Rumps, Lib. III. cap. 30. In which he forgot himself; for though these were comprehended under the Imurim of some Sacrifices, (See VII. 3.) yet neither here, nor in the fourth Chapter, v. 8, 9 is there any mention of this Fat; nor is it comprehended under the Fat mentioned above v. 25. which the Misna in Joma says, was the Fat of the inwards only.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 And he that burneth them.] The Vulgar Latin, I think, rightly translates it, Quicunque combusserit, whosoever burneth them: for there was more than one, as I said before, employed in this business.  
Shall wash his clothes, etc.] Being defiled by touching the Sacrifices, which were charged with so many sins; as he that carried away the Scape-goat was, v. 26. where there is the very same order in the same words.  
Now when all this was done, the Misna saith (cap. 7. Joma, sect. 4.) the Highpriest washed himself again, and put on his white Robes, which were proper to this day; and went into the most holy place, to fetch out the Censer, with the Dish, or Cup, which he carrried in when he went to burn Incense, v. 12, 13. And when he came out from thence, he washed, and put on his golden Garments, and offered Incense upon the golden Altar, and trimmed the Lamps. Which being done, they brought him his own Garments which he wore constantly; and when he had put them on, they accompanied him to his House, where he entertained his Friends with a Feast, being come out of the Sanctuary in peace; that is, safe and in health. For by shifting his Garments, and washing so often, he was in danger to catch Cold, (as we speak) and they did sometimes fall into various Diseases upon this occasion, as P. Cunaeus observes out of Maimonides, L. II. de Repub. Hebr. cap. 14. and some died in the holy place, not having performed the Service duly. Which made it very reasonable, that he and his Friends should rejoice, when he returned in health and safety.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you.] Till the coming of Christ, in whom all that these Sacrifices signified, was accomplished: who put an end therefore to this Legal Dispensation. See XII Exod. 14.  
That in the seventh month.] When they had gathered in all the Fruits of the Earth, and thereby had the more liberty to attend such a solemn Service. Which was the reason perhaps, why there were more Solemnities appointed in this Month, than in any other Month in the Year; as appears from XXIII. of this Book. It had been anciently also the first Month of the year, being the Month, it's likely, wherein the World was created: But upon the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, the Month Abib, by God's special command, was ordered to be the first. Yet not absolutely, but only in respect of that which was most eminent, viz. for the Ecclesiastical Account: For as to their Civil or Temporal Affairs, the seventh Month (Tisri) still retained the precedence.  
On the tenth day of the month.] The Arabians imitated this; calling the Fast of the Tenth day of the Month Moharram, by the name of Ashura; which is exactly the Ashor (tenth day) here mentioned by Moses; from whom these People derived it, before the appearance of Mahomet: Who finding the Jews, when he came to Medina, fasting upon this day Ashura, asked them the reason of it; who told him (as the Mahometan Writers report) it was in remembrance of Pharaoh's being then drowned in the Red Sea: whereupon he said, I have more to do with Moses than you, and thereupon commanded his Followers to fast on this day. See Dr. Pocock upon Abal-Farajius concerning the Manners of the Arabians, p. 309, 310. But this is plainly an idle Tale invented by him, or his Followers; for the Jews would rather have feasted, than fasted upon the day of such a Deliverance. But it shows that this Day was remarkable among the Jews, and solemnly observed by them, wheresoever they were; and was chosen by God, rather than any other Day of the Month, (if we may believe Maimonides, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 43.) because it was the day on which Moses came down from the Mount, with the second Tables in his hand, and proclaimed to the People the Remission of their great Sin, in worshipping the golden Calf; in memory of which it was ordered to be entirely a Day of Repentance, and of Divine Worship.  
Ye shall afflict your souls.] By Fasting and Abstinence, not only from all Meat and Drink, but from all other Pleasure whatsoever. Insomuch that they might not wash their Faces, much less anoint their Heads, nor wear their Shoes, nor use the Marriage Bed; nor read (if their Doctors say true) any portion of the Law, which would give them delight: For example, the story of their coming out of Egypt, and leading them through the Red Sea, etc. so far is the Mahometan story from having any colour of truth. It is likely also, that to increase their Grief, they rend their Clothes, (as they did in other Fasts in after times) put on Sackcloth, girded it close to their Flesh, sprinkled Ashes on their heads, etc. Which were all intended, no doubt, to work in them an inward sorrow for all their sins, with an hearty abhorrence of them, and resolution to mortify and abstain from them. For though the word Soul be generally expounded the sensitive part of us, which is afflicted by fasting, (as the Prophet Isaiah expounds this Phrase, LVIII. 3, 5.) yet it is absurd to think that God was pleased with this alone, without that inward Compunction of Mind, which made them break off their sins by righteousness: which the Prophet there declares was the only acceptable Fast to the LORD.  
The Hebrew Doctors here observe, that they did not afflict little Children on this day, by making them fast from all Food, till they were of the Age of Eleven years: But only taught them what they were to do when they came of Age, that they might be accustomed to the Precept. See Joma cap. 8. sect. 4.  
And do no work at all.] Not only abstain from all Pleasure, but from all Labour whatsoever: nothing being to be done upon this day, but Confessing of Sins, and Repentance; as Maimonides expresses it in the place .  
Whether it be one of your own Country, or a Stranger that sojourneth among you.] The Hebrew word Ezrach is extant only here and XXIII. 42. which signifies as much as one that had his original among them, being born an Israelite, as it is there expressed. The opposite to which is gher (a Stranger we translate it) one that was of another Nation, but had embraced the Jewish Religion, and lived among them; who in the New Testament is called a Proselyte.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 For on that day shall the Priest make an atonement for you.] If upon this day, they afflicted and humbled their Souls (as Conr. Pellicanus glosses) with fasting, and prayer, and anguish for their sins, with alms also; beseeching God's mercy with tears and sighs in sackcloth and ashes; resting from all servile works, and devoted wholly to the LORD.  
To cleanse you.] From all the Transgressions and Sins mentioned v. 16. from which both the Highpriest, and his Family, and all the People were to be purged on this day. For which reason the greatest care was to be used, to see it rightly observed, because all their happiness depended upon it. For the Land of Canaan was promised them, upon condition that they kept the Law, offering all the Sacrifices therein prescribed; especially this great Sacrifice, which was to cleanse them from the guilt of all their Neglects, or Breaches of this Law. Which should teach us Christians to conclude, That as the Inheritance of that good Land, was assigned the Jews in consideration of their Sacrifices, as the condition of that Covenant, by which they were prescribed; so the Inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, is made over to us by the Covenant of Grace, in consideration of the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ Jesus, of which they were a Figure. For it is his Blood that cleanseth us from all unrighteousness, (as St. John speaks) and secures our Claim to the heavenly Inheritance.  
That ye may be clean from all your sins.] If a Man was bound to offer Sacrifice for any sin that was certain, he was not excused from it by this Sacrifice on the Day of Expiation; but was bound to make that other Sacrifice also. But the Day of Expiation freed those, who were bound to offer Sacrifices for dubious Offences. So Maimonides saith (in his Treatise of Offences committed through Error, cap. 3. sect. 9) that those sins which were known to none but God, were taken away by this solemn Day of Expiation, without any other Sacrifice. But the Misna in the last Section of Joma, acknowledges very honestly, that the Day of Expiation did not purge Men from the guilt of the Offences they had committed against their Neighbour, unless they first gave him Satisfaction.  
Before the LORD.] Who dwelled among them, and would continue to do so, if they observed his Laws, and took care to be thus cleansed from all their sins. But least any Man should mistake this matter, it may be here fit to observe, that there were no Sacrifices at all appointed by the Law of Moses for Capital Offences; and therefore when he speaks here of making them clean from all their sins upon this day, such as these (for instance, Murder, Adultery, Idolatry, etc.) are not included: for this great Sacrifice could not obtain a Pardon for them, but only for Offences committed against the Ritual Laws contained in this Book, and that also when they were committed through Error or Ignorance: for if they were done presumptuously, cutting off was threatened to them. See XV Numb. from v. 22. to v. 32. And this appears plainly from the Sacrifices themselves that are here appointed; which had no virtue in them from their own worth and value, but only from God's Institution, to make Expiation for any Sin. For the death of a Bullock or a Goat, was not of such account with God, that it could prevail for the taking away of guilt, unless he had given it such a power. And that power which he was pleased to allow unto them, was neither infinite, nor could it be so. For the guilt that they were principally designed to abolish, was not of such a nature as to require such an Expiation: It arising from things which were neither good nor evil in themselves; and therefore could not create such a guilt. Such were all the uncleannesses from certain natural Fluxes, from touching a dead Body, and innumerable other such like Impurities: which depending wholly upon the will of God, who by a positive Law made such things to bring Men under a guilt; by the same Will he appointed a proportionable Expiation of it by these Sacrifices, whose power to cleanse depended also purely upon his pleasure. And if they had any virtue to purge Men from the real guilt of sins committed against the Eternal Laws of God; this they had not of themselves, but from the most gracious Will of God, who was pleased to apply to this purpose, the future Satisfaction of the immaculate Lamb of God, of which these Sacrifices were a Shadow and Type. For a Body being prepared for the Son of God, and he offering himself for us, that was a Sacrifice of such infinite value in its own nature, that it expiated all manner of sins of all Men. To this effect, that excellent Person Joh. Wagenseil discourses, in his Confutation of R. Lipman's Carmen Memoriale, p. 488.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you.] In the Hebrew the words are a Sabbath of Sabbaths, i. e. a great or perfect Sabbath, like that of the Seventh day in every Week; on which they might do no manner of Work. And so the Seventh day is called just as this is, a Sabbath of Rest, or Sabbath of Sabbaths. See XXXI Exod. 15. XXXV. 2. which gave occasion to those jeers we meet withal in Martial and others, at the Jews fasting on their Sabbath days: For reading Moses his Books carelessly, they fancied the Jews observed as strict a Fast upon every Sabbath day, as they did on this, which was but once a year.  
And ye shall afflict your Souls by a statute for ever.] See v. 29.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And the Priest whom he shall anoint, etc.] The Highpriest, who should be anointed and consecrated in his Father's stead, (when he was dead) is here ordered to make this Atonement yearly. That is, what was now done by Aaron, was to be done by every Highpriest successively, when he was legally put into his Office; by vesting him with the Priestly Garments, anointing him, and offering the Sacrifices of Consecration, VIII. 7, 10, 22.  
This Statute confined the sacred work of this day to the Highpriest, who alone could perform it: But it shows withal, as the Apostle observes, the great imperfection of this Legal Priesthood, which could not, by reason of death, continue always in one Person: but there were many Priests, succeeding one another in the Office, which became often vacant. Whereas our great Highpriest, because he continueth for ever, i. e. never dies, hath an unchangeable Priesthood: and therefore is able to save to the uttermost, or evermore, those that come to God by him, VII Hebr. 23, 24, 25.  
And shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments.] He was to take a special care not to officiate on this day, in any other Garments, but those mentioned v. 4. which were peculiarly appropriated to this Service, and called the white Garments; which were a Figure perhaps of the perfect Purity of our great Highpriest, who, as it there immediately follows, (VII Hebr. 26.) is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy Sanctuary, etc.] In this Verse he only sums up the whole duty of the day; in which a general Atonement was made, for all Things, and for all Persons. The only thing to be observed is, That the Expiation of the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle and the Altar, preceded the Expiation of the Priests and of the People, who were to be expiated by the Sacrifices offered there. But the Expiation of the Highpriest himself, who was to make the Expiation of the Sanctuary, preceded all the rest; as is apparent from v. 11.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute.] The repetition of this the third time (See v. 29, 31.) shows of how great importance it was, that this annual Solemnity should be observed.  
Unto you.] The High-Priests () of whom he speaks in the Plural Number, because none of them could continue always, (as I observed v. 32.) but enjoyed the Office successively, upon the death of their Predecessors.  
To make an atonement for the Children of Israel, for all their sins once a year.] This is only a repetition of what was said v. 30. that it should be incumbent on the Highpriest by a perpetual Obligation, to make an Atonement for the People's sins on this day; as it was incumbent on the People (v. 29.) to afflict their Souls upon this day.  
And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.] The Service of this day was immediately performed by Aaron, according to the forenamed order.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] After he had ordered the great Anniversary Sacrifice, in the foregoing Chapter; he gives some Directions about other Sacrifices, for which there would be occasion every day.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto Aaron and his Sons, and all the Children of Israel.] Who were all concerned in what follows; and therefore this Command is directed to the whole house of Israel, (v. 3.) to whom this was delivered, it is likely, by their Elders: or else Moses himself went from Tribe to Tribe, and spoke to their several Families.  
And say unto them, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded.] Enjoined by a Special Law.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever man there be of the House of Israel, that killeth an Ox, or Lamb, or Goat.] viz. For a Sacrifice or Offering, (as it follows v. 4.) these being the only Creatures of the Herd and the Flock, that were permitted to be brought to God's Altar. There are those indeed, who think, Moses speaks of killing these Creatures for common use; which it was lawful for them to do any where, after they came to the Land of Canaan, (XII Deut. 15.) but now they were not to kill them, for their food, unless they brought them to the door of the Tabernacle, and there first sacrificed some part of them to the LORD, before they tasted of them themselves. By which their sacrificing to Daemons was prevented, (to which they were prone, v. 7.) and they also constantly feasted with God, while they dwelled in the Wilderness. But this is better founded upon XII Deut. 20, 21. where it is supposed that they had thus done, while they remained in the Wilderness; and were so near to the House of God, that they might easily bring thither every Beast they killed for ordinary use. But they were dispensed withal as to this, when they came into Canaan, and could not possibly, when they had a mind to eat Flesh, go so far as to the Tabernacle or Temple, which was many Miles from some of them. Instead whereof, they were bound to come at the three great Festivals, and appear before God at his House, wheresoever they dwelled.  
In the Camp, or that killeth it out of the Camp.] This seems to show that he doth not speak of killing these Beasts, ad usum vescendi, as St. Austin's words are, for the use of eating, (for that they did not do out of the Camp, but in their Tents) but de Sacrificiis, he speaks concerning Sacrifices. For he prohibits (as he goes on) private Sacrifices, lest every Man should take upon him to be a Priest, etc.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD.] In ancient time every Man had performed the Office of a Priest in his own Family: But now that liberty is taken away, because they had abused it to Idolatry: and every Man was bound to bring his Sacrifice to the House of God, where none but the Sons of Aaron could officiate, and had the most sacred Obligations on them to offer only to the LORD. The very Heathens themselves in future times, found it necessary to enact the very same; as appears by Plato in the latter end of his Tenth Book of Laws, where he hath these memorable words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let this be a Law imposed absolutely upon all, that no Man whatsoever have a sacred place in private Houses; but when he hath a mind to offer Sacrifice, let him go to the public Temples, and deliver his Sacrifice to the Priests, whether Men or Women, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose business it is to take care, that these things be performed in an holy manner. By which it appears that these were two established Principles of Religion in wise men's minds, to Sacrifice publicly, and to bring their Sacrifices to the Priests; who were to take care to offer them purely. Unto which Moses adds one thing more, that their public Sacrifices should be offered only at one place: which was a most efficacious preservative from all strange Worship; nothing being done but under the Eye of the Ministers of Religion, and the Governors of the People. Insomuch that St. Chrysostom (as our learned Dr. Spencer observes, Lib. I. de Rit. & Leg. Hebr. L. I. cap. 4. sect. 1.) calls Jerusalem, which was afterwards established to be this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a kind of bond or knot, whereby the whole Nation were tied fast to the Judaical Religion.  
Before the Tabernacle of the LORD.] Before the Divine Majesty, which dwelled in the Tabernacle; round about which they all inhabited, and were so near it while they traveled in the Wilderness, that, as there was no trouble in bringing all their Sacrifices thither, so they knew certainly whether to go. And thus the Hebrew Doctors observe it was when they came into Canaan; where, while the Tabernacle was fixed in Shilo, none might Sacrifice any where else: But when it wandered uncertainly (after Shilo was destroyed) being sometimes in Mispeh, sometimes at Gilgal, and at Nob, and Gibeon, and the House of Obed-Edom, they fancy it was lawful to Sacrifice in other places. For so we find Samuel did, 1. Sam. VII. 9 IX. 13. (where he sacrificed in an high place) XI. 15. XVI. 2. and David, 2 Sam. XXIV. 18. and Elias, 1 Kings XVIII. 23. But these may be thought extraordinary acts, done by an immediate warrant from God; for none of these Persons were Priests, but Prophets guided by Divine Inspirations. See Dr. Owtram Lib. I. de Sacrific. cap. 2.  
Blood shall be imputed unto that man, he hath shed blood.] He was to be punished as a Murderer; that is, die for it. For to have Blood imputed to a Man, in the Hebrew phrase, or to be guilty of Blood, is to be liable to have his Blood shed, or to lose his Life. Which, as of old, it was the punishment of every one, who killed another Man, (IX Gen. 6.) so here he is condemned to die who sacrificed any where, but at the Tabernacle.  
And that man shall be cut off from among his people.] This, not another punishment, (unless we suppose it relates to his Posterity) and therefore the first word should be translated, not and, but for. And the meaning either is, that the Magistrate should pass the Sentence of Death upon him, or God would destroy him himself. The latter sense is most probable, because he threatens (v. 10.) to execute Vengeance with his own hand, upon him that was guilty of eating Blood. It is thought indeed by some, that cutting off doth not signify death; but, as in other places of this Book, cutting off is so evidently joined with death, that so little cannot be meant by it, as depriving such Persons of the privileges of God's People, (for instance, when any offered his Children to Moloch, XX. 2, 3, 4, 5. or did not afflict his Soul on the Day of Atonement, XXIII. 29, 30.) so here in this place, it most certainly signifies the putting him that was guilty of this Crime, to death; because he was to be punished as a Murderer. Which severe Penalty was enacted in this case, to preserve the Israelites from Idolatry. For if they had been permitted to offer Sacrifice where they pleased, they might easily have forsaken God, by altering the Rites which he had ordained; nay, by offering to strange Gods: particularly to the Daemons, which, in those days, frequented the Fields, and endeavoured to persuade the ignorant, that they were Gods; as seems to be intimated in the next Verse, and v. 7.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 To the end.] Or, For this cause; i. e. to avoid that heavy punishment .  
That the Children of Israel may bring their Sacrifices.] Or, Shall bring: as the Vulgar Latin translates it, (regarding the sense, more than the words) Ideo Sacerdoti offerre debent, etc. Therefore they ought to bring to the Priest their Sacrifices, etc.  
Which they offer in the open field.] Where the Pagans erected their Altars, to procure fruitfulness to their Fields. Insomuch that Libanius saith (in his Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that the Temples, or Holy Places, were the very Soul or Life of the Fields: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that in them lay the hope of the Husbandmen: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How old this Idolatry was, we cannot certainly tell; but it continued a long time among the Israelites, as we learn from the Prophet Jeremiah, XIII. 27. and Hosea XV. 11. where he saith, Their Altars were as heaps in the furrows of the field: that is, there were abundance of them; notwithstanding this early prohibition given by Moses. And among the Gentiles, Festus tells us they offered Sacrifices to the terrestrial Gods, in terra, upon the very ground (according to the Hebrew phrase here, on the face of the field) but to the infernal Gods, in terra effossa, in holes or pits digged in the Earth; and to the celestial, in aedificiis à terra exaltatis, in Buildings exalted above the Earth; i. e. upon Altars: which had their name from hence, ab altitudine, from their height, as both he and Servius also tell us. And every one knows that they delighted to set them in high places, on the tops of Mountains and Hills; especially where there were Groves and shady Trees; under which they set them, even in Valleys, and in the Highways, Fields and Meadows. For they were so fond of them, that those who were against erecting of Temples to their Gods (as Zeno was) yet never sacrificed without Altars; which they set in the open Air, to signify they believed he whom they worshipped could not be circumscribed.  
Even that they may bring them unto the LORD.] Or, They shall bring them even unto the LORD: who had settled his Habitation at the Tabernacle, and would be worshipped no where else with Sacrifices.  
Unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation unto the Priest.] Here seems to be another reason, why they were not permitted to offer in the Field; because God would have none but the Priests (Men appointed by himself, to attend for this purpose at his House) to offer Sacrifices to him, according to the Rites he had prescribed.  
And offer them for peace-offerings unto the LORD.] Upon these words Nachmanides grounds the forenamed opinion, That whilst the Jews continued in the Wilderness, they eaten no Meat at their own private Tables, but what had been first offered to God at the Tabernacle. Behold, saith he, God commanded that all which the Israelites did eat, should be Peace-offerings. Which was afterwards altered, when they came to Canaan, and lived remote from the House of God. And such a Custom prevailed among the Gentiles, who would not sit down to eat at their Tables, till they had offered Bread and Wine unto their Gods. Thus it was among the Chaldees, as appears from I Daniel 8. But then they had many Altars every where, even in their own private Houses. Whereas here in the Wilderness, there was but one Altar; which could not contain all the Fat that was to be burnt on it every day, if we suppose the Israelites to have commonly killed Beasts for their own eating. It seems to be the truer opinion that they seldom or never did that, while they were in the Wilderness; but all the Beasts they killed were for Sacrifice, of which Moses here speaks. So R. Levi Barcelonita (Precept. CLXXXVII.) and other Jewish Doctors, they are here forbidden to offer a Sacrifice to God any where, without the Tabernacle. He mentions indeed only Peace-offerings; but the reason is, because they were most common; being offered not only for all the Mercies they had received, but for all they desired to obtain from God; as Abarbanel observes upon the VIIth Chapter of this Book, where the several sorts of them are mentioned. Men were more forward also to bring these Offerings than any other, because they were to have their share of them, and feast upon them.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the Altar of the LORD, at the door of the Tabernacle.] This depends upon the foregoing command of offering all their Sacrifices at the Tabernacle; that so the Blood might be sprinkled upon the Altar, (and poured out at the bottom of it, as is required in other places of this Book) and not kept together in a Vessel, or a hole in the Ground: As the manner of the ancient Idolatry was, when they offered their Sacrifices in the Field, and sat about this Blood, and feasted upon the Flesh of their Sacrifice. So Maimonides saith the Custom of the Zabijs was, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.  
And burn the fat.] So the manner was in all Sacrifices: which is said also, to be for a sweet savour unto the LORD. See I 8, 9 III. 3, 5. iv 35, etc.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And they shall no more.] It seems by this they had been guilty of other Idolatrous Practices, besides that of worshipping the Golden Calf, XXXII Exod. And so much is expressed XXXII Deut. 17. And it was a sin of which their Fathers had been long guilty, especially in Egypt, XXIV Josh. 14. XX Ezek. 7. XXIII. 2, 3. which they had not left, but continued in the Wilderness, V Amos 25.  
Offer their Sacrifices unto Devils.] These words show the reason why God commands them, under such a heavy Penalty, to offer only in one place, at the Tabernacle; because, while they sacrificed in the open Fields, they had been in danger to be seduced by Daemons, who were wont to frequent those places, (especially in Deserts) and present themselves to ignorant People, as if they were Gods, and entice their Devotion towards them. Which Daemons, or Evil Spirits, appeared, it is likely, in the form of Goats; and therefore are here called Seirim, which properly signifies Goats. And hath made some imagine that they really sacrificed to these Creatures, as some of the Egyptians did, who held Goats to be sacred Animals. So Diodorus tells us, Lib. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. they deified a Goat; upon the same account that the Greeks worshipped Priapus. Herodotus in his Euterpe, cap. 46. saith the same of the Mendesijs, who, he saith, worshipped the Males more than the Females. And many other Authors mentioned by Bochartus (in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 53.) report the same. But I question whether the Egyptians were guilty of such Idolatry, in the days of Moses. Nor is there more truth in their opinion, who think the Israelites now worshipped Images in this form of Goats. Which the LXX. seem to have thought, when they translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to vain things, as Idols are called in Scripture. And yet this very word Seirim is by the Greek Translators rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, XIII Isaiah 21. which we here follow; only instead of Daemons translating it Devils: whom the ancient Zabijs worshipped; they appearing to them in the form of Goats; and this Custom was universally spread (as Maimonides thinks) in Moses his time, which was the cause of this Precept, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.  
And indeed nothing is more common in the Writings of the ancient Heathen, than the mention of Fauns, and Satyrs, and Aegipanes, whose shape below was that of a Goat. And to this day, in the solemn Conventions of Witches, the chief Devil that presides in their Assemblies, is said by all, that have examined such matters, to have the form of a Goat. And our famous Countryman Alexander Hales, in his Discourse upon the Scape-Goat (which is in his Summa, P. III. Q. 55.) derives the reason of it from the frequent appearance of Daemons in this shape in the Wilderness; as Mr. Selden observes in his Prolegomena to his Book de Diis Syris. They that would see more of these Seirim, may consult J. G. Vossius, L. I. de Orig. & progr. Idolol. cap. 8. and Bochartus his Hierozoicon. P. II. L. VI cap. 7.  
There is one indeed (Anton. Van Dale) who hath lately endeavoured to explode all these Fancies, as he esteems them, of Daemons: which he would have to be the mere invention of the ancient Chaldaeans; and from them derived to other Nations. But he will never be able to make any wise Man believe, that the World was so sottish, as to worship the Images of Goats (which he takes to be meant by Seirim) if there had not been an appearance of some thing in that shape, which they accounted Divine.  
After whom they have gone a whoring.] i. e. With whom they have committed Idolatry. For this sin was justly called by the name of whoredom, ever after they were solemnly contracted and espoused to God, to be his peculiar People (XIX Exod. 5.) Which is the reason that he is said, so often, to be a jealous God (particularly XX Exod. 5.) highly incensed, that is, at their worshipping other Gods, besides him. For this, and such like words are never used but concerning Idolatry; which Ezekiel describes as the foulest Whoredom, XVI. 22. and particularly mentions this Whoredom with the Egyptians, v. 26. and the Assyrians, v. 28, etc.  
This shall be a statute for ever unto them, throughout all generations.] These words seem to me to determine the sense of the foregoing Precept, to which they relate, (from v. 2, etc.) not to be, that all the Meat they killed for their own Tables should be Peace-offerings: for that, all confess, was not a statute for ever (if it were one at all) throughout all generations; but only while they were in the Wilderness.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt say unto them, whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you.] These words also show he speaks in the foregoing, of bringing all Sacrifices whatsoever to the Tabernacle; the same Law which was given before to the Israelites, being now extended to all Strangers that sojourned among them. By whom he means all such as were Proselytes to the Jewish Religion. So the LXX. here translate it; and they add the very same words to v. 3. where the house of Israel is only mentioned in the original Hebrew. The only question is, What sort of Proselytes are here intended? And I take it, he speaks of the Proselytes of Righteousness (as the Jews call them) who were Circumcised, and thereby embraced the whole Religion of Moses. And this, I find, is the general opinion: though some few learned Men contend, that any Stranger who had renounced Idolatry (whom they called, A Proselyte of the Gate) might bring their Sacrifices to the Altar. Which one can hardly allow (though asserted by so great a Man as Grotius, Lib. I. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 16.) because he speaks of the same Strangers here, which are mentioned v. 10. where all such Strangers are forbidden to eat Blood. Which plainly belongs to such Strangers as were become Jews by Circumcision: for other Strangers might eat it, as appears from XIV Deut. 21. where the Israelites are allowed to sell what died of itself, to a Stranger, that he might eat it, if he pleased: and such Creatures had their Blood in them.  
That offereth a Burnt-offering, or Sacrifice.] i. e. Any other Sacrifice besides Burnt-offerings, viz. Sin-offerings, or Trespass-offerings, or Peace-offerings. None of which were accepted, but from such as were admitted into the Jewish Religion: though the pious Gentiles, the Jews say, might bring Burnt-offerings.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, to offer it unto the LORD.] As he ordered their Peace-offerings to be, v. 4, 5.  
Shall be cut off from among his people.] This demonstrates that the foregoing Precept, and this, belong to the same matter; being enforced with the same Penalty, v. 4. And it also shows that the Stranger's , signify such Gentiles as were Circumcised: for otherwise they were not of the Body of the People of Israel, from which they are threatened to be cut off, if they did not observe this Law.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And what man soever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you.] See v. 8.  
That eateth any manner of blood.] This is forbidden before, III. 17. and repeated again VII. 26. (See both those places) where it is explained what Blood he means; either of Birds, or Beasts. Nothing is said of Fishes, because they were not offered at the Altar, and have little Blood in them: nor is there any direction given any where, how they should be killed. It is said indeed in this place, that they should not eat any manner of Blood; but the meaning seems to be, neither of Blood offered at the Altar; nor of Beasts killed for their own use: Or else it is to be limited as before, to the Blood of Beasts and Birds, (v. 13.) for Fishes were not at all considered. And here the reason is added why they should not eat Blood, (which was not mentioned in the forenamed places) because it was the Life of the Beast, and was therefore reserved to make Atonement for their Souls.  
I will even set my face against that soul, etc.] That is, be extremely angry with him, and severely punish him, by cutting him off (as it here follows) from the Body of the Nation. Maimonides observes in the forenamed place (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.) that this is the same Expression which is used against him that offered his Children to Moloch, XX. 3. and that this phrase is never used in Scripture concerning any other sin, but only these two, Idolatry and eating Blood. For the eating of Blood gave occasion (he shows) to one kind of Idolatry, in the worshipping of Daemons: whose Food the ancient Idolaters imagined the Blood was; by eating of which their Worshippers had Communion with them. See XVI Psal. 4. and Grotius there.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your souls, etc.] Some think here are two distinct Reasons against eating of Blood: but the words, as they lie in the Hebrew, may well be translated, Because the life of the flesh (of any Beast, that is) is in the blood, therefore I have given it to you (or, appointed it for you) upon the Altar, to make an atonement, etc. Which is as much as to say, The Life of the Beast lying in the Blood, I have ordained it to expiate your sins, that by its death in your stead, your life may be preserved: and therefore I require you not to eat that, which is appointed for so holy an end. For it would have been very unseemly, if they had vulgarly used that, to which they owed the favour of God, and their very Lives.  
Nothing could be more rational than this Precept, viz. That a thing so sacred, as to be peculiarly appointed for them upon the Altar, should not lose that honour and esteem that was due to it. As the Blood would have done, if it had been allowed to be commonly eaten; for that is very contemptible which goes into the Draught, (as our Saviour speaks) and at last becomes Ordure.  
For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.] The Blood, that is, of the Sacrifices, which by God's appointment are offered to expiate your sins; that is, to preserve you from perishing. For to make an Atonement, and to be a Ransom, are the very same thing; as appears from XXX Exod. 12. compared with v. 15, 16. And to be a Ransom, is to deliver from Death, as appears from the words in that place, they shall every Man give a Ransom for his Soul, unto the LORD, that there be no Plague among them. For the sins of the Sacrificer being laid upon the Beast which he offered, by imposition of his hand on its Head, and confessing them there, they were taken away by the Blood of that Beast, unto which they were translated. And that not merely by the Obedience of him that offered the Sacrifice, (which the followers of Socinus say, God accepted) but by the Blood of the Sacrifice itself, as these words expressly declare, which was offered in his stead. Thus Theodoret upon these words; God commanded the Soul of the Irrational Creature, with its Blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to be offered, instead of thy Rational and Immortal Soul. And thus the Jews themselves understand it; particularly Aben-Ezra upon these words, saith, the Soul, instead of the Soul; i.e. the Soul of the Beast was offered instead of the Soul of the Man. And R. Solomon Jarchi to the same purpose; One Soul comes, and makes Expiation for another Soul. And Maimonides more largely; I have spared the Soul of the Man, and given this Blood upon the Altar; that the Soul of the Beast may make Expiation for the Soul of the Man. And so Abarbanel and many more, which may be seen in Dr. Owtrams most learned Book De Sacrificiis, Lib. I. cap. 22. n. 11.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 Therefore I said unto the Children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.] What other reason soever there was before, for not eating Blood (See IX Gen. 4.) this is the reason why God forbade it to the children of Israel; and to all that joined themselves unto their Religion.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And whatsoever man there be of the Children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any Beast or Fowl that may be eaten.] Though no other Beasts or Fowls be mentioned, but those that were taken in Hunting, (that being a very common thing in those days) yet the Precept extends to all those that were bred at home, and were allowed by the Law for their Food. So a MS. Author, mentioned by J. Wagenseil, in his Annotations upon Sota, cap. 2. excerpt. Gemarae, n. 6. where he puts abundance of Cases upon this Subject.  
He shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.] Though it was not the Blood of a Sacrifice offered at the Altar, but of a Beast or Bird killed for their own use; they might not eat it, but bury it in the Ground; lest any Beast should lick it up, as it is commonly interpreted. Maimonides hath found a deeper reason for this, which is, That no Body might meet, and feast about it. By which means Moses broke their Society and Fellowship with Daemons: who in those times were thought to feed upon the Blood, in a Bowl, or Hole; whilst their Worshippers sat about it eating of the Flesh. So he writes in the place often , More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46. And this was the more necessary while they remained in the Wilderness, because Daemons were wont to haunt such places, and there appear; but not in Cities or habitable Places. See Mr. Selden, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 4. p. 201. If a Man therefore saw his Neighbour kill a Beast, and neglect to cover its Blood with Dust, he was bound to go and do it himself; because God speaks here unto the Children of Israel, i. e. to all of them, (v. 12.) as R. Levi Barcelonita glosses, Precept. CLXXXV. And the forenamed MS. mentioned by Wagenseil, saith, they covered the Blood with this form of Benediction, Blessed be the LORD our God, the King of the World, who hath sanctified us with his Precepts, and commanded us to cover Blood. Which shows they thought this a Precept of great weight.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 For it is the life of all flesh, etc.] Whether of Beasts or Fowl : and therefore prohibited to be eaten by them, (as was before observed) because it was offered to God, and accepted by him for their Life, when they had forfeited it by their sins.  
Therefore I said unto the Children of Israel, ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh.] See v. 12. Where the same thing is said, but not so fully as here: for he only saith in that Verse, No soul of you shall eat blood: but in this, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh.  
For the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.] This is so often repeated (no less than three times in this Verse) the more to deter them from eating Blood: which was the Life of the Beast, and therefore offered to God, as the LORD and Giver of Life; and consequently belonged to no Body else.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself.] And consequently had the Blood remaining in it; as all things also, which were not rightly killed had, (the Hebrews think) and therefore here forbidden.  
Or that which was torn with Beasts.] Which was nothing else (as Maimonides speaks) but the beginning to be a dead Carcase, More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 48.  
Whether it be one of your own Country, or a stranger.] By a Stranger is meant one that had embraced the Jewish Religion: for other Gentiles might eat such things. Nay, the Israelites themselves (as Maimonides observes) when they went to War, and entered the Countries of the Gentiles, and subdued them, might eat that which died of itself, or was torn of Beasts; nay Swines-flesh, and such like Food, when they were hungry, and could find no other Meat. See Schickardi Mishpat Hamelek, cap. 5. Theor. 18.  
He shall both wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, etc.] When he had eaten these things unwittingly, and came to know it, he was thus to purify himself. If he did it knowingly, it was an high Crime, against an express Law, repeated more fully XIV Deut. 21. and punished, as some think, with Death. But I suppose they mean, he was obnoxious to the Divine Displeasure, and in danger to be cut off by him, if he did not offer a Sacrifice to expiate his Offence: which seems to be allowed in such Cases, as it was for greater Offences, VI 1, 2, etc. And the Jewish Doctors say, he who violated this Law, was only to be beaten: for cutting off, either by the hand of God, or the Court of Judgement, was not threatened to sins of so light a Nature as this. So Maimonides observes in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 41.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity.] Be liable to be punished by God, for the neglect of the means of his Purification. And if while he continued thus unclean, he adventured to eat of the Peace-offerings, he was in danger to be cut off from his People, VII. 20.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] It is not said, when the LORD delivered these Laws to Moses; but it is likely after the other, and before those that follow.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them.] They were all concerned in these Laws about Marriage; and therefore they are directed to the whole Body of the People: who received them, I suppose, by their Elders and Heads of the Tribes, to whom Moses delivered them, and charged they should be communicated to every Family and Household. See XVII. 2.  
I am the LORD your God.] I have a right to give you Laws (being your Sovereign, upon more Titles than one) to which all Human Customs must yield, though long practised, and spread every where in the World. This reason is mentioned six times in this Chapter; and oftener in the next. See v. 4.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 After the do of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell, shall ye not do: and after the do of the Land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do.] The Manners of these two Countries (of Egypt wherein they had dwelled a long time; and of Canaan, wherein they were going to settle) they were in the greatest danger to imitate: Especially in taking the liberty of making such Marriages, as they saw practised among them, against which they are here severely cautioned. But though these words seem to have a particular respect to those Marriages, yet Maimonides extends them to all their other Practices, for which they could see no reason. Magic being in much use among them, in dressing their Trees, and ploughing their Ground, and such like common things: in which they had a respect also to the disposition of the Stars of Heaven, which led them to the Worship of them; as he shows at large in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. R. Levi Barcelonita also extends these words to the Customs of all other Nations, (Precept. CCLXII.) which he that observed, was to be beaten. But the Do, or Customs, which Moses here speaks of, seem to be those that follow v. 6, 7, etc. as appears from v. 24, etc. And the other Customs of those Nations, about their Clothes, and cutting their Hair (which the forenamed Author mentions) are forbidden in other places.  
Neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances.] The Hebrew word Chukkoth, which we commonly translate Statutes, and here Ordinances, seems to import that the incestuous Marriages here mentioned, were allowed by the Laws and Constitutions of those Countries; which made their Wickedness the more intolerable, v. 24.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Ye shall do my Judgements, and keep my Ordinances to walk therein.] Frame your Lives according to the Laws and Rules which I give you to observe; and not according to their wicked Practices, which were grown into Customs and Precedents. The Gemara Babylonica mentioning these words, saith, it is a Tradition of their Doctors, that by Mishpatim (which we translate Judgements) are to be understood such Natural Laws, as all Mankind are bound to observe, though there were no written Commands for them: such as those against Idolatry; and those about uncovering the Nakedness of such near Relations, as are here mentioned; and Murder, etc. And by Chukkim (Ordinances, or Statutes) such Laws are meant as depended only on the Pleasure of God; and obliged none but those to whom they were given: such as those, about Meats and Garments, and Leprosy, etc. Against which, lest any one should object, it is here added, I am the LORD your God.  
I am the LORD your God.] I, who am your Sovereign LORD; and by redeeming you from the Egyptian Bondage, am become, in a special manner, your God, have ordained these things. Therefore let no Man dispute them, or make a question of them, as the forenamed Gemara expounds these words. See Selden, Lib. I. de Jure N. & G. cap. 10. p. 122. where he observes that the Laws called Statutes, are, in their Language, such as depend only on the Royal Authority.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes, and my Judgements.] Observe the Laws . For the word we here translate Statutes, is the same with that translated Ordinances, in the foregoing Verse.  
Which if a man do, he shall live in them.] Not be cut off; but live long and happily, in the enjoyment of all the Blessings which God promised in his Covenant with them.  
I am the LORD.] Who will faithfully keep my Covenant, and fulfil my Promises, VI Exod. 3.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 None of you.] In the Hebrew the words being isch, isch, (as much as to say, Man, Man) that is, no Man; the Talmudists take it as if he had said, neither Jew nor Gentile. For all Mankind, they say, are comprehended under these Laws about Incest. Nay, the very Karaites (or those who adhere only to the Scripture, and reject all Talmudical Expositions) are of this mind, as Mr. Selden observes, Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 5. But the Talmudists themselves do not all understand this matter alike. For some of them think all the Gentiles (at lest those who were under the Dominion of the Israelites) were bound to refrain from all incestuous Marriages; to which Death is threatened by the Law. But others of them think they were concerned only in those six things which were unlawful before the Law of Moses was given. See Selden, Lib. V de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 1. and cap. 11. p. 596, etc. But the ancient Hebrews give a good reason for all these Laws, as Grotius observes, Lib. II. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 5. sect. 13. n. 2.  
Shall approach.] Some of the Jews have been so rigorous, as to expound this word, as if it bond them not to have any familiarity with the Persons after named. (R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CLXXXVIII.) which is against all Reason and natural Affection. The plain sense is, they should not approach, or come near to them, for the end afterward mentioned, viz. to uncover their Nakedness. Nay, this very phrase is used for the same thing (XX Gen. 4.) without the addition of uncovering their Nakedness.  
Any that is near of kin to him.] It must be confessed that these words near of kin, do not sufficiently express the full sense of the Hebrew phrase; nor are they of a determinate signification: for a Man maybe near of kin to a Woman, who is not the remainder of his flesh, as the Hebrew phrase is: that is, so near of kin to him, that nothing comes between them. This is properly the nearness of flesh here spoken of; she that is immediately born of the same Flesh that a Man is, or she out of whose Flesh he is born; or she that is born out of his Flesh: that is, in plainer words, a Man's Sister, Mother, or Daughter. These are a Man's own immediate Relations; which the Karaites call the Foundation and Root of all that is here forbidden, as Selden notes, Lib. I. Vx. Hebr. cap. 2. For the sake of whom, the rest here mentioned are prohibited, having a nearness of flesh to them, viz. his Father or Mother's Sister; his Granddaughter, and his Niece. For the best Explication of this Phrase, is the express Particulars mentioned by God himself in this place.  
To uncover their nakedness.] To have Carnal knowledge of her, as the Scripture modestly speaks in other places. For nakedness in the holy Language signifies the Secret Parts, which natural Modesty teaches all civilised People to cover; and not to reveal them to any but those whom they marry. Therefore not to uncover the nakedness of the Persons here named, is properly, not to take them in Marriage; and much less to have Knowledge of them without Marriage. Answerable to this is the Name of a Virgin, whom the Hebrews call Alma, which is as much as covered, clothed, or veiled: because those parts were never exposed to any one, but those to whom they were espoused and joined in Marriage.  
I am the LORD.] By my Authority, who am your Sovereign, and the Sovereign of the World, these Laws are enacted: and I will punish those that break them.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, thou shalt not discover.] It is commonly thought by Interpreters, that the Particle we translate or, is here as much as that is, (for so it signifies in some places, particularly 1 Sam. XXVIII. 3.) So that the latter part of the Verse is only an Explication of the former, and makes them but one Prohibition, against a Man's marrying his Mother. And this indeed the next words seem to imply, she is thy Mother; who bore thee, and therefore not to be taken to be thy Wife, much less to be otherwise known by thee. But we may as well think, that the nakedness of the Father, and of the Mother, are both here mentioned, to show neither the Daughter might marry her Father, nor the Son his Mother; and consequently, that in all the following Particulars, Women were concerned just as Men were; though the Men be only mentioned. And under the Name of Father and Mother, are comprehended Grandfather or Grandmother, or other Progenitors before them.  
She is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.] This is the very first Prohibition; it being a going back in Nature for a Man to marry his Mother. Which though it was practised in those days by the Canaanites, and Egyptians, and by the Persians also, in after times, and some other Eastern Countries, yet in the Western part of the World (as Mr. Selden observes) such Marriages were nunquam non execranda, execrable in all Ages, Lib. V de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 11. p. 601, etc. Such were the Marriages of Oedipus with Jocasta, of Nero with Agrippina, Pelopeja and Thyestes her Father, of whom Aegistus was born; which every Body detested. See Grotius de Jure Belli & Pacis, Lib. II. cap. 5. sect. 2. For the Law of Nature was against such Marriages, notwithstanding the practice of Persons, nay whole Nations, whom God gave up to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as St. Paul shows) dishonourable affections, for their other sins; especially for their forsaking him, and falling to Idolatry.  
Maimonides gives this as the general reason of prohibiting this, and all the following Marriages, because the Persons here forbidden to be so joined together, are all, in a manner, such as are wont to live together in the same House, (for so Fathers, Mothers, Children, Brothers and Sisters do) who might easily be tempted to lewdness one with another, if even marrying together were not severely forbidden. And thus the LXX. translate the words of the foregoing Verse, none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, as other Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to those that are so near of kin, that they usually dwell in the same House; as Parents and Children; Brothers and Sisters; and the Brothers and Sisters of our Parents. Mahomet, as lewd and impudent as he was, had not the boldness to control these Laws; but in the fourth Chapter of his Alcoran expressly forbids his Followers to marry their Mothers, their Mothers-in-law, etc. and a great many of the rest which here follow.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover.] That is, of a Stepmother. Such was the incest of Reuben with Bilhah, XXXV Gen. 22. and of Absolom with the Wives of his Father David, 2 Sam. XVI. 21, 22. And of Antiochus Soter with Stratonice; who abhorring from such a Conjunction, was taught that all things were honest that pleased the King. But the thing itself is so hateful, that the very naming it is a Condemnation; and therefore it is all one with the prime Natural Law, which prohibits the Conjunction of Parents and Children. For she that is one flesh with my Father (as a great Man speaks) is as near to me as my Father, and that's as near as my own Mother. As near, I mean, in the estimation of Law, though not in the accounts of Nature: and therefore, though it be a Crime of a less turpitude, yet it is equally forbidden, and is against the Law of Nature, not directly, but by interpretation, Book II. chap. 2. Ductor Dubitantium Rule 3. n. 29.  
It is thy father's nakedness.] He having known her, it was not permitted the Son to have her also. Nay, the Jews say, if the Father had only espoused her, it was not lawful for the Son to have her to Wife: or if he had divorced her, it was not lawful for the Son to have her, even after he was dead. See R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CXCI Buxtof. de Sponsal. p. 16, 17.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 The nakedness of thy sister.] As the nearness of flesh (mentioned v. 6.) above a Man is, his Mother; and below him is his daughter: so on the side of him, is his Sister.  
The daughter of thy father.] Though she were begotten by his Father of another Wife, not of his Mother; yet he might not marry her.  
Or the daughter of thy mother.] Born of her by another Husband, not by his Father.  
Whether she be born at home, or born abroad.] Be legitimately born, in wedlock; or illegitimately, out of wedlock; as the Talmudists expound it. See Selden, Lib. V de Jure N. & G. cap. 10. p. 591. where he observes, that though the Egyptians (as Philo and others report) with such like Nations, thought the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters to be lawful, and it was practised also in Greece; yet the greatest Men in the Western Countries condemned such Marriages; which some of the Greek Philosophers also disallowed: and Euripides himself called barbarous, even when it was practised. Insomuch, that in after Ages this wicked Custom was quite abolished; and that before Christianity was well settled among them. For Sextus Empiricus saith, that in his time it was utterly unlawful. See there cap. 11. p. 603, 605, etc. Where he shows, the Romans always abhorred such Marriages; nay, it was late before the Persians took up this abominable Custom, after the example of Cambyses: who being in love with his own Sister, as Herodotus relates (in his Thalia, cap. XXXI.) and having a Mind to marry her, which was never practised before in that Country; he commanded the Royal Judges (as he calls them) who were the Interpreters of the Laws, to advise whether he might lawfully do it, or no. Who to please him, and yet not seem to give an illegal opinion, answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That they could find no law which permitted a Brother to marry his Sister: but there was a Law that the Persian King, might do, even what he would. See Grotius, Lib. II. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 5. sect. 13.  
Even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.] It shall be unlawful to thee to marry any of the forenamed Sisters. For though the Marriage of Brother and Sister was necessary in the beginning, when God created but one Man and one Woman, by whose Children the World was peopled; yet, when it was so, there was great reason that it should be made utterly unlawful, as many have demonstrated. Particularly Bishop Tailor in his Ductor Dubitantium, Book II. chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 24, 25, etc. For now it is next to an unnatural mixture (as he speaks) it hath something of confusion in it, and blending the very first partings of Nature; which makes it intolerably scandalous, and universally forbidden; for if it were not, the mischief would be horrible and infinite.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter; even their nakedness thou shalt not discover.] This Law concerns a Man's Granddaughters, by his Son or his Daughter; whether legitimately or spuriously begotten; as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it, Precept. CXCIII. Who adds in the next Precept but one, this is another Prohibition, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter: which (saith he) is not expressly mentioned in this Law, because it was not necessary. For a Man's grandchildren, either by Sons or Daughters, which are more remote, being forbidden, there was no need to say it was unlawful for him to marry his own Daughter.  
For theirs is thy own nakedness.] They have their original from thy Nakedness. For which reason some of the Jews extended this to those Descendants which were still further off; as an Hedge to this Law. So R. Levi calls it in the place forenamed. The ancient Romans also (as our Mr. Selden shows) were very strict, in restraining the Marriage of Men with their Nieces, either by their Brothers or Sisters, and with others mentioned in the following Laws of Moses, Lib. V de Jure Nat. & Gentium, &c, cap. 11. p. 605. etc.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 The nakedness of thy father's wives daughter, begotten of thy father (she is thy sister) thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.] This Prohibition, seeming to be the same with that v. 9 some of the Hebrews have expounded this concerning the Daughter of a Mother-in-law begotten by another Father. For the words may be thus translated, as Mr. Selden observes the order of them will bear (Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4.) The nakedness of the Daughter of thy Father's Wife (for she that is born of thy Father, is thy Sister) thou shalt not discover. And with this the Greek, and several other Versions of the Bible agree, who make the Prohibition of the Wife's Daughter to end, before he speaks of his own Sister. And it is the sense of the principal Men among the Karaites, as he shows cap. 6. But this is against the constant sense of the Hebrew Doctors, who say it is lawful to marry the Daughter of a Mother-in-law, which she had by another Husband; for there is no nearness of Flesh at all between these two. And therefore, as in the ninth Verse, the Marriages of all Brothers and Sisters in general, are forbidden, so here more particularly the Marriage with a Sister by the same Father, though not by the same Mother: which was necessary to be expressly forbidden, because before the Law, the Sons of Noah thought it lawful to marry a half Sister (as we speak) by the Father's side, though not by the Mothers. See Buxtorf. de Spons. & Divort. p. 15, 16. And this was the ancient Law of Solon among the Athenians, that they might marry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Sisters by the same Father, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Sisters by the same Mother; as Joh. Meursius shows in his Themis Attica, Lib. I. cap. 18. And if the one of these had not been in so many words prohibited, as well as the other, the Jews might still have continued in that practice, which was usual before the Law. See Sam. Petitus in Leges Atticas, p. 440.  
Some are of the opinion, that, in the ninth Verse, the Son of a second Venture is forbidden to marry the Daughter of the first: and here, the Son of the first Venture to marry the Daughter of the second. And others fancy that the Sister here meant, is one that was adopted by his Father.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister.] And it made no difference whether she was his Father's Sister legitimately, or illegitimately begotten by his Grandfather; as R. Levi Barcelonita represents the opinion of the Hebrew Doctors, Precept. CXCVII. Such Marriages also were prohibited by the ancient Romans, as Mr. Selden observes in the place forenamed (Lib. V. cap. 11. p. 605.) though before the Law of Moses, they are supposed to be lawful; for it is commonly thought that his Father Amram married his Aunt Jochobed, VI Exod. 20. and therefore no wonder it was practised in other Countries, who were not acquainted with this Prohibition: particularly at Sparta, where Herodotus saith in his Erato, cap. 71. Archidamus their King married Lampito, who was Sister to his Father Zeuxidamus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Leutychides (who was Father both to her and to Zeuxidamus) giving her to him in Marriage.  
She is thy father's near kinswoman.] So near, that as he could not be permitted to marry her, so his Son also, who was but a little further removed from her, was forbidden to touch her. And by the same reason that a Man might not marry his Aunt, an Uncle might not marry his Niece. Which though practised among the Romans after Claudius married Agrippina, till the time of Constantine; yet it was a new thing, as Claudius himself acknowledges in Tacitus, (Nova nohis in fratrum filias conjugia, Lib. XII. Annal. Marriages with our Brother's Daughters are new things with us.) And all he could say for it, was, That it was common in other Nations, nec lege ulla prohibita, and not forbidden by any Law. And indeed the newness of it so frighted Domitian, that he would not venture upon it; nor did many use it. Which shows that this Law had some foundation in Nature; which made those Men cautious about such Marriages, who had nothing else to guide them. Or, at least, there had been such a long Custom against them, in the Western part of the World, that Men, who were otherwise very bad, would not help to alter it.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.] There is the same reason for this, as for the former Prohibition: the Aunt by the Mother's side being as near to a Man, as his Aunt by the Fathers.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother.] This is explained in the next words, Thou shalt not approach to his Wife: that is, not marry thy Uncle's Wife. And therefore much less might an Uncle marry his Brother's Daughter: as Herodotus tells us Darius married Phrataguna the Daughter of his Brother Atarnes, who gave him all his Estate with her; and Leonides, King of Sparta, married Gorgo the Daughter of his Brother Cleomenes. See Lib. VII. (called Polymnia) cap. CCXXIU and CCXXXIX.  
She is thy Aunt.] By such near Affinity, that Marriage is forbidden with her, as well as with an Aunt by Consanguinity, v. 12, 13. In which the ancient Romans also were very strict, as our Selden observes in the place . And it made no difference, whether he were only Espoused to her, or had after Marriage divorced her, or was separated by Death: or whether he was his Father's Brother legitimately, or spuriously, as R. Levi Barcelonita observes, Precept. CXCIX. and CC. Where he notes, that though the Father's Brother's Wife be only mentioned, yet the Mother's Brother's Wife is also prohibited. This is repeated XX. 20.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son's wife, etc.] Though only espoused to him; and therefore much more when solemnly married; as the same R. Levi explains it, Precept. CCI where he hath the same observation as before; that if she was afterwards divorced, he might not marry her: and that it is probable the Wife of a Bastard Son is prohibited; for he is his Son, though a Child by a Slave, or a Stranger, is never called a Man's Son.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife, etc.] Unless he died Childless; for in that case the next Brother was bound to marry her, XXV Deut. 5. See Buxtorf de Spons. p. 25. and Grotius in XIV Matth. 4. Much less might a Man marry his Brother's Daughter, (as was before noted) who was nearer to him, and of his own Flesh. Which was so much abhorred by the ancient Romans, that Claudius Caesar durst not celebrate his Marriage with Agrippina, till he had got a Decree of the Senate for it, Quo justae inter patruos, fratrumque filias, nuptiae etiam in posterum statuerentur: which made the Marriage of Uncles with their Brother's Daughters to be lawful for the future; which hitherto had been without example. So Tacitus relates in the forenamed Book of his Annals, cap. 5. where he saith, notwithstanding this Decree, there were none found, but only one Man, who desired such Matrimony; and most thought he did it to gain Agrippina's favour: Neque tamen repertus est, nisi unus, talis matrimonii cupitor, etc.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a Woman and her daughter.] If a Man married a Widow that had a Daughter; it was a wicked thing to marry that Daughter, either while her Mother lived, or after she was dead.  
Neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, nor her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness.] To preserve them from this, the Jews added, as a Hedge to this Law, a Prohibition to marry the Granddaughters of such Daughters, as R. Levi Barcelonita tells us, Precept. CCV.  
For they are her near kinswomen.] Of such Consanguinity with her (from whom they directly come) as makes it very Criminal in him that is one with her, to marry them.  
It is wickedness.] The Hebrew word Zimmah imports more than Wickedness. The LXX. translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Impiety; the Vulgar Latin, Incest; others nefarious wickedness: which is the word in the Civil Law, for those Marriages that are contrary to Nature. Such were these in some measure; though not in the highest degree.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister.] There are a great many eminent Writers, who following our Marginal Translation, [one wife to another] imagine that here plurality of Wives is expressly forbidden by God? And they think there is an example to justify this Translation in XXVI Exod. 3. Where Moses is commanded to take care the five Curtains of the Tabernacle were coupled together one to its sister (as the Hebrew phrase is) i. e. one to another. And so the Karaites interpret this place, That a Man, having a Wife, should not take another while she lived. Which, if it were true, would solve several difficulties: but there are such strong Reasons against it, that I cannot think it to be the meaning. For as more Wives than one were indulged before the Law, so they were after. And Moses himself supposes as much, when he provides a Man should not prefer a Child he had by a beloved Wife, before one by her whom he hated, if he was the eldest Son. Which plainly intimates an allowance in his Law, of more Wives than one. And so we find expressly their Kings might have, though not a multitude, XVII Deut. 17. And their best King, who read God's Law day and night, and could not but understand it, took many Wives, without any reproof: Nay, God gave him more than he had before, by delivering his Master's Wives to him, 2 Sam. XII. 8. And besides all this, Moses speaking all along in this Chapter of Consanguinity, it is reasonable (as Schindlerus observes) to conclude he doth so here: not of one Woman to another; but of one Sister to another. There being also the like reason to understand the word Sister properly in this place, as the words Daughter and Mother in others, v. 17. and XX. 14. where he forbids a Man to take a Woman and her Daughter, or a Woman and her Mother, as Theodorick Hackspan judiciously notes, Disput. I. de locutionibus sacris, n. 29. See Selden, L. V de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6. and Buxtorf. de Sponsal. p. 28, 29.  
The meaning therefore is, That though two Wives at a time, or more, were permitted in those days, no Man should take two Sisters (as Jacob had formerly done) begotten of the same Father, or born of the same Mother, whether legitimately or illegitimately, as the forenamed R. Levi expresses it, Precept. CCVI Which though it may seem to be prohibited before, by consequence and analogy (because the Marriage of a Brother's Wife is forbidden v. 16.) yet it is here directly prohibited, as other Marriages are; which were implicitly forbidden before. For v. 7. the Marriage of a Son with his Mother is forbidden: and v. 10. the Marriage of a Father with his Daughter.  
To vex her.] There were wont to be great Emulations and Jealousies, and contentions between Wives (some of them being more beloved than others, and also superior to them) which between two Sisters would have been more intolerable, than between two other Women: who not being à consanguinitate, aequiore animo sub eodem marito, aetatem unà agant (as Petrus Cunaeus speaks, Lib. II. de Repub. Hebr. cap. 23.) of the same Consanguinity (as two Sisters are) might live with more equal and quiet minds under the same Husband. The Vulgar Latin understands this, as if Moses forbade them to make one Sister their Wife, and the other their Concubine; which could not but beget the greatest discords between them.  
In her life time.] From hence, some infer that a Man was permitted to marry the Sister of his former Wife, when she was dead. So the Talmudists; but the Karaites thought it absolutely unlawful, as Mr. Selden observes, Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4. For it is directly against the Scope of all these Laws, which prohibit Men to marry at all with such Persons as are here mentioned, either in their Wife's life time, or after. And there being a Prohibition v. 16. to marry a Brother's Wife, it is unreasonable to think Moses gave them leave to marry their Wive's Sister. These words therefore, In her life time, are to be referred, not to the first words, Neither shalt thou take her, but to the next, To vex her, as long as she lives. Chaskuni refers it to both the Sisters, according to the Targum. and makes this the sense; lest they should both be afflicted Widows as long as they live: for no Body would marry either of them, being defiled by such an incestuous Conjunction, for which God cut off their Husband.  
In this the ancient Christians were so strict, that if a Man, after his Wife died, married her Sister, he was by the tenth Canon of the Council of Eliberis, to be kept from the Communion five years.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 Also thou shalt not approach to a woman.] No, not to his own Wife, as the forenamed R. Levi expounds it, Precept. CCVII though all other Women also are comprehended, even their Canaanitish Slaves, as he observes.  
As long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.] Which was seven days, XV. 19 All the Laws about Marriages unto this place, seem to have a special regard to the wicked Customs among the Egyptians; who, above all other People, were then polluted with such incestuous mixtures. And now he proceeds to direct them to abhor the Customs of the Canaanites; who were polluted more than other Nations, with Adulteries, and offering their Children to Molech, and the rest of the foul Crimes which follow. For against the practices of these two Nations, the Egyptians and the Canaanites, Moses cautions them v. 3. and accordingly first mentions the do of the Egyptians, unto this place; and then those of the Canaanites in the following Verses.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 Moreover, thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife.] While he lived with her: for this was to commit Adultery.  
To defile thyself with her.] This signifies the foulest impurity, as appears from v. 23. and was punished with death, XX. 10.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed.] i. e. Of their Children, as it is explained XVIII Deut. 10. This was a Spiritual Adultery, and therefore here mentioned.  
Pass through the fire to Molech.] It is certain that Molech was particularly worshipped by the Children of Ammon, (at least in future Ages, 1 Kings XI. 7.) but seems to have been the Name of many of the Heathen Gods, and the same with Baal: both of them signifying Dominion. This appears by comparing XIX Jer. 5. with XXXII. 35. But more especially it signifies the Sun, the Prince of the Heavenly Bodies, (See Vossius de Orig. & Progr. Idolol. Lib. II. cap. 5.) as the Queen of Heaven was the Moon, VII Jer. 18. Now it is evident by several passages in Scripture, that the ancient Pagans (whom the Israelites were prone to imitate) not only made their Children pass through the fire; but also offered them in Sacrifice unto Molech. The former I take to be forbidden in this Law; the latter in XX. 3. where giving their Children to Molech is prohibited under a severe Penalty, of being put to death for that Crime: whereas there is no Penalty annexed here to their making them pass through the fire. Which I take therefore to have been a less Crime than the other; though an idolatrous Rite practised by those, who abhorred the cruelty of offering the very Life of their dear Children to Molech. Instead of which this Rite was devised, of making them pass through the fire (for though the word fire be not here in the Hebrew Text, yet it is understood by all, and expressed XVIII Deut. 10.) by way of Purification, and Lustration, as they called it; and by this means to dedicate them to the Worship and Service of Molech. And therefore, being a Rite of Initiation, whereby Parents consecrated their Sons and Daughters to their Deities; we never find it mentioned in Scripture, but only concerning Children (not concerning Men and Women) whom the Israelites are forbidden to dedicate in this manner; which was in truth, to alienate them from the LORD God of Israel.  
Now that this was practised among the ancient Pagans as a Rite of Initiation, appears particularly in the Mysteries of Mithra, (See Suidas upon that word) and continued long among the Persians, if we may believe Benjamin Tudelensis, in his Itinearium, p. 214. See G. Schickardi TARICH, p. 126, etc. And this very phrase make to pass unto (for the word fire, as I said, is not here mentioned) signifies as much as add parts ejus transire, to be addicted to any one; like that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to come unto God, XI Hebr. 6. And so this Hebrew Phrase is used XIII Exod. 12. and may very well be thus understood here, for devoting, or making over their Children unto Molech. For the Heathen thought their Children unclean, and obnoxious to the Anger of their Gods, and consequently in danger to be taken away from them, if they were not thus expiated, as Maimonides tells us, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. And on the contrary, they fancied (as R. Levi Barcelonita observes, Precept. CCVIII.) that if only one of their Children were thus consecrated to Molech, all the rest were blessed, and should be prosperous. For he very nicely takes notice that the Israelites are forbidden to make any of their seed to pass through the fire: It not being the manner, he saith, to make them all pass. But the idolatrous Priests (to make the People more willing to this Service) cunningly persuaded them, that if any one Child was offered to Molech, it procured a Blessing upon all; and if there was only one Child in a Family, they laid no Obligation on the Parents to do this.  
The manner of doing it, at this distance of time, cannot certainly be known. Some say their Parents carried them through two fires upon their shoulders. Others, that they were led between them by their Priests: and so R. Levi in the place beforenamed; The Father delivered the Child to the Priest, in the name of the Idol; just as it is said concerning Legal Sacrifices (XV. 14.) he shall give them to the Priest. Others think that the Priest, or some Body else, waved the Child about in the very flame, while Men and Women danced round the fire; nay, leapt through the flame. And Joh. Coach observes, upon the Title Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 7. that some are of the opinion, the Children thus dedicated, did not walk, but dance through the fire: which being an emblem and representative of the Sun, plainly signified such Children were consecrated to that Deity. And this comes nearer to the Hebrew phrase, as we translate it, that they did not pass between fires, but through the fire. But which way soever it was done, whether they waved the Child through the very fire, and presented it to Molech, before whom the fire was kindled, or led it between two fires; when they had so done, the Priest restored the Child to the Father again. And in some such way Ahaz made his Son to pass through the fire, according to the abomination of the Heathen, 2 Kings XVI. 3. which cannot be meant of his burning him: for Hezekiah his Son outlived him, and succeeded in his Throne. See Theodoret in IV King. Quaest. 47. Maimon. de Idol. c. 6. sect. 14. n. 4, 5, 6, 7. and Vossius his Notes; with Simeon de Muis in CVI Psal. 37.  
Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.] By offering their Children to Molech, they in effect rejected and disowned (as I before observed) the LORD God of Israel: which was to pollute his Name, by giving that honour, which was due to him alone, unto another God: For he gave them Children; who were therefore to be devoted to none but him.  
I am the LORD.] The only Sovereign of the World; who will severely punish the Transgressor's of this Law.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.] A detestable wickedness; condemned by all Nations: though practised by some lewd Persons among them. Insomuch that the Apostles of Christ make mention of it, with the greatest abhorrence, I Rom. 27. 1 Corinth. VI 9 1 Tim. I. 10. For not only several of the Roman Emperors were infamous, upon this account; but some also of the Greek Philosophers.  
This Prohibition is repeated, according to Maimonides, in XXIII Deut. 17. whom our Translation follows; there shall not be a Sodomite of the Sons of Israel. But Onkelos interprets that place otherwise.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast, etc.] i. e. Of any kind whatsoever. Some are apt to say, What need was there of such Prohibitions? when it is so monstrously unnatural, to mix with Creatures of a different Species from us, as all Beasts are. But such Persons do not understand, that this was not only practised in Egypt (against whose do he cautions them, v. 3.) but was also made a piece of Religion: Women devoted to the Worship there used, most filthily submitting to the Lust of their sacred Goats. So Strabo tells us, Lib. VII. p. 802. that at Mendes, where they worshipped Pan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Goats (which were there also worshipped) lay with Women. For which he quotes Pindar; as do also Priscianus and Aelian, Lib. VII. de Animal. cap. 19 as Casaubon there notes. And Herodotus vouches this upon his own knowledge, and saith they did it openly (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies) when he was in Egypt. His words are these in his second Book called Euterpe, cap. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This prodigy happened in this part of Egypt (i e. among the Mendesians) when I was there, a Goat had to do with a Woman in the view of all. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How long this beastly Custom had been among them, none can tell, but these words import, that then it was notorious; and so far from being kept secret, that they rather made an ostentation of it. Which I look upon as an argument that this had been a very old practice; otherwise they would have blushed at it.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 Defile not yourselves in any of these things.] This seems to relate particularly to the sins , v. 20, 21, 22, 23. See v. 26.  
For in all these the Nations are defiled, which I cast out before you.] The seven Nations that inhabited the Land of Canaan, (mentioned in many places, particularly VII Deut. 1.) were so overrun with these filthy Vices, that God could not bear with them, but ordered them to be destroyed for this very reason. Which was a sufficient Caution to the Israelites, who came in their room, to keep themselves from such Impurities.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And the Land is defiled.] To make the Israelites the more abominate such do, he represents the very Land, in which they dwelled, as sensible of the foul wickedness of the Inhabitants; who were a loathsome burden to it, which it could not digest.  
Therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof upon it.] I am about to punish them, upon that account.  
And the Land itself vomiteth out its inhabitants.] A most eloquent figure, expressing the excessive loathsomeness of their wickedness: which made their own Country nauseate them, and throw them out, as our Stomach doth Meat that offends it. The same expression is used v. 28. XX. 22. III Rev. 16. Theodoret expounds this word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies their Expulsion, as an execrable People. And indeed the word vomit in Scripture is used for that which is most detestable and abominable, XXVIII Isa. 8. XLVIII Jer. 26. TWO Habakk. 10.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgements.] These Laws I have given you. See v. 4, 5.  
And shall not commit any of these abominations.] From this word abominations, which the Nations God cast out, to make room for them, are said to have committed v. 27. some conclude that every one of the foregoing Marriages, mentioned in this Chapter, are in their own nature sinful; the Nations who had no positive Law to forbid them, being cast out for such Pollutions. But the mere force of this word will not warrant such a conclusion; because several things are called in this Book an abomination, which have no moral turpitude in them; but were made so by God's positive Laws, as Mr. Selden observes (Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 11. p. 598.) from XI Leu. 10.20, 41, 42. where several sorts of Creatures are forbidden to be eaten, as abominable: And the Sacrifice of a Bullock or a Sheep that had a blemish, is said to be an abomination, XVII Deut. 1. not from the very nature of the thing; but from the Prohibition which God had made against such Offerings.  
It is most reasonable therefore to refer the abominations here spoken of, to those foul things mentioned in the latter end of this List (v. 20, 21, 22, 23.) and to those in the beginning, v. 7, 8, 9, etc.) For lying with one's Mother, or Mother-in-law, or Sister, was always an abomination. But we cannot say the same of every one of the rest (the Law itself following, or rather requiring in one case, the marriage of a brother's wife) which were made an abomination by the Law now given to the Israelites.  
Neither any of your own Nation, nor any Stranger that sojourneth among you.] That is, any Proselyte, who had embraced their Religion. See XVII. 8.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 For all these abominations have the men of the Land done, which were before you, etc.] He admonishes them to beware of these Abominations, by the example of those who were utterly undone by them. For God is no respecter of Persons; but would punish them in the same manner, if they did the same things.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 That the Land spew not you out also, etc.] As it did at last IX Jer. 19 XXXVI Ezek. 17.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them, shall be cut off from among their people.] The multitude of the Offenders shall not keep off the Punishment; but they shall suffer by the hand of the Judges, or by the Hand of God, if they neglect their Duty. See XVII Gen. 14.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine Ordinances.] Live by all these Rules which I have now given you.  
That ye commit not any of these abominable Customs, which were committed before you.] By observing every one of these Laws, they were kept at a distance from those greater Abominations, mentioned in the beginning, and in the latter end of these Prohibitions. The positive Laws (or Ordinances) now added, being in the nature of an antemurale, or an out-work; to stop their proceeding to the higher Crimes, which were against the Law of Nature.  
I am the LORD your God.] As their LORD, he had Authority to make these Laws: and as their God, they had particular Obligations to observe them. Nay, it was a singular token of his Love to them, that he prescribed these Laws of Chastity and Modesty: that thereby he might preserve them an holy People to him, pure and free from those abominable filthinesses, and those indecent Conjunctions that were practised in the World. For as the ancient Rule was, Semper in omnibus conjunctionibus, non solum quod liceat considerandum est, sed & quod honestum est: In all Marriages, it is always to be considered, not merely what is lawful, but what is honest and seemly. Which is more true in the Christian Religion, than in any other: For thereby Marriage is advanced, to represent the Unity that is between Christ and his Church. And besides, in contracting Marriage we are not only to have regard to our own Conscience (as Joh. Brentius wisely observes, upon the forenamed Rule of the ancient Law) but to Succession also, and to Inheritances. And therefore, id agendum, quod & boni viri honestum judicant; & a legitimo Magistratu permittitur: that is to be done, both which good Men judge to be honest, and is allowed by lawful Governors.   

CHAP. XIX.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] The following Precepts, which contain in a manner all their Duty, seem to have been delivered to Moses immediately after the former; being in great part a Repetition of some principal things, which had been already commanded.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto all the Congregation of the Children of Israel.] It is uncertain whether he delivered these Precepts only to their Elders and Heads of their Tribes, to be communicated by them to the People; or at several times he called every Family of every Tribe, and spoke these words to them himself.  
And say unto them, Ye shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.] This very thing was said to them before, with respect to several Meats which are forbidden them, XI. 44. See there. And now is repeated with a peculiar respect (as Maimonides thinks, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.) to the filthy Marriages and abominable Idolatries mentioned in the foregoing Chapter; as it is repeated again in the next Chapter, XX. 7, 26. with respect to some other things. It being a general reason, why they should be separated from all other People, by the observation of peculiar Laws, (which is the meaning of being holy) because they were the Worshippers of him, whose most excellent Nature transcended all other Being's, not only in Purity, but in all other Perfections.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.] This Duty is called Honour in the fifth Commandment, (XX Exod. 12.) and the Father there put before the Mother; which being here called fear, and the Mother put before the Father, it shows, saith Maimonides, that honour and fear are equally due to both, without any difference. And the proper Expressions of Fear and Reverence are, (according to those Doctors) not to sit in their Seat, nor to contradict them in any thing they say; much less to cavil against them; nor to call them by their proper names, but to add the Title of Sir, etc. (as we speak) or the like. And the Expressions of Honour, are not to sit down in their Presence; and to provide them with Necessaries, if they fall into Poverty, etc. See Selden, Lib. II. de Synedriis, oap. 13. p. 557, etc. and R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. XXVII.  
And keep my Sabbaths.] Obedience as well as Reverence is included in the word Fear: but if Parents commanded them to break the Sabbath-day, or to profane any other day consecrated to God's Service, they were not to be obeyed.  
I am the LORD your God.] I rested on the Sabbath-day; who am your Sovereign, and therefore have power to require you to rest on any other days. Particularly on the great Day of Atonement, XVI. 31. when I am so gracious as to accept of an Expiation for all your sins. This is repeated v. 30. and XXIII. 3.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Turn ye not unto Idols.] Not so much as to look upon them; no, nor to think of them (as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it, Precept. CCXXU.) much less to inquire after what manner the Gentiles worshipped them, (which is expressly forbidden XII Deut. 30.) for by this means they might be alured to Idolatry. The word we here translate Idols, is a word of contempt, signifying a thing of nought. Or, as some of the Jews will have it, this word Elilim, is compounded of the Particle all, signifying not; and El, i. e. God. As much as to say, which are not gods; and therefore called in Scripture Vanities, which can do neither good nor hurt.  
Nor make to yourselves molten gods.] This seems to have respect to the Golden Calf, which they made to worship, and is called a molten Calf, XXXII Exod. 4. But all graven Images are no less forbidden: for if to look towards an Idol was a sin, much more was it to make an Image of any sort, to worship it. The Jews are something curious in their observations upon this Precept. For, in the Book Siphra, they say, that they might not make molten Gods for others, much less for themselves. Whence that saying, He that makes to himself an Idol, violates a double Precept; first in making it; and then in making it to himself. See R. Levi , Precept. CCXXVI.  
I am the LORD your God.] The same reason is given in the foregoing Verse, for the observation of their Sabbaths: and that of the seventh day every Week, was ordained in memory of the Creation of the World; and consequently intended as a Preservative from Idolatry, (as I observed upon Exod. XX. 8.) which perhaps makes these two Precepts be here put together. But it is evident Moses doth not observe the order wherein these Precepts were first delivered; but rather inverts it, beginning with the fifth Commandment, and so going back to the fourth; and here to the two first.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if ye offer a Sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the LORD.] As they were to avoid all Idolatry, so they were to be careful to perform the Service due to the true God, in a right manner. Peace-offerings are only mentioned, because they were the most common Sacrifices; being of three sorts. See VII. 11, etc. XVII. 5.  
Ye shall offer it at your own will.] Either of the Herd, or of the Flock; Male or Female, III. 1, 6. Or rather (as the Vulgar Latin and the LXX. understand it) they were to offer it so, that it might be acceptable to the LORD: according to the Rules prescribed in the seventh Chapter.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow.] This shows he speaks particularly of those Peace-offerings which were a Vow, or a voluntary Offering, VII. 16. for Sacrifices of Thanksgiving might not be kept till the morrow, but were to be eaten on the same day, v. 15. of that Chapter. See the reason of this XXIII Exod. 18. the latter end.  
And if ought remain till the third day, it shall be burnt with fire. See VII. 17.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable. See VII. 18.  
It shall not be accepted.] See there. This seems to justify the sense which the Vulgar puts upon those words v. 5. which we translate, according to thy will.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 Therefore every one that eateth it, shall bear his iniquity.] See VII. 18.  
Because he hath profaned the hallowed things of the LORD.] By keeping them till they were in danger to stink, or to be corrupted.  
That soul shall be cut off from his People.] By the Judges, if the thing was known: otherwise by the Hand of God.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And when ye reap the harvest of your Land.] Which was a time of great joy, when they offered, its likely, many Peace-offerings of that sort .  
Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field.] But leave a sixtieth part (as their wise Men have determined it) and that in the extreme part of the Field, rather than any other place, that the Poor might know where to come for it; as R. Levi Barcelonita explains it, Precept. CCXIII And this, whether they were in the Land of Israel, or out of it, as Mr. Selden observes out of the Talmudists, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6. p. 692. where he shows it was the custom to add something to the sixtieth part, proportionable to the largeness of the Field, or the multitude of the Poor, or the greatness of the Crop.  
Neither shalt thou gather the glean of thy harvest.] That is, if an ear or two of Corn fell (as they cut it, or bond it up) out of the Sheaves, or from under their Sickle, they were not to gather them up from the ground, but leave them for the Poor, as oft as they fell. But not if there fell three ears at a time, as the Talmudists determine. See Mr. Selden in the place ; and the same R. Levi, Precept. CCXIU  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard.] When they had cut off the great Bunches, they were not to examine the Vine over again, for the scattered Grapes, or small Clusters.  
Neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy Vineyard.] If any fell to the ground as they gathered them, they were not to take them up. That is, if one or two Clusters fell; but not if three, much less, if more: for they construe this as they do the Precept about Ears of Corn (v. 9) They also say, they were bound to leave the Corners of the Vineyard uncut, as well as the Corners of the Field. R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCXXX. and CCXXXI. and Mr. Selden, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6. in the place beforenamed. And these Precepts obliged such Strangers as sojourned among them, (mentioned XVII. 8. XVIII. 26.) who before they were admitted to embrace the Jewish Religion, were examined whether they understood that they must observe such and such Precepts, particularly these here mentioned, which were propounded to them plainly and distinctly: and after they had promised to keep them, they were Circumcised, etc. As G. Schickard observes out of the Talmud the custom, was, after the destruction of Jerusalem, in Mishpal Hamelek, cap. 5. Theorem XVII.  
Thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger.] Though by Stranger the Jews think is understood a Proselyte of Righteousness, (as they call him who had embraced their Religion, (by receiving Circumcision) yet they did not hinder any poor Gentile from partaking of this Charity, as the same R. Levi says. And if any one transgressed any of the Precepts contained in these two Verses, he was beaten; as Mr. Selden shows, Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. 13. n. 8.  
I am the LORD your God.] I give you the Country to which you go, with these reserves for the Poor: and have been so bountful to you, that I require you to be so them.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 Ye shall not steal.] Here are several Moral Precepts put briefly together, for the maintaining Justice and Truth; without which Societies cannot be preserved. And first he forbids Theft; the coveting of other men's Goods, being the Source of the other Sins that follow. And whether they were the Goods of an Israelite, or of a Gentile Idolater, that any Man stole, he was bound to make Restitution, as R. Levi observes, Precept. CCXXXII. See XXII Exod. 1.  
Neither deal falsely.] This is a Divine Caution (as the Hebrew Doctors observe) against denying a thing that was deposited with them; or, which they had found, etc. which they would never pretend they had not, if they were disposed to be sincere and upright in their Dealing.  
Neither lie one to another.] Words being intended to declare the Mind, and for no other end; he that hears us speak hath a right in Justice to be done him, that what we speak be true. For otherwise he doth not know our mind by our words; and then we had better be dumb. But though all kind of lying be contrary to the intention of God, in giving us Speech; yet this relates particularly to such lies whereby a Man's Neighbour was injured; defrauded, for instance, of his Goods which he had deposited with another; or of the just Debts which were owing him, etc. But though the simple denying of such things was not punished with beating, as Mr. Selden represents the opinion of the Talmudists, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. yet he that denied a thing deposited with him, was not admitted to be a Witness in any case, though he had not forsworn himself, unto which this lying disposed him. So R. Levi, Precept. CCXXXIII.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely.] Much less was it lawful for them to confirm the lies , with an Oath. So the Jewish Doctors interpret it, as Mr. Selden observes in the same place. If any Man did, and was found guilty, he was adjudged to restore the principal, and a fifth part more, VI 5. And whether he forswore himself knowingly, or ignorantly, he was to expiate his Crime with a Sacrifice. But if he was ignorant of that Command concerning a Sacrifice; or if, though he had the thing which he denied in his keeping, yet he had really forgot it, when he swore he had it not; he was freed both from the fifth part, and from the Sacrifice. See V 4.  
Neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God.] By calling God to witness unto a frivolous thing, or to a rash Resolution. As if a Man swore in his anger he would not speak to such a Person, but afterwards did; or, he would not eat of such Meat, etc. In such cases, the Jews say, when a Man's heart was touched with Repentance for his rashness and incogitancy; he was to go to some wise Man, or to three Neighbours, and desire them to absolve him from his Oath, of which he truly repent. Which they did, when they found him truly penitent; saying, Be thou loosed, or, It is remitted to thee, or the like. So Selden observes out of Maimonides, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 9  
Plato hath said some remarkable thing, concerning Forswearing, and also of Lying and Deceit. For which I refer the learned Reader to his eleventh Book of Laws, p. 916, 917. Edit. Serrani.  
I am the LORD.] And therefore expect the greatest Reverence to my Name; and that you should deal honestly one with another.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him, etc. Here are several Precepts, almost coincident in their sense: but have some peculiar Negations belonging to them. For (as R. Levi Barcelonita observes) in all things from which God would have them carefully abstain, he multiplies admonitions, Precept. CXXXVI. Accordingly here to defraud, is to keep in ones hand that which belongs to another: and such a Person, he saith, is called an Oppressor in Scripture. The Vulgar Latin refers it to that which Men get from others by Calumny: as the next words relate to that which is wrested from them by open violence.  
Neither rob him.] The same R. Levi expounds this of that which is taken from another by manifest force, and doth not belong to him that takes it, Precept. CCXXXVII. For so the Hebrew word gazilah signifies, that which a Man wrists out of the hand of another, against his will, 1 Chron. XI. 23.  
The wages of him that is hired, shall not abide with thee all night till the morning.] For this was a kind of force and robbery, to detain what was owing to him, against his will. In the XXIV Deut. 15. the words are, Thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the Sun go down upon it. From whence the Hebrew Doctors conclude there were two sorts of People that wrought for hire: one were day-labourers, whom Moses speaks of in this Verse; another labourers by night, of whom he speaks in Deuteronomy. Neither of which were to stay for their Wages beyond the time appointed: but the one were to have it before the Sunset, the other before Morning; for it was due as soon as the day, or the night was done. So the Misna, The Day-labourer requires his wages all night; and the night Labourer all day. See the forenamed R. Levi, Precept. CCXXXVIII. who gives this reason for it; That the merciful God would have his Creatures subsist; which poor Labourers cannot do, if they want their wages to buy them Victuals. Upon which account the detaining of their Wages, is said to be a crying sin, in that XXIV Deut. 14. and in St. James V. 4.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf.] No Israelite, whether Man or Woman, was to be cursed; though he could not hear the Curse, and so was insensible of the Injury, as R. Levi explains it, Precept. CCXXXIX. For there was the addition of barbarous baseness in it, to curse or revile a Person, who was not capable to answer for himself, nor do himself right: and the Case of the Sick, and the Infirm, or the Absent, was the same with the Deaf. As for others, who were not Deaf, it was forbidden to curse them, saith Maimonides, because it provoked to Anger and Rage; which stirred Men up to take Revenge.  
Nor put a stumbling block before the blind.] This is as inhuman as the former; proceeding from so great Malice, that the Hebrew Doctors seem to think Men incapable of it. And therefore expound it of giving ill Counsel to simple People, and advising them to their Damage. So R. Levi, Precept. CCXL. which is no less contrary to Nature, then laying a stumbling-block in the way of those that cannot see to avoid it; and a far greater sin, because it abused their Minds, and might tend to the hurt of their Souls.  
But shalt fear thy God.] Believing he sees and hears, and will avenge the Cause of those who cannot right themselves; because they know not who injured them. If any Man was convicted of either of these Crimes, he was beaten.  
I am the LORD.] And am therefore to be feared and obeyed.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement.] The Jews take this to be an Admonition to their Judges, that they should have an equal regard to the Plaintiff and Defendant; and not prefer the one before the other. Whence these words are thus explained in Siphra, Thou shalt judge thy neighbours justly; not letting one party stand, and bidding the other sit; nor suffering one to speak as much as he pleaseth, and bidding the other be short. See Selden de Synedr. Lib. II. cap. 13. n. 10. But none hath explained this so largely as Maimonides in the whole XXI Chapter of Sanhedrim, where he in general defines the just Administration of Justice to consist in an equal respect to both Parties in the Suit; so that one of them have not the liberty to say what he will, and the other be cut short. And then descends to many particulars, wherein equal respect to both Parties is to be observed: some of which it will be fit to mention, because they illustrate the words of St James, in the second Chapter of his Epistle, v. 2, 3, 4. If two Parties appear in a Cause, one of which is clothed in precious Garments, the other is ragged, or in a poor Habit; let it be said to him that is the more honourable, Either do you bestow upon your Adversary as good Apparel as you have on yourself, or else put on such as he wears, that you may be both alike, and then appear before the Court of Judgement. By no means let the one sit, and the other stand: but let them both be commanded to stand: or if it please the Judges to give them both leave to sit, let not one of them sit in a high place, the other in a low; but both on the same Bench, one by the side of the other. See R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCXVII. who observes, that Mankind are preserved by righteous Judgement; and therefore if a Judge was found to have given an unjust Sentence, he was condemned to make Restitution to him, whose Cause he had perverted, Precept. CCXLI  
Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor.] See XXIII Exod. 3.  
Nor honour the person of the mighty.] This R. Levi explains (Precept. CCXLII) as he did the first Clause; The Judge shall not bid the great man sit down, while the meaner stands; but both shall stand before the Judge, as if they were in the Presence of the Divine Majesty, who standeth in the midst of the Judges, LXXXII Psal. 1. If by the favour of the Judges both were permitted to sit, yet when Sentence came to be pronounced, both rose up and stood; according to XVIII Exod. 13.  
But in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.] The observation of Maimonides seems to be too nice and curious, who from this place gathers, that though the lowest Court of Judgement ordinarily consisted of no less than three Judges; yet by the Law one of them might sit alone as Judge in Matters not Capital, because it is said here in the singular Number, In righteousness shalt thou judge thy Neighbour. For at the same time he acknowledges, their wise Men require that he should take some Assessors to him; when they say, Do not judge by thyself alone; for there is no sole Judge, but one only, viz. God. See Selden, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 14. n. 2. and Guil. Schickardi Mishpal Hamelek. cap. 4. Theorem XIV.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people.] The Vulgar Latin takes the Hebrew word Rachil to signify one that goes about with Calumnies. But it may simply signify, as we translate it, a Tale-bearer: whom Aben-Ezra compares to a Merchant or Pedlar, (as the Hebrew word imports) who buys of one, what he sells to another, and goes about the Country as a Tale-bearer doth from House to House; carrying to one, what he hath heard at another; saying, Such a one hath said so and so of you, whereby Peace and Concord is destroyed among Men. For commonly such Men carry false stories to their Neighbours, or add to the true, and secretly backbite others; which hath moved many to think a Detractor is meant by this word, who hopes by his Tales of others to get some advantage to himself, as every Trader doth by his Merchandise. Whence the Jews say, An evil Tongue kills three: him that speaks; him that hears; and him of whom he speaks, R. Levi Precept. CCXLIII.  
Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.] Much less, be a false Witness against him, to the endangering of his Life. So it is commonly interpreted, because the Accusers and Witnesses stood before Judges, who sat in the Courts of Judgement. But R. Levi Barcelonita, and the rest of the Hebrew Doctors, generally understand it otherwise; that no Man should suffer his Neighbour to perish in Judgement, or other ways, when he could free him by his Testimony or Assistance, Precept. CCXLIV. So it is said in Siphra in so many words; Whence do we gather that he who can clear another by his Testimony, must not suppress it in silence? Because it is said thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy Neighbour. Whence it follows, that if a Man saw his Neighbour any way in danger, he was bound, if he could, to deliver him; not only when his Life was in hazard, but that which is as dear as Life, ones Honour and Chastity. Thus if any one went about to force a Woman, espoused to another, etc. he that saw it was bound to Rescue such a Person, though with the death of him that made the Attempt. For this was a piece of Justice, which they committed to private Men, as Mr. Selden shows out of the Jewish Authors, Lib. IU. de Jure N. & G. cap. III. p. 481, etc. But then, they restrain this Charity only to themselves, and from the word Neighbour argue, that they are bound to do thus, only to an Israelite. Nay, (which is strange) some of them are so selfishly ill natured, that they fancy they are forbidden to do such kindness to a Gentile. See there p. 485.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart.] When thy Brother hath done thee any wrong, do not conceal a secret hatred against him in thy Breast, but tell him plainly of his Fault, as the next words seem to direct. It appears by this, they were ill Interpreters of the Law, who thought it forbade only external acts of sin, but not evil affections, which were not executed.  
Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour.] Time after time (if he will not be sensible of it at first) argue the case with him, and reprove him for his fault. And if he will not amend, do it publicly, (as the Vulgar Latin interprets it) and bring him before the Judges. So R. Levi, Precept. CCXVIII. But he extends this to all sins, whether against God, or against themselves: which, he thinks, they were bound to reprehend privately, and then publicly, if the Offenders did not grow better.  
And not suffer sin upon him.] He interprets it, But not put him to confusion.] For nothing is more grievous to a Man then that: and therefore Reprehension ought to be mild and gentle, especially when the Offence is against ones self; but in those against God, greater sharpness is allowable. So he discourses Precept. CCXLVI. the words in the original being, Thou shalt not bear sin upon him; charge him with his Gild too severely; or, as others take it, Thou shalt not accuse him of any Crime whereof he is not guilty. Our Translation in the Margin of our Bibles takes it, as if by not reproving their Neighbours, they brought the guilt of his sin upon themselves; for so the words there are, That thou bear not sin for him. Which is an excellent sense, if the Hebrew word alau did not signify upon him, not for him. And yet some of the Jews have thus understood it: this saying of Rabbi Chanina being famous among them, Jerusalem had not been destroyed, but because one Neighbour did not reprove another. See Selden, Lib. I. de Synedr. cap. 9 p. 280. Where he observes the Doctrine of the ancient Jews was (drawn from this Text) that when one Man offended another in things concerning themselves, relating to their Civil Affairs, he was to be reproved by his Neighbour, once, or twice, or thrice, if the matter required; but without sharpness; and so that he was not exposed to public shame. But if the Offence was against God, in matters of Religion, they say private Reproof was first to be given; and if that did not work amendment, then public before all. And they admitted public Reprehension upon no other score: but said, He that publicly puts his Brother to shame, shall have no part in the other World.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 Thou shalt not avenge.] Not deny to do their Brethren a kindness, out of a remembrance of any injury received from them, as R. Levi interprets it, Precept. CCXLVII By which means, as he observes, Strife and Contention was abolished, and Peace and Concord established among Men. It may be thought also, that as they are forbidden to take Revenge themselves for the Wrongs any one did them; so likewise to seek for Redress from the Public, merely to satisfy their wrath and desire to have the injurious Person suffer, and not to prevent the like or greater Mischiefs for the time to come.  
Nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.] When thou dost thy Neighbour a kindness, do not spoil it, by upbraiding him with all his Faults. For the Hebrew word Natar signifies having something in reserve in ones Mind, particularly Anger or Wrath; which our Translation frequently supplies to make out the sense, III Jer. 12. CIII Psal. 9 1 Nahum 2. And so the LXX. understand it here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And thou shalt not be angry with the Children of thy People.  
But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.] In not doing to him, what thou wouldst not have done to thyself; and taking such care of him, and what belongs to him, as thou wouldst have him to do of thee and thine. This, saith R. Aquiba (as R. Levi observes, Precept. CCXIX) is the great sum of the Law; i.e. many Precepts depend upon this: for he that thus loves his Neighbour, will neither steal any thing from him, nor violate his Wife, nor murder so much as his good Name, nor remove his Landmark, nor offend him any other way. The same, in a manner, with what St. Paul saith XIII Rom. 8, 9, etc.  
The only question is, Who is to be understood here by their Neighbour? which the Jews would restrain to themselves; and have the meaning to be, That one Israelite should love another, but he is not bound to love a Stranger in the same manner: which is directly against Moses his command, v. 34. And certain it is, the word Neighbour comprehends more than Israelites; as appears by the last Commandment, which forbids them to covet their neighbour's wife: which did not give them leave sure, to covet the Wife of a Gentile, provided they did not covet the Wife of an Israelite. A Neighbour therefore is every other Man, as in XXII Deut. 26. and more plainly in XI Exod. 2. where the Egyptians are called their Neighbour. And therefore D. Kimchi saith very honestly upon the XVth Psal. 3. A Neighbour is every one with whom we have any dealing or conversation. Which justifies our blessed Saviour, in making this Command, of Loving their Neighbours as themselves, to reach all Men, with whom they had to do, X Luke 27, 28, etc.  
I am the LORD.] Unto whom you are all equally subject; and upon that account ought to love one another. See v. 34.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 Ye shall keep my statutes.] This may be thought to be premised to what follows; lest such Commands as are contained in this Verse, seeming small, should be neglected by them.  
Thou shalt not let thy  (or rather make them) gender with a divers kind.] As Horses with Asses, Goats with Sheep, etc. whose mixture one with another they were by no means to procure. But if they did of themselves come together, it was lawful to use such Heterogeneous Creatures, as were so produced. For they did not abhor the use of Mules, which were either begot by accident among them, or brought from other Countries to them.  
The reason the Jews commonly give for this Precept, is, because God having made all things perfect in their kind, it was a presumptuous attempt to go about to mend his Creation, and add to his Works. By this means also Men were deterred from unnatural Mixtures, which they saw to be abominable in Brutes. So R. Levi Barcelonita (Precept. CCXLIX.) and Philo, whose words are very ingenious (Lib. de Creatione Princip.) Things of the s●me kind were made for Society one with another; but things heterogeneous (as we call them) were not intended to be mixed and associated: and therefore he who attempts to mingle them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wickedly destroys the Law of Nature. To the same purpose Josephus. See Selden, Lib. VII. de Jure N. & G. sec. Hebr. cap. 3. p. 798. Maimonides also himself gives this reason of this Precept, (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 49.) where he saith, No Creature hath a desire commonly, to mix with a Creature of another kind; and therefore Men ought not to promote such a desire. But after all, there might possibly be a respect in this Precept to some Idolatrous Customs, which Moses intended to prevent or abolish: for there is good ground to think the following Precepts in this Verse were so intended; and in after times, some Gentiles did procure such Mixture of Creatures, as are here forbidden (Mules, for instance) in honour of their Gods. See our learned Dr. Spencer, Lib. II. de Leg. Hebr. Ritualibus, cap. 20. where he endeavours to prove, that by  in this place are peculiarly meant Oxen and Asses, which were used in Husbandry; and are of such different Natures, that none would ever have thought to procure their Conjunction, unless he had been moved to it by the Devil.  
Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.] The reasons of this, according to the Jews, are the same with the former: and R. Levi extends it to Trees; which, he saith, they were not to engraft of different kinds, one upon another. But it concerns, they say, only such Seeds and Plants as are for men's food; not those which are for Medicine, Precept. CCL. But Maimonides found a particular reason for this Precept, from the Idolatrous Customs of the old Zabijs: Who not only sowed different Seeds, and grafted Trees of a divers kind upon one another, in such or such Aspect of the Planets, and with a certain form of words, and fumigations; but also with abominable filthiness, at the very moment of the Incision. Which he proves out of a Book, concerning the incision of an Olive into a Citron: and doubts not, that God forbade his People to sow with mingled seed, that he might root out that detestable Idolatry, and those preternatural Lusts which abounded in those days, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37.  
Neither shall a Garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.] In the Hebrew the words are, A Garment of mixtures of Schaatnez, shall not come upon thee. But that they might certainly know what Schaatnez was, it is explained in XXII Deut. 11. to signify (as we translate it) a Garment of Woollen and Linen mixed together. The Jews have taken abundance of pains to find out the original of this word; which Bochartus derives from the Arabic word Saat, which signifies to mingle, and nez, which signifies to wove. Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 45. But Joh. Braunius, I think, hath demonstrated, that it doth not import the weaving of any different things together; but only of Linen and Woollen: and that by Woollen is to be understood only what is made of the Wool of Sheep, not of Camels or Goats, which they called by the same name, Lib. I. de Vestitu Sacerd. Hebr. cap. 4. n. 2, 3, 6. Where he observes out of Maimonides, in his Halach. Kelaim, that if a Man saw an Israelite wear such a Garment, it was lawful for him to fall upon him openly, and tear his Garment in pieces; although he were his Master, who taught him Wisdom. And the reasons for this abhorrence, are commonly such as are given of the former Precepts; to preserve them from the horrid Confusion which was among the Gentiles, by incestuous and unnatural Mixtures. But Maimonides takes it to have been principally intended, as a Preservative against Idolatry: The Priests of the Gentiles in those times wearing such mixed Garments, of the product of Plants and Animals, with a Ring on their finger, made of some Metal, as he says, he found in their Books, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. By which mixture, it is likely, they hoped to have the beneficial influence of some lucky Conjunction of the Planets or Stars, to bring a Blessing upon their Sheep and their Flax.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 Whosoever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband.] The Jews had some Servants that were Gentiles; who, if they embraced the Jewish Religion, were baptised; sometimes with the reservation of their Servitude, and sometimes with the full grant of Liberty. But some there were in a middle Condition; partly free, and partly servile; viz. when part of their Redemption-money had been paid, and part was still behind. Now as while a Woman was a perfect Slave, no Israelite might marry her: so when she was partly free, though he might Espouse her, and the Espousals were valid, yet they could not be of full force, till her liberty was perfected. And of such a Maiden the Hebrew Doctors understand Moses to speak in this place, that was in part free, but not wholly; as the next words interpret it.  
And not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her.] Not entirely, but in part redeemed: and consequently her Freedom not absolutely granted to her.  
She shall be scourged.] If she had been perfectly free, both he that lay with her, and she herself should have been put to death, XXII Deut. 23, 24. But being not fully free, and consequently not fully his Wife, who had espoused her, it was not reckoned Adultery; and therefore punished only with scourging. See Selden, Lib. V de Jure N. & G. cap. 12. p. 613. And Maimonides, I observe, thus expounds it, of a Woman that was not a mere Servant, and yet not completely free, but between both, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 41. But whereas we mention here in the Text, the Scourging only of the Woman; in the Margin it is rightly noted that the Hebrew words are, There shall be scourging; viz. of them both, as the Vulgar Latin, with great reason, understands it. And the Hebrew word Bikkoreth properly signifies scourging with Thongs made of a Bulls or Ox's Hide; as Bochartus observes in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. II. cap. 28. & cap. 33. n. 8.  
They shall not be put to death, because she was not free.] Her Master not having set her quite at Liberty, her Marriage was not complete: which freed her from suffering Death; though some Punishment she deserved, because it was begun.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And he shall bring his Trespass-offering unto the LORD, unto the door, etc.] Which was not enjoined her, because she had not wherewithal to offer for her Expiation: all she had being her Masters, and not her own.  
A Ram for a Trespass-offering.] Which was the proper Sacrifice in such a case, V 17, 18.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And the Priest shall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the trespass-offering.] She needed an Atonement as well as he, being equally guilty in consenting to the Fact; and being espoused to another, seems to have had a greater guilt upon her; and therefore was left in a lamentable condition, without any public assurance of God's pardon.  
For his sin which he hath done.] Which had so much guilt in it, that besides the punishment he suffered in being Scourged; this Satisfaction was to be made to God.  
And the sin which he hath done, shall be forgiven him.] By virtue of the Sacrifice; which would not have been accepted if she had been perfectly a Freewoman: but the sin would have cost his own life and hers also, XXII Deut. 23, 24.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And when ye shall come into the Land, and shall have planted all manner of Trees for food.] The Precept is so general, that the boldness of R. Zerika is unaccountable; who would have it understood only of the Vine, which if it be not cut, its Grapes are not so large, nor the Wine so good, nor fit to be offered at the Altar, etc. as his opinion is represented in Pirke Elieser, cap. 29. But Moses expressly mentioning all manner of Trees for food, there is no colour for this limitation; and a very good account may be given of this Prohibition, if we have respect only to natural reason. For young Trees grow better, if they be stripped of their Fruit; the Juice of which is waterish and unconcocted, having neither pleasant smell nor taste; as Nachmonides observes: and therefore not fit for Food; and upon that score not fit to be offered as the First-fruits to God.  
But besides all this, Maimonides affirms there was an Idolatrous custom among the Zabijs, to which this Law of Moses may reasonably be thought to be opposed: For they imagined all Trees would be blasted, or their Fruit fall off, whose First-fruit was not part of it offered in their Idol Temples, and the other part eaten there: as their Children, they thought, would not thrive, unless some of them passed through the fire. And therefore God commanded his People to forbear to eat the Fruit of any Tree, till the fourth year; and not doubt of the fruitfulness of their Plantations, though they did not Consecrate the Fruit of the years foregoing, after the manner that the Gentiles did. More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. where he observes some Trees brought forth Fruit in one year; some not till the second; and others not till the third; according to the different ways wherein they were planted.  
Ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised.] That is, as unclean; and therefore to be cast away as the Foreskin was.  
Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you; it shall not be eaten of.] And therefore they plucked off the Buds when they put forth, that they might not grow into Fruit; or if any by chance did, they threw it away, as unfit for food. But this is meant only of such Fruit-trees as they planted after they came to Canaan; not of such as they found already planted there. And it was the same thing, whether he planted them himself, or bought an Orchard, or Vineyard, etc. of another Israelite, or had it left him as an Inheritance, or bestowed on him as a Gift: the three first years the Fruit was not to be used.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, to praise the LORD withal.] It was to be offered as the First-fruit to God, and eaten by the Priests: which, as Maimonides saith in the Book forenamed, cap. 49. was to excite them to Liberality, and give a check to their Appetites, as well as to Covetousness. Yet there are those who say this Fruit of the fourth year was to be eaten by the Owners before the LORD at Jerusalem, (when his dwelling was settled there) as they eat the second Tithe. So R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCXX. shows at large. And they observe many Benefits which the Israelites received by this means; not only in exciting their Thankfulness to God, but their Love to that Holy Place; unto which some of their Family might conceive such an affection, as to settle there, and learn the Law.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 In the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof.] He would not have them think that they should lose any thing, by staying till the fifth year for the Fruit of their Trees; but promises them here, that by forbearing so long, their Trees should be the more exceeding fruitful.  
I am the LORD.] Who bestowed this Land upon them, to hold of him by what Tenure he pleased; by whose Blessing they might expect to receive the Increase thereof abundantly; without the help of such wicked Arts as Maimonides says the Zabijs used. Who, letting certain things lie till they were putrified, and, when the Sun was in such or such a degree, sprinkling them about the Trees which they had planted, with certain Magical Ceremonies, they fancied Flowers and Fruits would be produced sooner than they could have been without these practices.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood.] This is an admonition, as R. Levi Barcelonita fancies (Precept. CCLII.) against Gluttony and Drunkenness; such as the rebellious Son was guilty of, XXI Deut. 18, etc. which made Men prone to shed blood: for so he understands this Precept, Thou shalt not eat upon blood; i. e. eat till thou art excited to shed blood: unto which he applied XXXII Deut. 15. Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked. But this is a very forced Interpretation; and our Translation is not exact: for he doth not say, Ye shall not eat any thing, with the blood; but ye shall not eat upon the blood, or at the blood. Which Oleaster very sagaciously suspected to be a piece of Superstition unknown to him. And so did the LXX. when they translated it, Ye shall not eat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the Mountains, which was an Idolatrous Custom mentioned in IV Hosea 13. and here forbidden, as Procopius and Hesychius imagine. But the Hebrew word haddam no where signifies a Mountain, but Blood, as the Vulgar here truly translates it. There is a Greek Scholion which renders these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye shall not eat on the house top. Which, in all likelihood, as some have conjectured, was a mistake of the Transcriber for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the blood: which is the literal Translation of the Hebrew phrase; and imports something more than is prohibited, XVII. 12. where he simply saith, No soul of you shall eat blood. But here warns them against an Idolatrous Practice of the Zabijs: who, to enter into the Society of Daemons, and obtain their favour, were wont to gather the blood of their Sacrifices, into a Vessel, or a little Hole digged in the Earth; and then, sitting about it, to eat the Flesh of the Sacrifices: imagining that by eating as it were of the same food, (for they thought the Daemons fed upon the blood, as their Worshippers did upon the flesh) they contracted a Friendship and Familiarity with them. So Maimonides relates in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46. For the prevention of which Idolatrous Custom, God ordered their Sacrifices to be offered only at one place, where his own House was: and there the Priests sprinkling the blood, and they eating the flesh of their Peace-offerings, God and they feasted together upon them. Nachmanides is wont to oppose Maimonides in his Notions; yet this was so plain, that he confesses, as Dr. Cudworth hath observed (in his Treatise of the Right Notion of the Lord's Supper, Chap. ult.) that blood itself was forbidden in the Law, upon the account of the Heathens performing their Superstitious Worship in this manner, by gathering together blood for their Daemons, and then coming themselves, and eating of it with them, whereby they were their Daemon's guests; and by this kind of Communion with them, were enabled to prophesy, and foretell things to come. And this Interpretation is the more probable, that they hoped, by eating of the blood of the Sacrifices, or the flesh, or both, to have such familiarity with them, as to receive Revelations from them, and be inspired with the Knowledge of secret things, if we consider the two other Prohibitions in this Verse, that are joined with this of not eating upon blood: which show that it was a Rite of Divination.  
Neither shall ye use enchantment.] In the Hebrew the words are lo tenakashu; which all agree signify some Superstitious observation, or other; whereby they made omens, and guessed what should happen to them; either from Men's sneezing; or the breaking of a Shoes Latchet; or the name of a Man they met withal; or some Creatures crossing their way; or passing upon their right hand, or their left. And most, following the LXX. and the Vulgar Latin, take it for Divination by the flying, or crying, or pecking of Birds. But the word Nachash, signifying a Serpent, and having no relation at all to Birds, the famous Bochartus thinks tenachashu (which seems to be derived from thence) to relate rather to the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divination by Serpents, than to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divination by Birds. For it was very much in use among the Gentiles in old time, as appears from Homer (in his VIIth Iliad.) where Chalcas seeing a Serpent devour eight Sparrows, with their Dam, divined how long the Trojan War would last. And many such instances he heaps up together in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. I. cap. 3. R. Levi Barcelonita (Precept. CCLIII.) refers this to any kind of Divination; by their Staff falling out of their hand; by a Serpent creeping on their right hand; or a Fox going by their left, etc. which made them forbear any work they were about: but he thinks withal, it may signify, as we translate it, Enchantment; to cure Wounds (for instance) by reading a Verse of the Law; or laying the Book of the Law, or a Phylactery, upon a Child's head to procure sleep: which are such Superstitions as are now in use among some Christians; who hang the first Verse of St. John's Gospel about People's Necks to cure an Ague. But such things could not be meant by Moses, who had not yet delivered them a Copy of his Laws: nor can we certainly fix upon any other in particular which were then in use. See J. Coach upon the Title Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 18. and Maimonides de Idololatria, cap. 11. sect. 4, 5, 6, etc. where he gives a great number of instances of such Superstitious Observations, as were in use among the Heathen: some of which are mentioned by Theophrastus in his Characters of Superstition; and by Plutarch in his Book on the same subject; and are derided by Terence in his Phormio, Act. IU. Scen. 4. With which Superstitions the greatest Persons were anciently very much infected; and they were so settled in men's minds, that when they became Christians, they could not presently shake them off; as appears by the frequent Reprehensions, which St. Chrysostom (and others) give to those who continued to be governed by them. Particularly in his VIII Homily upon the Colossians, he chides his People severely for contemning the Cross of Christ, and calling in old drunken Women, with their Salt, their Ashes, and Soot to free those that were bewitched. And more especially in his VI Hom. against the Jews, he sharply rebukes those that used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Charms and things hung about the Neck to cure Agues; whereby they got a worse disease in their Souls, and wounded their Consciences, etc. And in other places he Reprehends their observing of Omens, good and bad; some of which which were very strange. See Tom. VI p. 610, 611. Edit. Savil.  
Nor observe times.] Take no notice of days, according to the Precepts of Astrologers, who made some to be lucky, others unlucky. For the Jews generally think something of this nature is here forbidden; the Hebrew word teonenu being derived, they imagine, from Onah, which signifies time (as R. Levi  saith, Precept. CCLIV.) such an hour being thought by Superstitious People to be fit for business; but another very cross to it. Which Opinion God seems to have intended to extinguish, by appointing the Sabbath, as the only day of the Week upon which they should rest from their Labours: leaving all the other six days, to be employed in their business, without any difference of days or hours. But there being no such signification, as many think, of that word in the Hebrew Language, they rather derive teonenu from Anan, a Cloud; imagining Moses to forbid them to mark the flying of the Clouds; or to make observations from their Motions; which was a thing common among the Gentiles. But Maimonides, who in the XI Chapter of Avoda Zara interprets it, as we do, of observing times, by esteeming one day fortunate, and another unfortunate; mentions another Notion of this word from ain, an eye: and saith in the same Treatise, that Jugglers, who delude men's sight, in playing their tricks, are comprehended under the Name of Meonim. And there are those also, who deriving this word from ana● to answer; think it intends such as pretended to tell their Fortunes.  
I shall not determine which of these is most likely; but only observe, that there was no Superstition of this sort more ancient than that of Astrology: which was in use among the old Chaldaeans, who pretended to cast men's Nativities (as we speak) and thence to tell their Fortunes. But this sort of Men were rejected, as Strabo tells us, Lib. XV. by the Astronomers of that Country: and so they were by the best Philosophers in other Nations, as Tully tells us, who calls their pretences Chaldaeorum Monstra, Lib. II. de Divin. And therefore no wonder God cautions his own People against them, as he doth not only here, but by his Prophets, especially Jeremiah X. 2, 3. Learn not the way of the Heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of Heaven, for the Heathen are dismayed at them, etc. But then this Caution was most necessary, when they were going Captives into that Country; which at that time was undoubtedly infected with this Error, but may be thought, perhaps, not to have been so in the days of Moses; and therefore I say no more of it, but this, That all those whom we call Jugglers, were sometimes comprehended under the Name of Chaldaeans: who seemed to perform wonderful things, as vomiting fire, and transforming Straws into Birds, etc. which relate to the other Notion of Meononu, derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies an eye: which they deluded by the slight of their hand, or other means.  
Some of the Jews confess, that their Nation is at this day extremely addicted to these things. See Wagonsail his Annot. on Sota, p. 529, etc. where he recites a long passage to this purpose, out of Fredericus Franciscus O●●ingensis a converted Jew; whom one of his own Nation undertaking to confute, he confirmed the Charge.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 Ye shall not round the corners of your head.] Or, The ends of the hair of your head. For the Hebrew word peah, which we translate corners, signifies also the ends or extremities of any thing: And the meaning is, they were not to cut their hair equal, behind and before; as the Worshippers of the Stars and the Planets; particularly the Arabians did (as R. Levi of Barcelonita interptets it, Precept. CCLU.) For this made their head have the form of an Haemisphere.  
The LXX. translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where Sisoe is the same with the Hebrew Sisith, which signifies that Lock, which was left in the hinder part of the head, the rest of the hair being cut in a Circle. And thus the ancient Arabians cut their hair, as Herodotus tells us, in imitation of Bacchus. Whence, as Bochartus notes (Lib. I. Canaan, cap. 6.) the Idumaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, and the rest of the Inhabitants of Arabia Deserta, are called circumcised in the corners, i. e. of the head, IX Jer. 26. And the Greek Scholiast on that place, saith, that in his time the Saracens were so cut.  
But there are those, who thinks this refers to a Superstitious Custom among the Gentiles, in their mourning for the dead. For they cut off their hair, and that round about; and threw it into the Sepulchre with the Bodies of their Relations and Friends: and sometimes laid it upon the Face, or the Breast of the dead, as an Offering to the Infernal Gods, whereby they thought to appease them, and make them kind to the deceased. For that this relates to the dead, is probable from the like Law, repeated XIV Deut. 1. and from the next Verse to this. See Maimonides de Idol. c. 12.1, 2, 5.  
Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.] There were five corners (as their phrase is) of their Beards; one on either Cheek, and one on either Lip, and one below on the Chin: None of which, much less all, they might shave off, as the manner of the Idolatrous Priests was; if we may believe Maimonides P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 37. But if the former have respect to their mourning for the dead, I do not see why this should not also be so interpreted: the Gentiles being wont (as Theodoret observes) to shave their Beards, and smite their Cheeks, at the Funerals of their Friends.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh.] Either with their Nails, or with Knives, or other sharp Instruments; as the manner of the Heathen was.  
For the dead.] To pacify the Infernal Spirits, and make them propitious to the dead; which was the end at which the Gentiles aimed in slashing themselves. Otherwise, simple tearing their Flesh out of great Grief and Anguish of Spirit, doth not seem to be prohibited, no more than tearing off their hair; which were in use among the Jews, without any offence against this Law, XVI Jer. 6, 7. XLI. 5. and other places. See Maimon. de Idol. cap. 13. sect. 10, 11, 12, 13. J. Gerard. Vossius de Idol. p. 209. Edit. 1. and Gierus de luctu Hebraeorum, cap. 10. sect. 2, 3. Huetius thinks that Law of Solon's, which was transcribed by the Romans into the XII Tables, That Women in mourning should not scratch their Cheeks, had its original from this Law of Moses, Demonstr. Evang. Propos. IV. cap. 12. n. 2.  
Nor print any mark upon you.] If this refer to the dead (as the foregoing Prohibition doth) than these Marks were made by the Gentiles in their Flesh, at the Funeral of their Friends; that by the Compunction and Pain they felt in their Bodies, they might Appease the Infernal Powers. And so Aben-Ezra understands it: though there be no footsteps, that I can find of this, in any other Author; but it is probable only, from what goes before. There is far greater reason for another Exposition, that these Prints were made in the Flesh, that they who had them might be known to belong to such or such a God. For it was the custom of Idolaters, saith the often-named R. Levi, Precept. CCLVII.) to devote themselves to their Gods, by Notes or Signs, signifying they were their Servants, (for every one knows, in future times, Slaves had Marks set upon them to certify to whom they belonged) redeemed with their price, and stamped with their mark. And these Marks were made with a hot Iron, in their Hands, Foreheads, or Necks: or they were pricked with a Needle dipped in Glastum, as he says, which made blue Spots in their Skin; as the manner was among the Arabians, especially the Scenitae. And they expressed either the very name of the God, to whose Service they were Consecrated; or else by a proper Character denoted whom they honoured: as a Thunderbolt signified they were devoted to Jupiter, a Spear or Helmet, to Mars; a Trident to Neptune, etc. And these were Signs (or Sacraments as we may call them) whereby they were solemnly addicted to their Worship.  
It is possible there might be some Nations then that made some Marks in their Flesh, as an Ornament to them: for at this day the Women in Greenland do not paint their Faces, which are very swarthy, but stigmatize them in several places, by drawing a Needle and Thread, dipped in Whale's grease, through the Skin, in what figure they please. Such Tho. Bartholinus saith he had seen; though he fancied they did not this as an ornament, but in token they were marriageable; for they that were not, had no such Marks, Anatom. Histor. Cent. IU. Hist. 90. But if any such thing were in use in ancient times, it easily might degenerate into the Idolatrous Custom : For nothing more certain than that they made such Marks in honour of Mars the God of Battle; and that he who devoted himself to Hercules, received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacred Marks, giving up himself to that God, as Herodotus speaks (Lib. II. cap. 13.) of one that fled to his Temple in Egypt. And Lucian saith of the Priests of the Syrian Goddess, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. they were all marked; some in their Wrists, others in their Necks: from whence all the Assyrians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, carry such Brands, or Marks, in their Flesh. And so are the Jews, that were initiated in the Egyptian Rites, said (by the Author of the Third Book of Maccabees) to be stigmatised with the Leaves of Ivy, which were the insignia of Bacchus. From which ancient practice, it is probable, Christians have derived the Custom of printing the Jerusalem Cross upon the Arms of those, who go to visit our Saviour's Sepulchre. See Tollius in Carmina inedita Gregor. Nazianz. p. 160. I shall add no more, but that the Jews themselves were so inclined to receive such a Badge as this, that they made no scruple to print the name of their own God in their Flesh: as appears by that saying mentioned by Schickard out of the Title Sopherim; If any Man write the name of GOD upon his flesh, let him neither wash, nor anoint in that place. See his Mishpat Hameleck, cap. II. Theorem V and Carpzovius his Annotations upon it.  
I am the LORD.] For this reason such Marks were forbidden, because the Israelites were peculiarly devoted to him, as their Sovereign Lord and Benefactor, (for the Syriack adds your God) and therefore were not to own any other but him: whose Mark they had received in Circumcision; which made all other absolutely unlawful.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore.] It is scarce to be imagined that any Man would prostitute his Daughter, to be a common Strumpet; though he might possibly overlook the lewdness to which she had given up herself. Therefore here in all probability, is prohibited the exposing their Daughters, as a piece of Religion, to the Service of such filthy Deities, as were worshipped in those days, by Acts of Uncleanness in their Temples. For which purpose both Men and Women were there kept, as Persons consecrated to such uses. Our great Selden hath observed something of this in his Discourse upon Succoth-Benoth. See Syntagma de Diis Syris II. cap. 7.  
Those are fansiful Interpretations which R. Elieser and R. Akiba make of these words; who say, a Man prostitutes his Daughter, who did not get her a Husband when she was marriageable; or married her to an old Man, Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 9 n. 1.  
Lest the Land fall to whoredom.] Unto which nothing could contribute so much, as to make Whoredom a piece of Religion.  
And the Land become full of wickedness.] By such abominable Idolatries (as St. Peter calls them) and many other foul sins, particularly Murders, which flowed from hence; as Maimonides observes in his More Nevoch. P. III. c. 49.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 Ye shall keep my Sabbaths.] Not the days consecrated by the Gentiles to the Service of their Gods: but the Solemn days which I have appointed for the remembrance of my benefits. See v. 2.  
And reverence my Sanctuary.] This Reverence consisted principally, in coming to it so prepared as the Law required; in such Purity and Cleanness as was there prescribed; and then behaving themselves there with an awful Humility. But the better to secure this Reverence, the Masters in Israel ordained, that no Man should come into the Mountain of the House, with a Staff, or a Sword, or a Girdle with a Purse, or with Shoes on his feet: and that no Man should spit there, nor make it a thoroughfare; nor go out of it with his back towards the Sanctuary; but go backward leisurely with his face towards it, till he was out of the Gate, etc. So Maimonides in his Beth Habechira, cap. 7. R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCXXI. and see Petrus Cunaeus, Lib. II. cap. 12. de Republ. Hebr.  
But the great thing which secured the Reverence due to the Sanctuary, was, that which I mentioned at first, the strict Purity from all Legal Defilements, with which they were to be prepared: which made it very difficult to be in a condition to approach it. For when there were so many ways of being defiled, and so much time required to make Men clean again, and so many things, in many Cases, to be done for that purpose, it was not possible that they should be fit to come thither very often, without exceeding great care and diligence: as I observed before out of the same Maimonides, P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 47. Which very much tended to preserve their Reverence to the Sanctuary. For Men led by sense, as they were, make nothing of those places to which they may go when they please: but those to which they cannot be admitted, without much Solemnity, and only at certain times, and after great pains to fit themselves for it, they are apt to have in great esteem.  
I am the LORD.] Whose Majesty dwelled in that House: unto which therefore no Body might approach, either for Prayer or for Sacrifice, without an awful sense of him. For so Maimonides explains it, in the place now named; The Sanctuary itself was not to be reverenced, but he who commanded that reverence.  
Nor did this Reverence belong only to the Tabernacle or Temple, instituted by God's express Command; for that Ceremonial Service, which was unlawful to be performed any where else (for then it might seem proper only to that Ceremonial Dispensation, and to be now vanished under the Gospel) but the perpetual practice of the Jewish Nation shows, that they thought themselves obliged by this Precept to use Reverence in their Synagogues. Which were neither instituted by any written Precept of the Law, nor for any Ceremonial Service, which was confined to the Temple: but for public Assemblies, to hear the Law read and expounded; and to offer the Prayers of the People to God. For in the Psalms of Asaph (where there is the only mention we find of Synagogues in the Old Testament) they are called, not only Houses and Assemblies of God, but also Sanctuaries (as the word is here in Moses) LXXIII Psal. 17. LXXIV. 4, 7, 8. LXXXIII. 12. See Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State, p. 213.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 Regard not them.] Do not go to consult them; nor follow their Directions.  
That have familiar spirits.] It is uncertain what is here meant by Oboth; which we translate familiar Spirits. But the word Ob signifying a Bottle, or hollow Vessel, XXXII Job 19 the Jews think it probable that Oboth here signifies such as the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who had a Spirit or Daemon speaking out of the Belly, or Chest, with an hollow voice, as if it came out of a Bottle. So the Woman whom Saul went to consult, is called baalath ob, a Mistress of such a Spirit: where it is plain ob signifies the Spirit, or Daemon, (See XX. 27.) and he or she that had familiarity with such a Spirit, was properly called Baal, or Baalath ob, the Master or Mistress who possessed it, and gave Answers by it, with a voice that seemed to come out of the lower parts of the Belly. In one place indeed the LXX. translates it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, XIX Isa. 3. They that speak out of the Earth; because the Voice coming from the lower parts of her that was possessed, seemed to come out of the Earth; as Mr. Selden explains it in de Diis Syris.  
R. Levi of Barcelonita saith the manner of it was thus, (Precept. CCLVIII after certain Fumes, and other Ceremonies, a Voice seemed to come from under the Armholes (so he takes it, and so it is said in Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 7.) of the Person that had the familiar Spirit, which answered to the Questions which were asked. For this he quotes Siphra. But if it came from under the Armholes, still it was so low and hollow, as if it had been out of the bottom of the Belly, or the Cavities of the Earth. Others imagine such Persons had the name of Oboth, because they were swelled with the Spirit, as a Bladder is when it is blown. However it was, this continued till the times of the Gospel, as appears from XVI Acts 16. For she that had the Spirit of Python was the same with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Plutarch informs us. See Casaubon and L. de Dieu on that place. The famous Pythia, who delivered the Oracles of Apollo, sat over a hole, and by her Secrets Parts received the Spirit which swollen her, and made her utter Oracles, as Origen observes, Lib. VII. contra Celsum; and St. Chrysostom, Hom. XXIX. in I Epist. ad Corinth. See Beyerus in his Annot. upon Selden de Diis Syris, p. 226, etc.  
There are those that look upon all that these Authors say, as old Stories to which no Credit is to be given. But Aug. Eugabinus affirms, That he himself had seen such Women, called Ventriloquae, (which is the same with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) from whom, as they sat, a Voice came out of their Secret Parts, and gave Answers to Inquiries. And Caelius Rhodoginus (Lib. VIII. Antiq. Lect. cap. 10.) saith this is not to be entertained with Laughter; for not only he saw such a Woman, and heard a very small Voice coming out of her Belly; but innumerable other People, not only at Rhodigium, but in a manner through all Italy. Among whom there were many great Persons (who had her stripped naked, that they might be sure there was no fraud) to whom a Voice answered unto such things as they enquired. Hieron. Oleaster also upon XXIV Isa. 4. saith, he saw such an one at Lisbon; from under whose Armholes, and other parts of her, a small Voice was heard, which readily answered to whatever was asked.  
Neither seek after Wizards.] The Hebrew word Jideonim importing Knowledge, as all confess, signifies such as we call Cunning-men; who pretended to tell what was lost, or what Fortune people should have. And these were Men (as far as I can judge) as the other were mostly Women; who held intelligence with some Daemon. For this word seems to have the very same derivation in Hebrew, which the other hath in Greek: for all say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, knowers; and Jideonim are as much as Joadim, which is the very same, futurorum conscij, as Mr. Selden observes. And so the LXX. translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Kings XXI. 7. though here and XX. ult. they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This knowledge they pretended to obtain, (as some think) by looking into the Entrails of their Sacrifices: or, as Maimonides will have it, by putting the Bone of a certain Bird, called Jadua, into their Mouths, with certain Fumes and Adjurations; which made them fall into an Ecstasy, and foretell things to come, R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCLIX. And there are those who think that these Jideonim were such as pretended by Charms to cure Diseases, etc. of which we can have no certainty, and it seems to rely only on the LXX. in this place, who, as I observed, translate it by a more general word, in another.  
To be defiled by them.] With the foulest sins. For seeking to these, was a forsaking of God; and one peculiar kind of Idolatry. And therefore they that were guilty of it were to be stoned (as the same R. Levi observes) if they committed this sin knowingly, and there were Witnesses of it. If there were no Witnesses, than they were left to God to be cut off by his hand, XX. 6.  
I am the LORD your God.] Unto whom you are to seek for all that you desire.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head.] That they might accustom themselves to Modesty and Humility, (as Maimonides glosses upon this Law, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 36.) for the maintenance of which the usage was, they say, to rise up to them, when they were at the distance of four Cubits: and as soon as they were gone by, to sit down again; that it might appear they risen up purely in respect to them. To this Nature directed all civilised People; who anciently, as Juvenal says, satire. XIII. believed this a great wickedness, to be punished with death, if a young Man did not rise up to an old. 
Credebant hoc grande nefas, & morte piandum,  
Si juvenis vetulo non assurrexerat,—  And such a Law there was established among the Lacedæmonians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That aged Persons should be reverenced no less, than if they were their Fathers. And so Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let every one reverence him that is elder than himself, in deed and in word, Lib. IX. de Legibus, p. 875. Where he requires that a Youth should honour a Stranger that was his ancient: and hath this memorable saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That Youth should glory more in obeying well, than in ruling well. And first of all in obeying the Laws; for this is all one with serving God: and next in giving honour to old Men; and to those especially, who have passed their days honourably, and with glory. See more to this purpose in Henricus Stephanus de juris civilis font. & rivis. And there was the greater reason for this Reverence toward old Men in this Nation, there being nothing else among them but Age and Experience that could distinguish them: for they were all equally noble, and equally rich; of the same Profession, and brought up in the same manner.  
And honour the face of the old Man.] Or of the Elder: that is, of those who were skilful in the Law, as the Jews interpret it; and I see no reason to contradict it, (as some have done) since he speaks of aged Persons before. See Mr. Selden, Lib. I. de Synedr. cap. 14. where he deduces this at large: and another excellent Writer of our own, Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Christian State, p. 214, etc. For if such as taught the Law had not been honoured before Men, no body would have minded their words, nor received what they propounded, about things to be known or to be done, as Maimonides words are in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 36. And it made no difference of what Age he was, whether an old Man or a young; (for some Elders, it appears by Daniel, were not aged) but the same honour was given to him, even by wise Men; as R. Levi Barcelonita shows, Precept. CCXXII.  
And fear thy God.] This is the fountain of all Virtue; particularly of the : God having imprinted a venerable Character upon those who are grown aged, especially on such as are wise, and instruct others in Virtue. But some of the Hebrews think that in this Verse there are three Degrees of Honour enjoined, to three Ranks of Men: one to the Aged; the next to the Wise and Learned; and the third to the Judges; who they imagine are here meant by Elohim (God) whom they are commanded to fear or reverence.  
I am the LORD.] Most high above all; and therefore greatly to be feared.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your Land, ye shall not vex him.] Not so much as by upbraiding him with his being a Stranger; or his having worshipped Idols heretofore. For of such a Stranger they understand this, as was become a Proselyte to their Religion. See XVII. 8, 12, 13. and XXII Exod. 21. But common Humanity teaches every Body, to be kind to all manner of Strangers, and not merely to refrain from oppressing them, or giving them vexation. Plato hath most excellent Discourses about this in several places: particularly Lib. V de Legibus, where he shows, that God is the Avenger of all Wrongs done to Strangers, more than of those that are done to our fellow Citizens: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For a Stranger being destitute of Friends and Kindred, is the greater object of pity, both of Men and of God. And therefore he that can hurt most, should be most ready to help him, etc. See p. 729, 730. Edit. Serrani. Upon which account he makes it lawful for a Stranger to pluck any of the best Fruit, as he is upon his way, whether Grapes, Figs, or Apples, etc. Lib. VIII. p. 845. And the Corn being divided, as he would have it into twelve parts; and a twelfth part divided into three; he order one of those third parts to be given to Strangers, p. 847, 848. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a Stranger or Sojourner ought to be comforted, in a most friendly manner, etc. See Lib. XII. p. 952, 953.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with thee, shall be as one born among you.] They understand this only of such a Stranger, who by Circumcision was become a perfect Proselyte: whom they were to be so far from oppressing, that they were to treat him as if he had been a Native Jew, and love him as a Brother.  
And thou shalt love him as thyself.] He had commanded them, v. 18. to love their Neighbour; i. e. an Israelite (they expound it) as themselves: and now he commands them to love a Stranger with the same Affection; which demonstrates, they think, he was become an Israelite; and therefore was to have the same Privileges with themselves, both in all Civil and Sacred things. And this, no doubt, was true that they were bound to treat such a Proselyte with a tender Affection, and to make no difference between him and an Israelite. For he was to be admitted to eat of the Paschal Lamb, and of the Peace-offerings: and he might marry with an Israelite; insomuch that Moses saith, One Ordinance shall be for both, XV Numb. 15. All the difference I can find, was, That they never admitted any Stranger to be a Member of the great Sanhedrim. But notwithstanding all this, I cannot think it reasonable to exclude all other Strangers from their Affection; but they were bound to love them, and to be kind to them, though not to embrace them with such a strict Friendship as the other. And to confirm this, it may be observed, That in the fourth Commandment, the Stranger within their Gate signifies, as they confess, not him that was a perfect Proselyte, but only one that had renounced Idolatry. And so they understand the word Stranger in the XXVth Chapter of this Book, v. 47. and I see no reason why such a Stranger should not be admitted here to have a share in their Affection, who was become a Worshipper of the true God, though he had not taken upon him to observe the whole Law.  
For ye were strangers in the Land of Egypt.] This Reason is little less than a Demonstration that such Strangers as I now mentioned, are comprehended in the foregoing Precept. For the remembrance of what their Condition was in Egypt, is that whereby they are moved to have pity on those whom they found among themselves in the same: and they and the Egyptians were not of the same Religion, but found such kind entertainment there a long time, as they were to give to those who were of their Religion.  
This Argument indeed became stronger, when any Persons were incorporated with them, and become more one with them than they were with the Egyptians; but was of great force to procure kindness to those who did not live by their Laws.  
I am the LORD your God.] Who have done so much for you when you were mere Strangers, that you should not stick to be kind to those who are in the like Condition.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement.] The Hebrews refer this word judgement to all the following particulars; and think that Moses uses it here to show of what moment this Law is, which he calls doing judgement. So that he who measures or weighs, hath the Office of a Judge; and if he commit any fraud in his Measures or Weights, he is a corrupter of Judgement, and is called wicked, abominable, accursed. They are the words of R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCLX. where he adds that such Men are the cause of five Mischiefs, which are imputed to unjust Judges: who defile the Land; profane the Name of God; remove the Presence of the Divine Majesty; bring a Sword upon the People; and at last carry them captive out of their own Country. And therefore great Punishments have been enacted in all Countries against this Crime, as destructive to Human Society: Particularly Justinian ordained that such Offenders should be beaten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sorely, as impious People.  
In mete-yard.] By which they measured Lands, Cloth, and such like things: for Middah (as Fosterus observes) is the Measure of continued quantity, viz. in things dry.  
In weight.] By which they paid and received Money in those days; and sold Brass and Iron, and things of like nature.  
Or in measure.] The Hebrew word Mesurah (from whence seems to come the Latin Mensura, and our English word Measure) denotes the Measure of Discrete Quantity (as we speak) as of Corn; and of all continued Fluid Quantity, as of Wine and Oil. And the forenamed R. Levi will have it to signify the very lest of such Measures; about which, saith he, the Law concerns itself, that Men should be exact in them, as well as in the greatest. And so Hesychius here notes, that Moses provides against all Injustice in small things, as well as in great: for what the possession of a Field, or a House is to a wealthy Man, that the measure of Wine or Corn, or the weight of Bread is to the Poor, who have daily need of such things for the support of their Life.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Just balances, just weights.] This Verse only positively requires strict justice in those things, wherein the former Verse forbade all deceit. And these two words refer to things sold by weight.  
A just Ephah and a just Hin shall ye have.] These two words Ephah and Hin, comprehend all sorts of Measures of things, whether wet or dry. And that they might have such just Weights and Measures among them, the Standard of them was kept in the Sanctuary, by which all were to be governed; as appears from 1 Chron. XXIII. 29. See XXX Exod. 13. The Jewish Doctors also say, that it was a Constitution of their wise Men, for the preventing all Fraud in these matters, that no Weights, Balances, or Measures should be made of any Metal, as of Iron, Led, Tin, etc. (which were obnoxious to rust, or might be bend, or easily impaired) but of Marble, Stone, or Glass, which were less liable to be abused.  
For these Constitutions Moses was so famous, that his Name was celebrated on the account of them in other Nations. Nay, Lucius Ampelius (a rude kind of Writer, but who had collected much out of better Authors) saith, that Mochus was the Inventor of Scales and Weights; and that his memory is preserved in the Constellation called Libra. Now if for Mochus we read Moschos, it is the very name of Moses in Hebrew (viz. Moscheh) who is called so by other Authors, as the learned Huetius observes in his Demonstr. Evang. Propos. IV. cap. 7. n. 16.  
I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt.] This is the general reason for their Obedience; which is repeated in this Chapter above a dozen times. Sometimes more briefly, I am the LORD; and sometimes a little larger, I am the LORD your God: and here with this addition, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt. Whereby he in a special manner demonstrates himself, both to be their LORD (faithful to his promise, VI Exod. 3.) and their God: who obliged them to his Service, by the most singular benefit.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes and all my judgements, and do them.] These words, Statutes and Judgements, comprehend all the Laws of God: some of which were Prohibitions, which they were to mark and observe diligently, so as to abstain from such things; and others Precepts or Commands, which they were to practise and do according to them.  
I am the LORD.] No more need be said to engage your Obedience in every thing than this, that I am your Sovereign, and the Sovereign of the whole World.   

CHAP. XX.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Sometime after the delivery of the Laws mentioned in the two foregoing Chapters; the chief of them were enforced with the addition of Penalties, which are set down in this Chapter.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Again, thou shalt say to the Children of Israel.] Repeat what I said before (XVIII. 21.) and add this which follows unto it.  
Whosoever he be of the Children of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth among you.] The Proselytes, who had embraced their Religion, were no less concerned in this Law, than the Native Israelites. See XVII. 8, 10, etc.  
That giveth any of his seed unto Molech.] This looks like the Prohibition before given XVIII. 21. and R. Levi gives this reason of its repartition, because it was a piece of Idolatrous Worship so usual in those days, when the Law was delivered, that there needed great endeavours to preserve them from it, Precept. CCVIII. And Maimonides also observes (as I noted upon XVIII. 21.) that Idolaters used to fright People into this Worship, by telling them their Children would die, if they did not make them pass through the fire, and thereby devote them to their Gods. But upon due consideration of these words, it may appear probable that there is something more in them than in the former; importing a higher degree of this sin. For to give their Children to Molech, seems to be no less than to offer them in Sacrifices, (So Christ giving himself for us constantly signifies in the New Testament) which was a more horrid thing, than merely making them pass through the fire, which did them no hurt. And therefore this Crime is here forbidden under the Penalty of Death; whereas in the XVIIIth Chapter no punishment is threatened. Certain it is, Children were really burnt upon the Altars of the ancient Pagans, especially in times of great Distress, when they hoped to pacify the Anger of their Gods, by offering to them the dearest thing they had. See our great Selden Lib. de Diis Syris Syntagm I. cap. 6. where he shows the Phaenicians offered their Children to Saturn, (so Porphyrius expressly says, Lib. II. de Abstin.) who is said by the Poets to have devoured his own Children; and by many is thought to be the same with Molech. Though others take it for the Sun, to whom it is certain Human Sacrifices were offered. Many Authors make mention of it; and Eben Batrich thinks such Sacrifices began in the days of Serug, and were first used among the Syrians. Which is a very probable Opinion, as Johan. Geusius hath demonstrated, Lib. de Victimis Humanis, Pars I. cap. 4, 5. And it is easy to conceive how, from the Syrians, this abominable practice was derived to the Phaenicians, who worshipped the Sun, under the name of Baal, or Bel, as Herodian, Lib. VIII. testifies. Which doth not contradict what others say, that they were devoted to the Worship of Hercules: for by him is meant the Sun also, as his very name imports, viz. Or-Col, which in that Language signifies as much as him that illuminates all things. From the Phaenicians this Worship of offering Human Sacrifices, was propagated to the Carthaginians, and other People of Africa, among whom this impious Idolatry continued till the time of Hannibal, as Bochartus gathers out of Silius Italicus, Lib. IU. 
Mos fuit in populis quos condidit advena Dido  
Poscere caede Deos veniam, ac flagrantibus aris,  
Infandum dictu, parvos imponere natos.  Who says the Carthaginians were wont to appease their Gods, by burning their Children on their Altars: and then follows (after the words now mentioned) the Lamentation of Imilce the Wife of Annibal, whose Son was, by lot, to be sacrificed, Lib. I. Canaan, cap. 28. And this wicked Custom continues still to this day, among some of the People in the Southern Parts of Africa, as good Authors affirm; it having spread itself all over the World (as appears by the Discoveries that have been made in America) even into the Northern Countries of Scythia. But I shall content myself with observing only what the Scripture saith concerning a People in the East, called Sepharvites, who burned their Children in the fire to Adramelech, 2 Kings XVII. 31. which God seems to have been the same with Molech here mentioned by Moses; only with the addition of an Epithet signifying their high opinion of him: For Adra is as much as potent or mighty, and therefore Melech signifying a King; Adramelech is in our Language mighty King. Now that the Children of Israel, notwithstanding this severe Prohibition against it, imitated this barbarous Worship, is evident from 2 Kings XXIII. 10. VII Jer. 31. XIX. 5. CVI Psal. 37, 38. and we may very well think the Prophet Micah also alludes to it, VI 7. as Isaiah LVII. 5, 6. and Ezekiel XVI. 20, 21, 36. XXIII. 37, 39 likewise do.  
The manner of Sacrificing their Children, and the figure of the Idol to which they offered, is described by many, according to the Jewish Notion; particularly by Paulus Fagius out of Jalkut: who makes it an hallow Image, having seven Apartments in it (according to the number, I suppose, of the seven Planets) into one of which, viz. the lowest, the Infant was thrown when it was red hot, as Flour, a Turtle Dove, a Sheep, etc. were into the rest. We can have no certainty of this, but such kind of Statues were found in the West-Indies when they were discovered, as Ludovicus Vives observes in Lib. VI cap. 19 de Civitate Dei. And Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca, Lib. XX. describes the Statue of Saturn among the Carthaginians, as stretching forth its hands down toward the Earth; so that the Child which was put into them, might roll and fall, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a gulf full of fire. Benjamin Tudelensis in his Travels (about 500 years ago) affirms, that in some Islands in the East, the Worshippers of Fire were wont to leap into it, in performance of some Solemn Vow, and were counted by all to be happy Men. Which I mention here, because he says these Fires were kindled in a Valley, as those among the Jews were in the Valley of Hinnom, p. 108, 109.  
He shall surely be put to death.] Sufficient proof being made of the Fact, XVII Deut. 6.  
The people of the Land shall stone him with stones.] Which was the proper Punishment in this, and in some other Cases; particularly Adultery, v. 10. and Blasphemy, XXIV. 14, etc. The manner of it is described out of an Hebrew MS. (Ez Hechajim) by J. Wagenseil upon Sota, cap. 3. to have been thus: He that was to be punished with stoning was stripped naked, having only a covering before, and set upon an high place, attended by the Witnesses against him, his hands being bound: one of the Witnesses giving him a strong push, threw him down headlong from thence. If this fall killed him, there was an end: But if Life remained in him, the Witnesses took up a Stone, which was laid there on purpose, as big as two Men could lift, and threw it upon him; and before he quite expired, all the People that stood by threw stones at him, according to the Law, XVII Deut. 7. A Woman was only stripped to her shift.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people.] In case, that is, there was not sufficient proof against him, God threatens that he himself would take care to punish him, by cutting him off from the Land of the Living. R. Bechai, and others, observe that this cutting off is threefold in the Law: one is, the cutting off the Body, i. e. shortening men's lives; which is threatened to six sins in Scripture. The second is, the excision of the Soul only: which is threatened by Moses six and twenty times; and particularly to incestuous Marriages. The third is, excision both of Soul and Body: which is threatened to fifteen sins; among which they reckon this of giving their Children to Molech. See Selden, Lib. VII. de Jure N. & G. sec. Hebr. cap. 9 p. 828, 829, etc.  
To defile my Sanctuary.] By this Sin God's Sanctuary was defiled, as well as his holy Name profaned, because they sacrificed to Molech in other places, despising the Tabernacle, which was the only place appointed by God, where Divine Service was to be performed. And therein consisted part of the Honour and Reverence which God required to his Sanctuary, (XIX. 30.) that it should be looked upon as the only place, where acceptable Sacrifices could be offered to him. And therefore then it was dishonoured and defiled, when they offered Sacrifice in any other place, as they did, in after times, to Molech in the Valley of Hinnom, as I observed before, 2 Kings XXIII. 10. Where they built High Places to Baal (which is another name for the Sun) on purpose that they might offer their Children upon them, XX Jer. 5, 6. XXXII. 35. This was a plain Contempt of God, and of his Sanctuary, which they forsook as if it had not been an holy, but a defiled place. Otherwise they would have kept to it, and offered no where else; nor after any other manner than according to the Rites thereof.  
And to profane my holy Name.] By giving the Name of God and his Honour, to such an abominable Idol.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 If the People of the Land.] In that part of the Country where this Crime was committed.  
Do any way hid their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not.] If they connived at what he did, and dissembled their knowledge of it; or would not speak the whole Truth, and endeavour to convict him of this foul Crime, that he might be stoned.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 Then will I set my face against that man, and against his family.] As the Idolater was liable to this punishment, from the hand of Heaven, (See v. 3.) so they that favoured him, and would not testify against him when they knew him guilty, fell under God's high displeasure, (which is meant by setting his face against them) and so did all their Children, whom God threatens to destroy. He speaks indeed in the singular number, because commonly in such cases, there was some one Person, by whose Authority others were persuaded to wink at such Offences, and not to discover what they knew of them. But all such Men are threatened with the Divine Vengeance in the next words.  
And will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, etc.] That is, all others who, following his Example, favour such Idolaters, and protect them from punishment. For every one knows that Idolatry is called by the name of Whoredom in Scripture; because God having espoused the Israelites to himself, as his peculiar People their forsaking him, to serve other Gods, was a Spiritual Adultery.  
To commit whoredom with Molech.] i. e. To worship him as their God.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the soul.] i. e. The Person.  
That turneth after such as hath familiar spirits, and after wizards.] Who they were that pretended to have familiar Spirits, or were Wizards, see XIX. 31. where they are commanded not to regard them: and here, if any did consult them (which is called turning after them) cutting off is threatened to them; that is, shortening their days: for such Persons are reckoned by the Jews, as the chief of those six sorts of sinners, who were liable to the first kind of Excision, which I mentioned v. 3. As for the Man himself who had a familiar Spirit, or was a Wizard, he was to be stoned, if he was discovered and convicted, v. 27. And so they observe in Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 7.  
To go a whoring after them.] It was a kind of Idolatry to seek to such People for advice or relief; being a forsaking of God, and putting confidence in them. Though sometimes to go a whoring, signifies the commission of any grievous sin, which Idolatry usually led men unto; as Mr. Selden hath noted Lib. III. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 23.  
There is some reason to think, there was something magical in the Oblation of their Children to Molech; and that thereby they consulted with Daemons about things future, or secret; because such Superstitions are here immediately forbidden, after the Prohibition of giving their Children to Molech; and because they are frequently joined together in other places, as in XVIII Deut. 10, 11. 2 Kings XVII. 17. XXI. 6. Certain it is, that in after times they did Sacrifice Children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they might Divine, by looking into their Bowels, as Joh. ●●●sius hath shown out of Porphyrius, Philostratus, Herodotus, and others, Lib. de Victimis Humanis, Pars I. cap. 17.  
I will even set my face against that soul, etc.] See v. 3, 5.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 Sanctify yourselves therefore.] Worship therefore God alone; to whose Service you are set apart.  
And be ye holy.] Keep yourselves free from all Idolatry. See 11.44.  
I am the LORD your God.] See XIX. 2, 3, 10, etc.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And ye shall keep my Statutes and do them.] Be governed by these Laws, and not by the Customs of other People.  
I am the LORD which sanctify you.] Separated you to myself from all other People; by peculiar Laws which I have given you.  
Ver. 9 For every one.] Or, If any one: the Particle we translate for signifying frequently with, or if.  
That curseth his Father or Mother.] Reproacheth them with Imprecations.  
Shall surely be put to death.] i. e. Be stoned. And it made no difference, whether he cursed them when they were alive, or after their death, as R. Levi Barcelonita says the Rule of their Doctors was, yet they resolve that unless he cursed them by some proper name of God, he was not liable to be put to death, but was only scourged, Precept. CCLXI. See XXI Exod. 17.  
His blood shall be upon him.] When the Law only saith a man shall die the death, the Jews understand it of strangling; which was the easiest punishment among them. For where there was not an express mention of the kind of death, they thought the most favourable was to be inflicted. But when the Law adds, his blood shall be upon him, they say it is meant of stoning. And the meaning of this phrase is, he shall perish by his own fault; and therefore his blood, that is, his death, shall not be vindicated. The blood of one that was slain being innocent, was upon the Murderer, and therefore avenged. But he that was put to death for his Crimes, had his Blood upon himself, and no body was to bear it, the Executioner himself being not guilty of Blood.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, etc.] By the ancient Law of Draco and Solon, the Husband of the Adulteress, if he found them in the fact, might kill them both, or put out their Eyes, or stigmatize them; or make the Adulterer pay a Fine, if he had a mind to spare his Life. See Meursius in his Themis Attica, Lib. I. cap. 4, 5. and the Leges Atticae set forth by Petitus, Lib. VI Tit. 4. where it appears that it was infamous for the Husband to live with his Wife, after she had committed Adultery: And that it was unlawful for her to enter into the public Temples, or go dressed in the Streets. If she did, any body might tear off her Clothes, and beat her; only not kill her. See S. Petiti Comment. p. 460. etc.  
The adulterer and adulteress shall surely be put to death.] It is not left to the Husband's liberty, by this Law, whether he would spare their Lives or no: but the Fact being proved, they were both to die for it. Only it is not said here, what kind of Death they should suffer: nor was the same kind of Death inflicted upon all that were guilty of this Crime. For if the Daughter of a Priest played the Adulteress, she was to be burnt, XXI. 9 and the Adulterer to be strangled, as the Jews understand it. If a man lay with a Virgin espoused to another man, but not yet married, they were both to be stoned, by the express words of the Law, XXII Deut. 23. But Adultery with a married Woman, if we may credit the Jewish Doctors, was punished with strangling. See Selden, Lib. III. Vxor. Hebr. cap. 2. For when we meet with this phrase, they shall surely die, it is always meant of Death by the Sentence of the House of Judgement (as they speak) and if the Law add no more, they resolve it to be by strangling. If these words be added, their blood shall be upon them, than they say, they were to be stoned. This I observed before; and shall add now, that strangling, as they describe it, was not such a punishment as our hanging men by the neck: but the Criminal, being stuck up to the knees in dung, they tied a Napkin about his Neck, and drawing it hard at both ends, choked him. There was such a thing as hanging men on a Gallows, (as we speak) but it was after they were dead, and only such as had been stoned: and not all them neither; but such alone as had been stoned for Blasphemy, or Adultery. See Joh. Carpzovius upon Schickard's Jus Regium, cap. 4. Theorem. XIV.  
The greatest thing that can be objected against this account of the punishment of Adultery, is that which St. John tells us the Jews said concerning the Woman taken in the very act of it, Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned, VIII Joh. 5. But it may be answered, that this Woman was espoused only, and not yet married: and so by the Law, as I observed before, was to be stoned, XXII Deut. 23, 24. If this seem absurd, that the Adultery of one espoused should be accounted a greater Crime than of one married (for stoning was an heavier punishment than strangling) it ought to be considered, that the love of those who were newly espoused, was commonly more fervent than theirs who were married; especially among the Jews, who for light causes were wont to be divorced from their Wives. And therefore no wonder if the Adultery of the former was judged a greater Crime than of the latter.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife, etc.] This was condemned before, as an heinous sin (XVIII. 8.) and now the penalty of Death is inflicted upon the Offenders.  
Their blood shall be upon them.] All the Hebrew Doctors agree, that wheresoever we meet with this phrase, it is meant of stoning; as I before observed.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 If a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death.] This was forbidden XVIII. 15. and the same penalty is here enacted, as against the former Crime.  
They have wrought confusion.] By perverting the order which God hath appointed, and making great disturbance in the Family, etc. It is the same word that is used for a more foul sin, XVIII. 23. and therefore shows this to be an abominable mixture.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 If a man also lie with mankind, etc.] This also was condemned before, XVIII. 22. but the penalty not declared till now.  
They shall surely be put to death, etc.] By stoning; unless one of them was under a force, and then that Law took place, which we find XXII Deut. 25, 26.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness.] See XVIII. 17.  
They shall be burnt with fire.] Which was an higher punishment than stoning, as that was higher than strangling. R. Levi Barcelonita, Precept. CCXXIU describes the manner of it to have been thus: They set the Malefactor in dung up to the knees, and then tied a Cloth about his Neck, which was drawn by the two Witnesses, till they made his Mouth gape; into which they poured hot melted Lead down his Throat, which burned his bowels. And thus the rest of the Talmudists expound it. But I see no good Authority they have for it; the word for burning being the same that is used, when mention is made of burning with Fire and Faggots, as we speak. And R. Elieser ben Zadock saith he saw a Priest's Daughter thus burnt for Fornication. But the Doctors commonly say the Judges were ignorant of the Law; or that they were saducees who then had got into the Seat of Judgement, who followed the very Letter of the Scripture.  
Both he and they.] That is, both the Mother and Daughter, if the Mother were consenting to it. Otherwise, only the Woman that offended. From whence the Karaites form this Rule, after the same manner that men were obliged by a Precept in Scripture, the Women were obliged also, Selden. Lib. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 5.  
That there be no wickedness among you.] That others may be deterred from the commission of such enormous Crimes: For the Hebrew word imports more than ordinary wickedness. See XVIII. 17.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death.] See XVIII. 23. This Death was by stoning, as appears from the next Verse.  
And ye shall slay the beast.] Just as they were to destroy, not only the Inhabitants of an Apostate City, but their  also, etc. (XIII Deut. 15, 16.) to terrify others from committing the like sin. And, as the Talmudists observe, that there might be no Memorial left of so foul a Crime, by men's pointing at the Beast, and saying, There goes the Beast that such a Man lay with. They might have added, to prevent monstrous Births. See Selden, Lib. I. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 4. Maimonides gives a good reason, why a Beast that killed a Man should be slain; as a punishment to the Owner, for looking no better after it: but his application of it to this matter seems impertinent, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 40. Bochartus his Gloss is far better; The Beast was killed as an Instrument in the Crime; just as a Forger of Deeds is hanged with his Pen and Counterfeit Seals; and a Conjurer with his Magical Books and Characters. And this also is useful for an Example, though not to other Beasts, yet to Men; whose concern it is to consider that if Beasts were not spared, who were not capable of sinning, what would become of them, who committed such Crimes, against the known Law of God, and the impressions of Nature itself, Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. 2. cap. 16.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 Their blood shall be upon them.] This relates to the Man and the Woman (mentioned in these two Verses) who committed this foul Crime: for a Beast is not capable of punishment. But as the Canon Law speaks, Pecora inde credendum est jussa interfici, quia tali flagitio contaminata refricant facti memoriam, it is to be believed that the Beasts which were polluted with such a flagitious wickedness, were therefore commanded to be slain, because they rubbed up the memory of the Fact. Which is the very reason given of it in the Mischna, Tit. Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 4. And so R. Solomon, The Beast was killed, lest it should be said, there is the Beast for which such a Woman was put to death.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 If a man shall take his sister, etc.] Whether she was his Sister by the whole Blood, (as we speak) or by half Blood only; by the Father's side, or Mothers; he was not permitted to marry her by the Law mentioned XVIII. 9  
And see her nakedness.] It is the same with uncovering her nakedness to lie with her; as it is there expressed, and here in the end of the Verse (he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness) the sense of seeing being put for that of touching, or any other in this Language.  
It is a wicked thing.] A flagitious, or nefarious wickedness, as the Vulgar expresses it. But the Hebrew word Chesed signifying sometimes in the Prophetical Language Mercy and Indulgence, the Talmudists take these words, as if they came in by a Parenthesis, to obviate an Objection which might be made, that Cain and Abel married their Sisters. True, saith Moses, that was by an indulgence in the beginning, arising from the necessity of things; when there were none but Brothers and Sisters in the World. But now they shall be cut off in the sight of their People, who marry such near Relations. So the Gemara Hierosol. ad Tit. Sanhedrim. See Selden, Lib. V de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 8. p. 581. And so the Chaldee Paraphrase, ascribed to Jonathan, whose words are these; It is a filthy thing; but I used an indulgence to the first Men by whom the World was to be propagated, until Mankind was sufficiently multiplied: after that, whosoever doth any such thing, let him be cut off, etc.  
And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people.] Publicly put to death. See v. 10.  
He shall bear his iniquity.] i. e. The punishment of it, Chap. V 1.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if a man shall lie with a Woman, having her sickness, etc.] Here the Sentence of Death is pronounced upon them; whereas in XV. 24. it is only said, the Man should be unclean seven days. Therefore many think in that place he speaks of doing this ignorantly; and here of doing it knowingly. But if the Man might be ignorant of the condition she was in, the Woman herself could scarce be so: and therefore others think, when the fact was altogether private, they only incurred a Legal Impurity for a certain season; but when it was publicly known, and proof made of it before a Judge, it was a capital Crime. Because it was done in contempt and despite of the Law: otherwise, it could not have been so publicly known, as to be legally proved. Whether this Law oblige in the state of Christianity, is at large discussed by Bishop Taylor (not to mention other Writers abroad) in his Doctor Dubitantium, Book II. Chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 8. and Book III. Chap. 2. Rule 2. n. 3. etc.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, etc.] See XVIII. 12, 13.  
They shall bear their iniquity.] It not being said, they shall die, or be cut off, (as in the former cases) it hath made some conclude this Sin, being not of so high a nature as the foregoing, was punished only as those that follow v. 20, 21. where they that committed them are threatened to die childless.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 If a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, etc.] See XVIII. 14.  
They shall die childless.] This is understood by some as if Moses meant they should be put to death, before they could have any fruit of such a Conjunction. But most think he only means, that either they should have no Children; or that their Children should not live, but die before their Parents; or be looked upon as a spurious Issue, and not inherit their Estate: which is the sense St. Austin puts upon these words. And Procopius Gazaeus also mentions it; and says this was the Roman Law about all incestuous Marriages, Semen eorum non recensebitur inter liberos; Such Issue shall not be reckoned among their Children.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, etc.] See XVIII. 16.  
They shall be childless.] See v. 20.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgements, etc.] Particularly these concerning the foregoing matters. See XVIII. 4, 5.  
That the Land whether I bring you to dwell therein, spew you not out.] As it did the former Inhabitants. See XVIII. 25, 28.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the Nation, which I cast out before you.] Viz. of the Amorites, as the Hebrews rightly expound it: for they were the principal Nation in Canaan, and extremely given to Idolatry. R. Levi Barcelonita extends this to all their Customs, in cutting their hair, and such like, (Precept. CCLXII.) but it seems here particularly to relate to their Marriages, and Idolatry. See XVIII. 3.  
For they committed all these things.] These words show, that the foregoing have particular respect to their abominable Marriages and Idolatry.  
Therefore I abhorred them.] So as to cast them out of their Country, XVIII. 25. Onkelos translates it, My word [MEMRI] abominated them. Which is a plain intimation of a Notion they had in ancient times of more Persons than one in the Deity: and particularly here denotes him whom St. John calls the WORD. For Memra (Word) plainly signifies a Person in this place; and a Person of the same Essence with Jehovah.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 But I have said unto you.] Made you a promise.  
Ye shall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, etc.] For he promised to expel the former Inhabitants of that Country, to make room for them. See III Exod. 8, 17. XXIII. 27, 28. XXXIII. 3.  
I am the LORD your God which have separated you from other people.] This may refer either to what goes before, that they should not live like other Nations, because he had by peculiar Laws, as well as by signal Deliverances, distinguished them from all the People of the Earth: or to what follows, that he had made such a difference between them, and other People, that in their very Diet they should not agree with them, much less in the forenamed Impurities. For that the difference of Meats was instituted, to keep them from familiar conversation with their idolatrous Neighbours, is very evident (as I before observed) and the Gentiles themselves took notice of it, and looked upon them as unsociable People upon this very account. Josephus often mentions this Objection against them. And Euphrates complains (in Philostratus de vita Apolon. Lib. cap. 2.) That of old they separated not only from the Romans, but from all Mankind: for they had invented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a manner of living that would not let them mix with other People, either at a common Table, or in their Prayers or Sacrifices.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, etc.] According to the prescriptions in the XIth Chapter: which are here briefly repeated, to enforce the observation of the foregoing Precepts against such incestuous Marriages as other Nations allowed; their Law not permitting them so much as to eat such Meat as those Nations did; but to account many things, which they freely used, unclean and abominable.  
Ye shall not make yourselves abominable, etc.] See XI. 43.  
Which I have separated from you, as unclean.] Forbidden you to eat; and thereby separated you from all other People. Which had this intention in it (among others already mentioned) that this Nation, from whom the MESSIAH was to spring, might be kept pure and sincere; free from all mixture with strange People: unto which nothing contributed more efficaciously (as an excellent Person hath observed) than the difference of Meat, which made it not easy for them to contract Acquaintance, much less Friendship with other Nations. And truly, unless the People from whom the Messiah was to come, had been kept separate from other Nations, either all hope of him would have been lost, or many in every Country, to the great hurt and destruction of Mankind, would have pretended to be the Person. Whereas by keeping them a People distinct by themselves, it came to pass that all Countries thereabouts were filled with a report, that the Lord of the World shall come out of Judaea. See Joh. Wagenseil. Confut. Carm. Lipman. p. 554, etc.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And ye shall be holy unto me, for I the LORD am holy.] See XI. 44. XIX. 2. and v. 7. of this Chapter.  
And have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.] The very difference of Meats, which they used, was a Token that God had separated them from other People, to be subject to such Rites and Laws as he ordained: and hereby also they were so severed from others, as to be kept from the most familiar Conversation with them (which is at Meals) and thereby they were preserved from the danger of being seduced to the Worship of strange Gods.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, etc.] The consulting such Persons is forbidden XIX. 31. and the penalty added v. 6. of this Chapter: and here the Persons themselves who were proved to have a familiar Spirit, or to be a Wizard (what they are, see there) are condemned to the heaviest punishment; which was by being stoned to death. For which Severity Maimonides gives this reason; Because it is the very Scope of the whole Law to root out Idolatry, and abolish the very name of it. And therefore God ordered Magicians to be stoned, because, without doubt, they are Idolaters; though in a manner peculiar and different from the Vulgar. And the greater part of such evil Arts being practised by Women (which is the ground he thinks of that Law, XII Exod. 18.) towards whom Men are naturally pitiful; therefore Moses saith in this place, A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, etc. like to which we find in no Precept, not about the profanation of the Sabbath: but in this case it was necessary expressly to mention Women as well as Men; because of men's natural tenderness and clemency towards Women. Thus he, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. Procopius Gazaeus his Gloss on these words is very pious, but something fanciful; He that is hardened like a stone to virtue, deserves to be stoned. For Magic commits Murders, digs up Sepulchers, disturbs the souls of men. For Magicians are Men who corrupt Human Nature.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD said unto Moses, speak unto the Priests.] This Law about the Priests, perhaps, follows that last mentioned (v. 27. of the foregoing Chapter) to show unto whom they should resort, and of whom they should inquire, viz. of the Priests: who should always be ready for any Priestly Office, and for common Conversation.  
The sons of Aaron.] His Daughters were not concerned in the following Prohibitions; because they had nothing to do in offering Sacrifices, as Maimonides observes, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.  
There shall none be defiled for the dead.] By touching the dead Body, or coming (as the Hebrews say) within four Cubits of it, or entering into the House where it lay, (though it were to take care of the Funeral) or by following the Corpse to the Grave, or making any Mourning for the Dead. Because by these things they were legally polluted, for no less than seven days (XIX Numb. 11, 14.) and consequently unfit for the Service of God, and for Conversation with their Neighbours. Who had the greater Reverence also for them, when they saw their Dignity to be so great, that they were not permitted to perform such Offices, as others were obliged unto. For this, no doubt, was intended very much, to put an honour upon the Priesthood; as it was also in other Nations, particularly among the Romans: who would not have their Pontifex to look upon a Funeral, as Bochart observes out of Seneca, (Hieroz. P. I. Lib. III. cap. 4.) and the Flamen Dialis might not go into the place where the Coffin was. For which reason, as Servius tells us (add Lib. III. Aeneid.) they ordered a Bough of a Cypress-Tree to be stuck at the door of the House where a dead Body lay, that the Highpriest might not ignorantly go into it. It appears also by Plato, that it was thus likewise among the Greeks. For he would have the Priests, of both Sexes, to accompany one that had discharged the Office of a Censor well, unto his Grave when he was buried, as unto a pure Funeral, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but for this, he says, they must ask leave of Apollo, Lib. XII. de Legibus, p. 947. See Porphyrius de Abstin. Lib. II. sect. 50.  
Among his people.] The Jews are so Critical, as from the word [beammo] among his People, to gather; that if a Man did not die among his People, but in a strange Country, where there was no Body to take care of his Funeral, and see him buried, a Priest might do it himself, rather than his Body should lie above ground.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 But for his kin that is near unto him.] Here is an Exception to the general Rule; because it would have been very hard to restrain natural Affection from carrying them to their Parents, and Children, and Brethren, and Sisters, when they died. Which Cases would not often happen, as Maimonides observes in the place before alleged: and they are particularly named, that there might be no mistake; nor any colour to extend this Indulgence to Relations more remote.  
For his mother and his father, and for his son and for his daughter, and for his brother.] If any have a mind to know the Rabbinical Reasons, Why the Mother is here put before the Father; and v. 11. the Father before the Mother, with such like things, he may consult Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra, p. 356, etc.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And for his sister a virgin.] I see no reason why it should be restrained to his whole Sister, both by Fathers and Mother's side (as some of the Hebrew Doctors would have it) for that his half Sister by either of them, was nigh unto him (as it here follows) it appears by the Law about incestuous Marriages, XVIII. 9  
Which hath had no husband.] To take care of her Funeral: which her Brother therefore, though a Priest, might. It is commonly observed that there is no mention here of his Wife. But Maimonides with great reason thinks it was lawful for him to mourn for her: but it was needless to mention her, who, by the Law of God, was dearer to him than Father or Mother. And there is this Argument for it, that Ezekiel, who was a Priest, is forbidden, by a special command, to mourn for his Wife, which otherwise he would have done, XXIV. 16, etc.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people.] But though he might defile himself for such very near Relations, yet he might not for the greatest Man in the Nation, who was not so near of kin to him. This seems to me to be the easiest and the most natural sense of this Verse, by adding the particle lamed (which in the two foregoing Verses is put before Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Brother and Sister) to Baal, i. e. chief man, (as we translate it) nothing being more usual than to omit such a particle, which yet must be understood when it hath been often . And thus the Vulgar Latin understands it. And the sense is the same, if we take it as our Translation seems to intent it. But he shall not desile himself (for any other) being a chief man, etc. As for the Marginal Translation, I can see no ground for it: and there must be a greater Supplement by adding [for his wife:] which one cannot well think is here forbidden, as I observed on the foregoing Verse. They also who translate it, A chief Ruler shall not defile himself, etc. have still less reason; the whole Discourse in this place being concerning the Priests.  
To profane himself.] He himself, in Sacred Offices, being the greatest Person, would have been profaned, i. e. rendered a common Man; if he had mourned for any, but those whom Nature had very closely linked him unto.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.] Though they were allowed to mourn for some persons, yet for none after this manner: that is, according to the Custom of certain Places in Chaldaea, as Aben-Ezra glosses upon these words. And he might have added also of the Egyptians: among whose Ceremonies we find this in after times, and it's likely had been very ancient. For Jul. Firmicus tells us, in the beginning of his Book, That in their Annual Lamentations of Osiris, they were wont to shave their heads, that they might bewail the miserable misfortune of their King, by depriving themselves of the ornament of hair, etc. And he adds, that they did tear their flesh, and cut open the scars of their old wounds, etc. where Johan. Wouver observes the same out of several other Authors. And Plutarch in his Book of Superstition, saith they generally used in mourning to be shaved; whereas the Hebrews let their hair grow. See X. 6. XIX. 27.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 They shall be holy unto their God.] Attend to their Office, unto which they are peculiarly consecrated: and not, without great necessity, be at any time unfit for it.  
And not profane the name of their God.] By doing as the common People did; or rendering themselves uncapable to Minister unto the LORD; as they were when they were any way defiled.  
For the Offering of the LORD made by fire.] They attend upon his Altar; where the Burnt-offerings, Peace-offerings, and all the rest were offered.  
And the bread of their God do they offer.] The word And is not in the Hebrew; and the sense will be clearer if it be left out: The offering of the LORD made by fire, being called The bread of their God, i. e. his Meat, or Food. For the Altar was his Table; and what was burnt thereon was in the Nature of his Provision: which in the Scripture Language is comprehended under the name of Bread. So Solomon Jarchi saith, whatsoever may be eaten is called bread, (See III. 11.) Thus Fruit is called Bread, XI Jer. 19 and Milk, XXVII Prov. 27. and Honey, 1 Sam. XIV. 28. And therefore no wonder the Sacrifices are here called by that name, and by Malachi his Meat or Food, III. 12. Which phrase is used, as the Author of Sepher Cosri well observes, to keep up the Notion that God dwelled gloriously, and kept House among them, Pars II. cap. 26.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore.] All incestuous Marriages were as much forbidden Priests as any other Men. But besides, here are three sorts of Persons, whom it was unlawful for a common Priest to marry, though there was no Kindred between them. The first is a Whore; whereby the Hebrew Doctors understand, not only one that was a common Prostitute, but one that was not an Israelite, or an Israelitish Woman with whom a Man had lain, whom it was unlawful for her to marry. Which comprehends not only all such as are forbidden in the XVIIIth Chapter of this Book; but those also in XXIII Deut. 2, 3. See Selden de Successionibus, Lib. II. cap. 2. & 3. and Vxor Hebraica, Lib. I. cap. 7. Lib. III. cap. 23.  
Or profane.] A Woman was accounted so (as he shows in the same place) who was either descended from such a Person, as is ; or who was born of such a Conjunction, as is here forbidden to a Priest. And there are those who think it may be understood of one that had been consecrated to a false Deity; whom she served with the use of her Body, which she exposed to the Worshippers of that Deity. Who though she afterwards repent, and became good, yet a Priest was not to marry her, no more than an ordinary Whore. But the simplest meaning of these three seems to be, that they should not marry one that had prostituted her Body, or that had been any way vitiated, though against her will; or was of suspected Chastity; or (as it follows) was divorced from her Husband.  
Neither shall they take a Woman put away from her Husband.] For commonly Women were put away for some fault, as Abarbanel notes; and were presumed not to be such as a Priest should desire. To the same purpose Procopius Gazaeus. A Priest, saith he, should not only fly from manifest Evils, as Fornication, but decline whatsoever may blemish his Fame: now a Woman that is put away by her Husband, lies under a suspicion of something that is bad. For which reason (as Mr. Selden observes in the place ) a Priest might not marry her, whom her Husband's Brother refused to marry after his death.  
For he is holy unto his God.] Consecrated, after a special manner, to the Service of the Divine Majesty; and therefore was not to dishonour his Priesthood by such Marriages as were not of good reputation. If he did, he was not to be suffered to Minister, until he had given such a Wife a Bill of Divorce; as Maimonides saith in Biath Hamikdasch, cap. 6. An example of which there was in Manasseh the Brother of Jaddua the Highpriest; who marrying, contrary to the Law, the Daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan, was commanded either to put her away, or not to come to the Altar. See Selden, Lib. II. the Successione in Pontificatum, cap. 6. p. 238.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 Thou shalt sanctify him therefore.] This seems to be spoken to Moses, and to all that should succeed him in the Supreme Authority, that they should take care the Priests should not marry with such Persons; or if they did, not be suffered to Minister in the Priest's Office, till they had put them away. Accordingly we find, that to keep the Priesthood pure, and to avoid all suspicion of any such pollution, the Names of the Priests Parents were carefully preserved in the Genealogical Tables, as we learn from TWO Ezra 62. VII Nehemiah 64. See Selden de Succession. in Pontif. Lib. II. cap. 3. Vxor Hebr. Lib. I. cap. 7.  
For he offereth the bread of thy God.] Ministereth at the Altar. See v. 6.  
He shall be holy unto thee.] Keep himself pure, that he may not be unfit to offer Sacrifice for the People, as need shall require.  
For I the LORD which sanctify you am holy.] I who have taken you to be my peculiar People, excel in all Perfections; and therefore require Persons of extraordinary Sanctity to minister unto me.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And the daughter of any Priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore.] The Hebrew Doctors understand this of one married, at least espoused. So Aben-Ezra and R. Sol. Jarchi say expressly, Our Rabbins confess with one mouth, that one not espoused is not concerned in this Law. See Selden Lib. I. Vxor. Hebr. cap. 6. and Lib. III. cap. 23. p. 488.  
She profaneth her father.] She was doubly guilty. First in profaning, i. e. dishonouring herself; who being the Daughter of such an eminent Person, committed such an heinous Crime. And secondly in dishonouring her Father, whose Reputation hereby suffered.  
She shall be burnt with fire.] Which was the sorest Punishment among the Jews, (See XX. 14.) and was not inflicted upon other Persons, in this Case, (who were barely stoned, XXII Deut. 24.) but only upon the Daughter of a Priest, from whom greater Virtue was expected. But if the Witnesses of this Fact were convicted of Perjury by other credible Witnesses, produced by the Woman, or her Father, then both her Husband who accused her, and those false Witnesses, suffered the same Punishment that she should have done. See Selden, Lib. III. Vxor. Hebr. cap. 1. p. 321.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 He that is the Highpriest among his brethren.] Hitherto the Laws given in this Case concern the common Priests: now follow those by which the Highpriest was to govern himself; who was under peculiar Laws more strict than the rest.  
Upon whose head the anointing Oil was poured, etc.] He having a peculiar Consecration different from the rest, by pouring the holy Oil upon his Head, and clothing him with the most glorious Robes, (See VIII. 7, 8, etc.) was in all reason to distinguish himself, more than the rest of the Priests, from common Men.  
And that is consecrated.] In the Hebrew the words are, whose hand is filled; as it was with the fat and the right shoulder of the Ram of Consecration, etc. by which he was hallowed to minister in the Priest's Office, XXIX Exod. 22, 23, 24.  
To put on the Garments.] To be Highpriest.  
Shall not uncover his head.] Rather, Shall not let his hair grow neglected without trimming; as the manner was in token of mourning. So Onkelos and Jonathan, and a great many more. See Selden, Lib. II. the Successione in Pontificatum, cap. 5. p. 235. and what I have noted upon the tenth Chapter of this Book, v. 6.  
Nor rend his Clothes.] Another token of mourning, which he was to forbear. Though the Talmudists will have it, that he might rend his Garments at the bottom, about his feet; but not at the top, down to his breast; as P. Cunaeus observes out of Mass. Horajoth, Lib. II. de Rep. Hebr. cap. 3. Before his Anointing, and Consecration, and putting on the holy Garments, it was not unlawful for him to attend the Funeral of his Father. And therefore Eleazar was present when Aaron died, (XX Numb.) being as yet in a lower Ministry, and not completely advanced to the Office of Highpriest, but only declared Aaron's Successor by putting on him his Garments. See X. 6.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body; nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother.] He might not go into the House, where the Body of his Father or Mother lay dead (which was permitted to the inferior Priests, v. 2, 3.) and consequently he was not to make any external signs of mourning for Son or Daughter, Brother or Sister.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary.] If he was there when he heard of the death of his Father or Mother, he was not to stir out from thence till he had finished his Ministry. See X. 7. For he had a little House (after the Temple was built) within the Precincts of it, where he commonly remained all the day time; which was called Lischcath cohen gadol, the Parlour of the Highpriest, as Cunaeus observes out of Mass. Midoth, Lib. II. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 3. At night he went to his own dwelling House, which was in Jerusalem, and no where else. There he might perform all the Offices of a Mourner, except those which are here forbidden; and the People came to comfort him (as Maimonides relates in his Treatise on this Subject) and, sitting upon the ground, while he sat in his Chair at the Funeral Feast, they said let us be thy Expiation, (i. e. let all the Grief that is on thee, fall upon us) unto which he answered, Blessed be ye from Heaven; as their words are reported in Sanhedrim, cap. 2. n. 1.  
Nor profane the Sanctuary of his God.] By preferring his Affection to the Dead, before the Service of God in the Sanctuary: or by returning thither to his Ministry, when he had been defiled by the dead; which had been a great profanation. For he that touched a dead Body, was unclean seven days, XIX Numb. 11, 12.  
For the crown of the anointing Oil of his God is upon him.] Some supply the word and between Crown and anointing Oil; and so make two reasons why he should distinguish himself from all other Men. First, because the holy Crown, as it is called XXIX Exod. 6. which had holiness to the LORD engraven on it, XXVIII Exod. 36. was set upon his Head: and his Head also was anointed with the holy Oil, XXX Exod. 25, 30. whereby he was, in a special manner, consecrated to the Service of the most High. But there is no need of this; for the anointing Oil itself was that which sanctified him to his Office, and was poured on him, after the holy Crown was set on his head, VIII Leu. 9, 12. And so these words may be translated, The Consecration (for so the Hebrew word Nezer signifies) of the anointing Oil of his God is upon him. That is, he must remember he is solemnly devoted unto my Ministry, by that anointing; and therefore must not leave it to attend any other.  
I am the LORD.] Whose Servant he is, by a peculiar Obligation.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And he shall take a Wife.] From the word Wife in the singular number, the Talmudists generally conclude, that Polygamy was not allowed to the Highpriest; who was to have but one Wife at a time, though other Men were permitted to have more. See Selden, Lib. II. the Successione in Pontif. cap. 2. p. 207. and Vxor Hebraica, Lib. I. cap. 8. If he did take another, he was to give a Bill of Divorce to one of them before the great Day of Expiation; or else he was uncapable to perform the Offices of it; as P. Cunaeus observes in the place forenamed out of Joma. But if his Wife died, it was not unlawful for him to marry again, as Tertullian fancied from this very place, Lib. de de Monogam. cap. 7. and Exhort. ad Cast. cap. 7.  
In her virginity.] And not so much as espoused to any other Person. Nor was any sort of Virgin thought fit for his Wife, but only one that was newly come out of her minority, and had not yet attained to her full puberty; as Maimonides explains the sense of their ancient Doctors. See Selden, Lib. I. Vxor Hebr. cap. 7. where he observes also, that this is to be understood of the Highpriest after he was in his Office: for if he had married a Widow before he was Highpriest, he was to keep her, and not put her away when he was advanced to it. But there are those who imagine this Law obliged all the common Priests, who were to marry none but Virgins, as they are persuaded from XLIV Ezek. 22. And no less Man than Hugo Grotius seems to be of this opinion, both here and in his Book de Jure Belli & Pacis, Lib. II. cap. 5. n. 9 in his Annotata to that Section. But the Hebrew Doctors are all of a contrary mind, and so are Josephus and Philo, as Mr. Selden observes in his Addenda to the seventh Chapter of his first Book Vxor Hebr. and Lib. II. the Success. in Pontif. cap. 2. p. 208. And so Cunaeus also in the place forenamed, speaking of this very Law, Non enim Sacerdotibus posita eadem Lex fuit. Quip viduam illi rite duxerunt, etc. But above all, a later most learned Writer, Joh. Wagenseil, hath largely confuted this opinion, in which he hath shown Grotius was singular. For besides that Ezekiel there supposes they might marry the Widow of a Priest, it is evident both from Jewish and Christian Interpreters, that the state of things under the Law is not to be measured by what the Prophet Ezekiel saith concerning the future Temple and Priests. But as Kimchi himself saith upon this place, If this Verse must be expounded of every Priest, it relates to the greater sanctity of the future Temple: for the Law at first undoubtedly was, that none but the Highpriest was confined to marry a Virgin. What Grotius alleges out of Josephus to prove his affection, he hath shown, with due respect to so great a Man, doth him no Service. See his Annotata ad Mischna Sota, cap. 4. p. 557, etc.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 A Widow.] This was peculiar to the Highpriest, that besides other Women which no Priest might marry, he alone is forbidden to marry a Widow; as the same learned Person there shows is the sense of all the Hebrew Writers. And Moses Kotzensis observes, that by a Widow is to be understood, not only a Woman that had been married, but if she had been merely espoused, it was unlawful for the Highpriest to take her for his Wife: And by the Highpriest, he saith, is to be understood not only the Successor of Aaron, but he also that was anointed to the War. Which seems to be a stretching of the word beyond its meaning: though the word Widow may be allowed to comprehend one only espoused; whom he might not marry, though she had been espoused to his Predecessor.  
Or a divorced woman.] No, nor the Wife of his Brother that died without Issue: which others were bound to marry, but he was not.  
Or profane.] The word Chalalah was explained before v. 7. which according to the Jews, signifies a Woman born of such a Person as a Priest is prohibited to marry. As if the Highpriest had taken a Widow, and had a Daughter by her, that Child was profane, and might not be married, though a Virgin, by a succeeding Highpriest. And so of the rest. See Buxtorf. de Sponsal. & Divort. p. 37, 38.  
Or a harlot.] See v. 7.  
But he shall take a virgin of his own people.] He was commanded before to marry none but a Virgin; and now he is further limited to a Virgin of Israel. For he doth not mean one of his own Tribe; there being instances to the contrary of a Highpriest marrying into the Royal Tribe, 2 Chron. XXII. 11.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 Neither shall he profane his seed among his people.] Many think this refers to what goes before; that he should not debase his Family by such mixtures as have been mentioned. But I rather think it to be a new Precept, (as the Vulgar Latin takes it) that as he might marry none but of his own People, i. e. an Israelite: so among his People he should not match with a vulgar Person, but with one nobly born. For that was the way to preserve the dignity of the Priestly Office, at which all these Precepts aim.  
For I the LORD do sanctify him.] I have separated him to myself, for a special and most holy Service. For which reason he was to distinguish himself from other Men, even in his marriage; to make them the more reverence the LORD whom he served. Upon this account it was, that many Constitutions were made by the Elders, forbidding him what was allowed to other People; whereby they intended to advance his honour. For instance, he was forbidden to go into the Public Baths, or to Feasts. If he would visit any that mourned, he was to be attended by other Priests. He was obliged to cut his hair every Week, but never to shave with a Rason; to be in the Sanctuary every day, and to go home not above twice in a day; to have but one Wife at a time; and going into the Temple, to have three other Priests with him, etc. So Maimonides in Cele Mikdash, cap. 8.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Upon this occasion God gave some other Precepts concerning the Priests, who were to wait upon him in his House, and at his Table.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 Speak unto Aaron, saying.] Having forbidden such Marriages as would have been a dishonour to the Priesthood, had they been permitted, he now forbids any to serve at his Altar, who had the least blemish in his Body; for that would have disparaged his Divine Service.  
Whoever he be of thy seed.] Whether Highpriest, or the common Priests.  
In their generations.] In future Ages, as well as the present.  
That hath any blemish.] From these general words, the Hebrew Doctors conclude, that not only the particular blemishes (afterward mentioned) made them uncapable to minister, but all other whatsoever which appeared in the Body; of which these here named are but a Specimen or Example. So Maimonides in Biath Hammikdash, whose words are, The blemishes expressed in the Law, are propounded for examples of the rest. Which they reckon to be in all CXLII. accounting only those, which openly appeared, and not those which were inward in the Kidneys, Bladder, or Bowels; because there are no examples of such in the particulars which here follow. They are divided by the Doctors into three Classes. Such as made Beasts unfit to be offered (XXII. 20.) as well as Priests unfit to minister; of which sort they reckon fifty. And such as only made Priests uncapable to minister: of which sort they reckon ninety. And such as only made Men look illfavouredly; which were but two. See Mr. Selden, Lib. II. the Successione in Pontific. cap. 5.  
Let him not approach.] Unto the Altar.  
To offer the bread of his God.] i. e. To Sacrifice. See v. 6. and III. 2.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.] Though never so wise, or pious.  
He shall not approach.] He makes it a standing Law that no Man that had a blemish should come to minister unto him at his Altar. And a reasonable Law it was, approved by Pagan's themselves; for it is the very first qualification which Plato requires in him who was to be made a Priest, that he should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. perfect in all his parts, and not a Bastard; and that he should be born of honest Parents, who had lived without the blemish of Murder, or any other Impiety, Lib. VI de Legibus, p. 759. And such a Law there was among the ancient Romans: Sacerdos integer sit, That a Priest should be entire in all his parts. Which Seneca mentioning (IV Controu. 2.) explains it by the example of Metellus, who losing his Eyes, by adventuring to snatch the Palladium out of the Flames, when the Temple of Vesta was burnt, was denied the Prieststood. For though he had done great Service, which did him great honour, yet their Opinion was, That Sacerdos non integri corporis, quasi mali ominis res, vitandus est; a Priest who wanted any part of his Body, was to be avoided, as a thing that boded ill. For thus it was in Sacrifices, and therefore they thought with much more reason it should be so in the Priests that offered them. See Dilherrus Disput. Academic. Tom. II. p. 187, etc.  
A blind man, or a lame.] Such natural defects, which befall us without, or against our will, as Procopius Gazaeus observes, are not to be imputed to us as any fault: and therefore he thinks such Vices in the Mind as answer to these Blemishes in the Body, are here intended by Moses. Yet he could not but acknowledge, that if we will follow the literal sense (which no doubt is meant by these words) it is not becoming to see a Man perform Priestly Offices, who hath any visible blemish in his Body, for instance, that halts, or cannot walk unless he have one to lead him. But Moses, he still thinks, had a respect to higher Matters, viz. to all the good qualities that St. Paul requires in a Bishop. And therefore by a blind Man he understands, one without knowledge; and by a lame, one that walks not uprightly in the ways of God's Commandments. Such accommodations are so easy, that I need not further take notice of them.  
Or he that hath a flat Nose.] In the two first words, blind, or lame, there was no difficulty: but the word harum (which we translate hath a flat Nose) is not so plain. Yet the Hebrews generally agree it signifies one, the upper part of whose Nose was so depressed, that the two Eyebrows seemed to meet, and to be but one: as Bochartus observes out of R. Solomon in his Canaan, Lib. I. cap. 33. p. 655.  
Or any thing superfluous.] The Hebrew word Saruae signifies any Member disproportionable to the rest: but more especially (as their Doctors take it) the inequality of those Members that are pairs: as when one of Man's Eyes, or Ears, or Legs, was bigger than the other.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 Or a man that is broken-footed.] Though a Man did not halt, yet if his Foot was so broken, that it looked deformed, he was uncapable to minister to the Divine Majesty, because it rendered him contemptible in the Eyes of the People; at least not so graceful, as the Servants of the most High were to be.  
Or broken-handed.] Any fracture in the Hand made a Man more remarkably unfit than the foregoing blemish; because by this part all the Divine Offices were to be performed.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 Or crook-backt.] The Hebrew word Gibben properly signifies bunch-backed: whether the bunch came from the luxation of the backbone, or from a swelling in the flesh.  
Or a dwarf.] Who, besides that he looked despicably, was not able to reach up to the Altar. The Marginal translation may be justified from the Hebrew, for dark in that Language signifies lean, or slender: but then the meaning must be, one whose flesh was wasted by a Consumption. The Vulgar took it for one blear-eyed. And the LXX. also thought it signified some Disease in the Eyes, if the Complutensian Edition be right, where this word is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But other Editions leave out the two last words, and then it is uncertain what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies: but most likely some ill-favoured spots or pustles in the Face.  
Or that hath a blemish in his eye.] The Hebrew words toballul beeno signifies one that hath a confused spot in the Eye. Which is called by the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and by the Talmudists, Chillez and Chalazon, which is the very same with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, importing a concretion of a white Humour (like to an Hailstone) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aegineta speaks, and Galen also. See Bochart. in his Hierozoicon. P. II. Lib. V cap. 9 But this spot did not make a Priest uncapable to minister (as Selden observes in the place ) unless it was a little prominent; which made the blemish more apparent.  
Or be scurvy, or scabbed.] One of these words signifies a dry scurf, or scab; the other a purulent.  
Or hath his stones broken.] Is bursten, or hath a rapture, as some expound it. The LXX. translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by which Procopius Gazaeus understands an Hermaphrodite.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the Priest, shall come nigh, etc.] This seems to confirm what was observed before, (v. 17.) that any other blemish, besides these here particularly mentioned, made a Man uncapable to officiate at the Altar. And in the first place the Hebrew Doctors reckon five in the Ears, besides the want of them. An Example of which Josephus gives in the Story of Hyrcanus the Highpriest, whose Ears Antigonus cut off, that if he should return again, he might not resume his Office, Lib. I. de Bello Jud. cap. 11.  
He hath a blemish.] This general repetition, is a farther confirmation that all apparent Blemishes, of the same kind with these here particularly named, excluded them from ministering at the Altar. And there being some of them that were permanent or perpetual (as they speak) and others that were transient, which remained but for a time; no Man that had a Blemish, though only of the latter sort, was to minister at the Altar, till it was gone.  
He shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.] i. e. The Offerings made by Fire ; which are here plainly represented as the Meat that was served up to his Table. See v. 6. If any of them did presume to offer at the Altar, there were different Effects of their Contumacy; according to the different sorts of their Blemishes; which the Hebrew Doctors divide into three Classes, as I observed v. 17. If any Man having a Blemish of the first sort ministered, it profaned the very Sacrifice which he offered, and he was to be scourged. The second sort did not vitiate the Sacrifice, but the Priest was to undergo the forenamed punishment. The third sort was so inconsiderable, that neither of these Effects followed, upon his ministering who was blemished by them; as Mr. Selden observes, Lib. II. the Success. in Pontif. cap. 5. p. 234.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 He shall eat of the bread of his God.] But though such a Priest might not offer any Sacrifice, yet he might eat with his Brethren of that part of the Sacrifices, which was given to them for their portion: which no Man in his Uncleanness might do. Therefore these natural Infirmities were not Legal Impurities, but only Incapacities (as we speak) which disabled them for their Office.  
Here again the Sacrifices are represented, as the Provision made for the Divine Majesty. See v. 6, 21.  
Both of the most holy.] Such were the Meat-offerings, (II. 3. VI 17.) the Sin-offerings, (VI 25, 26.) and the Trespass-offerings, (VII. 1. See XIV. 13.) The Shewbread also was a most holy thing: and all such were to be eaten only by the Males of the Priest's Family, in the holy place, XVIII Numb. 9, 10, 11, etc.  
And of the holy.] Such were the Wave-breast, and the Heave-shoulder of the Peace-offerings, VII. 35. X. 14. and the First-fruits, and the Tithes. But though the Peace-offerings of particular Persons were among the less holy things; yet the Peace-offerings of the whole Congregation were most holy. See XXIII. 20.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail.] He was not to enter into the Sanctuary, to burn Incense, or to trim the Lamps, etc.  
Nor come nigh unto the Altar.] No nor go to the Altar of Burnt-offering, which was in the Court of the LORD's House: but he was to sit in the Wood-room, where he was employed in picking out all the Wood which had any Worms in it, that it might be laid aside, and not carried to the Altar; as Maimonides and others relate. He had also another employment, See XIII. 2. If any Man were so presumptuous, or so forgetful, as to minister notwithstanding the manifest Blemish which was upon him, he fell under Censure, and was punished according to the degree of his Fault; as I observed before v. 21. out of Mr. Selden, who hath, in the place there mentioned, handled this more accurately, than I thought it needful for me to do.  
That he profane not my Sanctuary.] That he might not make others think meanly of the Service of God; and consequently of God himself: who would have Men, in their greatest perfection, minister unto him, to preserve in People's minds a sense of his most excellent Being, unto whom they ministered. For which reason all the foregoing Prohibitions were given, against marrying such Persons as had been vitiated, etc. and against mourning for the dead, that they might not profane the name of their God, v. 6. by doing as vulgar People did, or making themselves uncapable to minister unto God, as they were when they were defiled. And thus Maimonides discourses upon this Subject, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 45. God commanded his Ministers should wear precious Apparel, and that none should be admitted to the Ministry, who had any defect in his Body; nay, they who were deformed and ill-favoured were excluded; because the Vulgar do not judge according to men's true worth or beauty (which lies in the Soul) but according to their outward appearance, in the comeliness of their Bodies, and the richness of their Garments. And therefore the end of all these things was, that God's House might be had in due honour and reverence.  
My Sanctuaries.] This word in the Plural Number, relates to the two parts of the Sanctuary: the Court where the Altar of Burnt-offering stood (which was an holy place) and that which was properly called the Sanctuary, wherein the Altar of Incense was. Into neither of which, a Priest that had any Blemish might enter, as was said before.  
For I the LORD do sanctify them.] I have set apart both those places for my Service; and therefore no Man with a blemish shall be admitted into them, to perform any holy Office there. Yet they might come into the Court, to eat with their Brethren of holy things, but not in their Priestly Garments, which it was not lawful for them to use.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his Sons, and unto all the Children of Israel.] They were all acquainted with these Laws, because they were all concerned the Service of God should be administered acceptably unto him.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] These Commands that follow, were delivered at the same time with the foregoing; belonging to the same matter. For though the Priests, who had a blemish, might eat of the holy things, yet he would have them know that neither they, nor such as were unblemished, should presume to do it in their Uncleanness.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, that they separate themselves.] Viz. When they were in their Uncleanness, v. 3.  
From the holy things of the Children of Israel.] Abstain from eating (v. 3, 4, 12.) of that part of the Sacrifices which belonged to the Priests; but was to be eaten only by such of them as were free from Legal Impurities, VII. 20, 21. Nor were they to eat of the First-fruits which were also their portion, (XVIII Numb. 12, 13.) but they might eat of the Tithes, which were allowed for their constant Sustenance.  
And that they profane not my holy Name.] This is the very ground of this Prohibition; that they might preserve in their minds a due reverence to the Divine Majesty: unto whom, as they might not approach, so they might not meddle with any thing Consecrated to him, in a state of Legal Impurity. All great Persons are to be approached with a great deal of Ceremony, especially when any are invited to their Table; otherwise they might fall into contempt. And therefore much more was this reverence to be shown to the Divine Majesty, that they might entertain high Apprehensions of him, by abstaining from all things belonging to him, when they were under any pollution.  
In those things which they hollow unto me.] Which the Children of Israel devoted unto God: For so the foregoing words, and the next Verse explain it.  
I am the LORD.] The greatest regard is to be paid to my Majesty.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Say unto them, whosoever he be of your seed.] Of the Priests.  
Among your generations.] In succeeding times.  
That goeth unto the holy things.] To eat of them; as appears from v. 4, 6, 12.  
Which the Children of Israel hollow unto the LORD.] Offer to him at his Altar.  
Having his uncleanness upon him.] For which they were to separate themselves, v. 2.  
That soul shall be cut off from my presence.] Thrust out of the Priest's Office; no more to minister at the Altar; and than it was the act of a Judge: or cut off from the Land of the Living; which was done by the Hand of Heaven.  
I am the LORD.] Who will vindicate my own Honour.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 What man soever of the seed of Aaron.] These words of the seed of Aaron include his Daughters, as well as his Sons; who might eat of some holy things, (XVIII Numb. 11, 19) but not in their Uncleanness.  
Is a leper, or hath a running issue.] There are eleven Fountains of Uncleanness (as the Hebrews speak) two of which are these here mentioned; as appears from XIII. 3. XV. 2.  
He shall not eat of the holy things until he be clean.] See XIV. 2. XV. 13.  
And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goes from him.] These were two other Fountains of Uncleanness, XI. 31, 32, etc. XV. 16.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean.] See XI. 24, etc.  
Or a man of whom he may take uncleanness.] XV. 7.  
Whatsoever uncleanness he hath.] Suppose the Leprosy, XIII. 45. These are two such Fountains of Uncleanness as the former.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 The soul which hath touched any such, shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat, etc.] So the Law was in the forenamed Cases; as appears by the places .  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And when the Sun is down, he shall be clean.] Having washed his flesh with water.  
And shall afterward eat of the holy things, because it is his food.] God was so gracious as not to keep a Priest any longer in a state wherein he should want his necessary, or comfortable Sustenance.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat, to defile himself therewith.] This was forbidden before to all the Israelites, XVII. 15. but made a Priest no longer unclean than an ordinary Man, because of the foregoing reason.  
I am the LORD.] Who will have my Ministers pure from all such pollutions. The remainder of which were the uncleanness of the Water of Separation, as Maimonides speaks, XIX. 21. and of the great Sacrifice of Expiation, XVI. 28. and of a menstruous Woman, XV. 9 and of a Woman in Childbed, XII. 2. But nothing made Men so unclean, as the dead Body of a Man; which defiled not only him that touched it, for seven days, but all that came into the House, and every thing that was in the House where he died, XIX Numb. 11.14. which was the reason of the foregoing Law, that the Highpriest should not go in to the dead Body of his Father or Mother; nor any inferior Priest be defiled for any, but their near Relations, XXI. 1, 2, 11.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 They shall therefore keep mine Ordinance.] Observe this Constitution; because I, who am their LORD, make it.  
Lest they bear sin for it.] Be punished, if they break it.  
And die therefore.] As Nadab and Abihu did; who presumed to break another Law about holy things.  
If they profane it.] By eating of the holy things in their Uncleanness.  
I the LORD do sanctify them.] Separate them to my Service: and by such Constitutions teach them carefully to avoid all pollutions.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing.] The holy thing here mentioned, is that beforenamed, X. 14. and by a Stranger he doth not mean one of another Nation, but one that is not of the Seed of Aaron, or is not one of his Family. For the word in the Hebrew is not Nechar, which properly signifies such a Stranger as is not an Israelite; but Zar, which signifies any one to whom a thing doth not belong; as holy things did not to those, who were not at least part of the Priest's Family, though not of his Race. For that such might eat of them who were not of their Race, provided they belonged to them as a part of their Family, appears from the next Verse.  
A sojourner of the Priest.] Who boards with him (as we now speak) or dwells in a part of his House as some understand it) but hath a distinct Family.  
Or an hired servant.] Such were those who served by the day, (XIX. 13.) or for a certain time: and after that might dispose of themselves as they pleased.  
Shall not eat of the holy thing.] None of these might eat of the Priest's portion, (X. 14. XVIII Numb. 11.) because they were not Members of his Family.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 But if the Priest buy any soul (i.e. Person) with his money.] There were those of their own Nation, who by their Poverty were compelled to sell themselves, or their Children, (XXV. 39) and others they bought of other Nations, (v. 44, 45, etc.) who becoming Proselytes to the Jews Religion, were permitted to eat of the Priest's Meat, because they became part of his Family.  
And he that is born in his house, etc.] They that were born of such purchased Servants were their Master's Goods; and such a part of their Family, that they left them to their Children who succeeded them. And therefore they also were allowed to eat of the Meat of the Priest.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 If a Priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger.] Unto one that is not of the Family of the Priests.  
She may not eat of an offering of the holy things.] She lost her right to eat of those holy things, which she did partake of while she remained a part of her Father's Family. For that entitled Persons to this Privilege; insomuch that a Priest, taking a Wife out of another Family, she might eat of them, because she was one with him, and therefore had more right than a Servant. But for the same reason a Priest's Daughter married to a Stranger, might not eat of them, because she was gone out of his into another Family.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 But if the Priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child.] If she had any Children, they and she made another Family: and they being begotten by a Father, who was not a Priest, had no right to eat of the Priest's meat. But if she was left without Children, than she was accounted still one of her Father's Family; provided she returned (as it follows) to live with him.  
And is returned to her father's house, as in her youth.] To be a part of his Family, as she was before she married, X. 14.  
She shall eat of her father's meat.] Have the same privilege she had when she was a Virgin.  
But there shall no stranger eat thereof.] This seems, as I said, particularly to relate unto her Children, if she had any; who being begotten by one of another Family, were looked upon as Strangers. See v. 10.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if a man.] Who hath no right to them.  
Eat of the holy thing unwittingly.] Not knowing it to be an holy thing.  
Then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it.] Besides his Sacrifice which he was bound to offer for his Trespass. See V 15.  
And shall give it unto the Priest, with the holy thing.] He could not give the Priest the holy thing, which he had eaten: but the meaning is, that he should make satisfaction to the Priest for the Damage done to him, by paying him the true worth of the thing, and the fifth part more of its value. See V 16.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And they shall not profane the holy things of the Children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD.] This seems to refer to the Persons beforenamed; none of which should presume to profane Sacred things, by eating them, when they did not belong to them. The Priests seem also to be concerned in it, who were not to suffer them to eat such holy things, as it follows in the next Verse. Or, if it entirely relate to the Priests, the meaning is, they should not profane holy things, by eating them in their uncleanness, v. 9 And one reason was, because the Children of Israel, whose Offerings these were, might be discouraged from bringing them to the LORD, when they saw them so profaned.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 Or suffer them.] i.e. The People.  
To bear the iniquity of trespass, etc.] To fall under the punishment which God will inflict for their Trespass, in eating things which do not appertain to them. The Marginal Translation refers this also wholly to the Priests, in this manner, Or, lad themselves with the iniquity of Trespass in their eating holy things; viz. in their Uncleanness, and with such Persons (it may be added) as ought not to eat of them.  
For I the LORD do sanctify them.] These words seem to justify this last Interpretation. See v. 9  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] The following Laws, no doubt, were delivered at the same time with the former; because they still concern the same matter.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the Children of Israel.] For they were all concerned in the perfection of the Sacrifices, as they were in the perfection of the Priests that offered them. See XXI. 24.  
And say unto them, whosoever he be.] The Hebrew Doctors say, that the phrase isch, isch, (Man, Man, i. e. any Man) is here used, as it was XVIII. 6. to show that Gentiles are comprehended under this Law, as well as Jews; as Mr. Selden observes out of the Gemara Babylon, Tit. Cholin. See Lib. III. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 4. p. 289.  
Of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel.] They understand by strangers in Israel, such as they called Proselytes of the Gate; who were not Circumcised, but had renounced Idolatry, and joined themselves to the God of Israel. R. Levi been Gersom takes perfect Proselytes to be here meant (whom they called Proselytes of Righteousness) yet not excluding the other.  
That will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his free-will-offerings.] See VII. 16.  
Which they will offer unto the LORD for a Burnt-offering.] If a Gentile brought a Peace-offering to the LORD, it was offered as a Burnt-offering; and no Meat-offering was permitted to be offered with it, as Maimonides observes. See Selden in the place beforenamed; and v. 25. of this Chapter. And Dr. Lightfoot gives a large account of it in his Temple Service, chap. 8. sect. 4.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 Ye shall offer at your own will.] So these words are commonly understood; that the Sacrifices, both of Jew and Gentile, should be spontaneous, as well as without blemish: though they will bear another sense, as I observed Chap. I. v. 3.  
A male without blemish, of the beefs, and of the sheep, and of the goats.] See Chap. I. v. 3, 10. All Burnt-offerings were to be Males; though Peace-offerings might be Females, III. 1, 6. and so might Sin-offerings also, IV. 32. but all without blemish. For as God accepted only some kind of Creatures, (viz. Beefs, Sheep, and Goats, and no other of the Herd) so he would have a choice to be made out of them, of the very best; as had been often before directed.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer.] This general Rule is here repeated, because he is going to specify what Creatures they should account blemished.  
For it shall not be acceptable for you.] This seems to justify the Exposition which I said might be given of that phrase in the foregoing Verse, at your own will; or for your acceptation. See upon I. 3.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And whosoever offereth a Sacrifice of Peace-offerings unto the LORD.] Which were either to obtain blessings, or to give thanks for them when they were obtained.  
To accomplish his vow.] It was usual to make such Vows, for procuring from God what they desired, when they undertook a Journey, or went to Sea, or were sick, or in any danger, etc. An example of which we have in I Jonah 16. where we read the Mariners in a Storm offered a Sacrifice to the LORD, and made Vows: i e. they vowed a Sacrifice to God, (for they could not Sacrifice on Shipboard) when he had brought them to a safe Port. And so Cicero speaks of certain Mariners, who being tossed in a Tempest, vowed, if they gained their Haven, Ei Deo, qui ibi esset, se vitulum immolaturos, They would offer a Calf to the God of that place. And Homer in like manner brings in the Mother of Telemachus, vowing perfect Hecatombs unto all the Gods, if she might obtain her desire, Odyss. XVII. v. 59  
Or a free-will-offering.] This also was a Peace-offering for obtaining Blessings: not when they were in distress, I suppose, but in general to procure God's favour to them and theirs.  
In Beefs, or Sheep.] And likewise Goats: for all these were allowed in Peace-offerings, III. 1, 6, 12.  
It shall be perfect, to be accepted.] That was accounted perfect, which wanted none of its parts, nor had any defect in any of them. The Heathen themselves did not think any other would be accepted, and therefore made a careful choice of their Sacrifices; as appears by those words of Virgil, Lib. IU. AEneid. v. 57 — Mactant lectas de more bidentes. Which he calls elsewhere eximij, singled out as most excellent. Lib. IU. Georg. v. 550.  Quatuor eximios praestanti corpore tauros. 
And that they might be such, there was probatio victimarum, a proof made of Sacrifices, as Pliny speaks, Lib. VIII. cap. 45. where he saith such as were lame, or had one leg shorter than the other, were rejected. Which probation was to be made by those that brought the Sacrifices; but if they did not do their duty, the Priest upon examination refused to admit them to be offered.  
There shall be no blemish therein.] This is an explication of what he means by perfect. Which Solon (who seems to have taken the Rites of Religion from Moses) called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in the explication of which word, Hesychius, after several other expressions, concludes with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which neither hath any part more or less than it should have. Julius Pollux (who reports this of Solon) hath a great number of other words to express the perfection required in Sacrifices, which were to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lib. I. cap. 1. some of which are of the same signification, and serve only to show how complete their Sacrifices were to be.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 Blind, or broken, etc.] In this and the following Verses he mentions XII blemishes, which render any Beast unfit for Sacrifice. And the first is blind; under which the Hebrews comprehend that which the Latins call Cocles, a Beast that hath but one eye.  
Or broken.] In the Bones of the Thighs, or the Legs.  
Or maimed.] Most take it for that which the Latins call mutilum, that which lacketh any part. The LXX. took it more particularly for that which had its Tongue cut out. The Hebrew Doctors for that whose Eyebrows or Lips were slit, or cut off. Which is nearer to the Hebrew word charuts than the Vulgar, which translates it only a Scar.  
Or having a wen.] The Hebrews generally understand by the word jabbeleth, that which the Latins call Verruca, a Wart, or hard Knob rising in the flesh: which is better than the Vulgar, who translates it papulas, which properly signifies Pimples, Pushes, or Wheals. But I think our Translation cannot be mended; a Wen being a more manifest deformity, and more common in Beasts than the other.  
Or Scurvy.] This is that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Itch.  
Or scabbed.] Some take this word to signify the same with the Latin impetigo, i. e. a Ring-worm or Tetter, which spreads in the skin with a dry Scab: though others take it for that which they call Porrigo, for which I know no English word, unless it be the mangy. The Hebrews take it for the Porrigo AEgyptiaca, as Bochart observes, a Scabby Disease of this kind frequent among the Egyptians.  
Ye shall not offer these unto the LORD.] Not so much as present them to be offered in Sacrifice.  
Nor make an offering by fire of them upon the Altar unto the LORD.] Much less burn them upon the Altar, for the LORD will not accept such Sacrifices.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 Either a Bullock or a Lamb that hath any thing superfluous.] This word we had before (which we translate superfluous) XXI. 18. but it properly signifies the inequality and disproportion that there is between those parts that are pairs, as the Eyes or Legs; and particularly when one of them exceeds its just bigness: ex. gr. when one Leg is longer than it should be.  
Or lacking in his parts.] This word signifies just the quite contrary to the other; when one part is less and more contracted than it should be: one Leg supposed shorter than ordinary. So all the Hebrews understand these words; particularly Onkelos and Jonathan.  
That mayest thou offer for a free-will-offering.] A very learned Person of our own takes these words for an Exception to the foregoing general Rule; that such defects as these two should not hinder the acceptation of a Beast for a Free-will-offering, though not for a Vow. And it must be acknowledged that is the most plain and simple sense. But the Jews, as he observes, particularly R. Solomon Jarchi, expound them otherwise; and will not have this Offering to signify the Sacrifice of such things at the Altar, but the giving them to the Priest for some Sacred use; to be sold, for instance, for the reparation of the Temple, for which they were accepted. See Dr. Owtram, Lib. I. de Sacrificiis, cap. 9 n. 2.  
But for a vow, it shall not be accepted.] Free-will-offerings were much different from Vows, there being no obligation upon them to offer the former, as there was to offer the latter: and a less perfect Creature would be accepted in the one case, though not in the other.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut.] That is, as the Hebrews interpret it (and so do the LXX. and the Vulgar) any Beast whose Testicles were compressed or bruised, etc. For these four ways they used to castrate a Lamb (for instance) and make it a Weather: and so they did with Kids and Calves, as Bochart observes out of Aristotle and others, in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. II. cap. 46.  
Neither shall you make any offering thereof in your land.] The word Offering is not in the Hebrew: and this passage may be thus exactly translated, Neither in your Land shall ye make, or do. So the LXX. the sense of which the Vulgar expresses by adding the word this, i.e. the forenamed castration, either by compression, or contusion, or any other way. For Josephus saith it was unlawful among them to geld any Creature; which was prohibited, to keep them from doing so with Men, which they were taught to be abominable. And these words suggested as much, being thus translated, Neither in your Land shall it be done. See Selden, Lib. VII. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 3. p. 799.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 Neither from a stranger's hand.] By bennechar, the Son of a Stranger (as it is in the Hebrew) who is called (XXV. 47.) a Stranger and Sojourner, (viz. a Gentile that dwelled among them) is meant a pious Man of another Nation, who had renounced Idolatry, and abstained from Blood, and observed the rest of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah (as they called them) but was not Circumcised, which would have obliged him to the whole Law of Moses. Such Persons, being worshippers of the true God, were permitted to bring him Sacrifices to be offered at his Altar. See Grotius, Lib. I. de Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 1. sect. 16. n. 3.  
Shall ye offer the bread of your God from any of these.] Some have taken these words, as if no Sacrifice was to be accepted from a Gentile, but only Money, with which the Priest might buy a Sacrifice, and offer it for him. But this is confuted by v. 18. and here it is evident, he only forbids them to accept of any Sacrifice which had the forenamed blemishes, from a Gentile. Who might think them not unacceptable, because the Gentiles made no scruple to offer such as these last mentioned to their Gods; though their Laws, in some places, were against it. The Bread of your God: The Hebrews understand hereby to be meant only Burnt-offerings; which Maimonides saith were accepted from a Gentile, even Burnt-offerings of Birds, though he had not yet renounced Idolatry. But they were not to accept from him Peace-offerings or Meat-offerings, or Sacrifices for Sins of Ignorance (IV. 27.) or Trespass-offerings (mentioned VI 6.) nor was a Burnt-offering to be accepted, unless it was a Free-will-offering, or a Vow, as Mr Selden observes, Lib. III. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 4. But if he brought such spontaneous Offerings as had the fore mentioned blemishes, the Priest was to reject them (though the Gentiles might say they were such as had been accepted by his Gods) or else he was to be scourged. So this Law is briefly expounded by the Jews when they reckon it up among their Precepts, that a defective Sacrifice is not to be accepted, no not from the hand of a Gentile, as he observes in the same Book, cap. 7. where he discourses at large on this Subject. And it need not seem strange a Gentile should bring any such Sacrifices (when their Laws, as I observed before, required a choice to be made) for they were not so curious in their choice, as the Hebrews; but as Tertullian upbraids them sacrificed enecta, tabidosa, & scabiosa, Apolog. adv. Gentes, cap. 13. Which the better sort of People perhaps did not offer, but the Vulgar did: and the Priests made no scruple to accept them.  
Because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them.] The word corruption seems particularly to relate unto the  castration: for it signifies such a Corruption as is the destruction of any Member. See Bochart in his Hierozoicon, p. 2. Lib. V cap. 4. And blemishes relate to other defects, which made them unacceptable. Twelve of which, as I said, are here mentioned; but the Hebrews look upon them only as Examples and Specimens' of other the like defects; which they make in all to be fifty, as I observed before out of Selden, Lib. II. the Success. ad Pontific. cap. 5. Maimonides gives us a Catalogue of them in his Treatise of Entrance into the Sanctuary, cap. 7. but to make up that full number, he is constrained to add these three, which have no example among the XII. here mentioned, viz. such as tremble by age, or by some disease, or are torn by wild Beasts.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] These Laws following being of the same nature, were in all likelihood delivered at the same time with the foregoing.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And when a Bullock, or Sheep, or Goat is brought forth.] These were the only Beasts that were allowed to be sacrificed, v. 19  
Then it shall be seven days under the dam, and from the eighth day and thenceforth, it shall be accepted for an offering, etc.] They were not fit for Food when they were not seven days old, and therefore not for Sacrifice; which was the Bread or Food of God, as it is called v. 25. But this hath been sufficiently explained before XXII Exod. 30. I shall only add, that I have since observed that P. Cunaeus hath briefly expressed the sense of Maimonides, which I there represented, (Lib. III. de Republ. Hebraeor. cap. 5.) and that the Gentiles were so far from offering Creatures so young, that they thought them fittest for Sacrifice, when they were two years old; as appears from the words of Virgil , — Mactant lactas de more bidentes. where Servius saith that bidentes were so called, because they were biennes, two years of age; for it was not lawful to Sacrifice those that were younger, nor those that were older.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 And whether it be Cow, or Ewe, ye shall not kill it, and her young both in one day.] Lest the young one, saith Maimonides, should happen to be killed before the Dam, which would have given the greatest grief to her, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 48. Any thing that looked like Cruelty therefore, was by this Law banished from among them; for they might not so much as kill both the Young and the Dam on the same day, to offer them to God himself; of which he is here speaking.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And when ye will offer a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving unto the LORD.] He had mentioned Free-will-offerings and Vows before v. 21. and now briefly touches upon the third sort of Peace-offerings. See VII. 15, 16.  
Offer it at your own will.] Male or Female; of the Herd, or of the Flock, III. 1, 7, 12. Or the meaning may be (as hath been often said) He shall offer it in such a manner, as that it be accepted. See I 3.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 On the same day it shall be eaten, etc.] See VII. 15.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 Therefore shall ye keep my Commandments, and do them, etc.] Because he had said before v. 30. and now repeats it again in the conclusion of this Verse, I am the LORD. To whom they owed obedience; especially when he required they should reverently use all holy things.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 Neither shall ye profane my holy Name.] This may refer either to what goes before, (that they should not make him and his Service contemptible, by offering such things as were defective, etc.) or, be taken as a Precept by itself. And then the Name of God was profaned three ways, (as Mr. Selden observes) besides the most grievous of all, by Blasphemy. Either when a Man, for fear of death, violated the Divine Law; or when he contemptuously and wantonly broke any Precept; or when a Man of great note, for Knowledge and Piety gave a Scandal to others by doing such things, as were not perhaps directly against the Law, yet made him lose all his Authority. See Lib. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. juxta Disc. Hebr. cap. 10.  
But I will be hallowed among the Children of Israel.] Either by the observation of his Laws, or by punishing those who transgressed them: For so this phrase is used, X. 3.  
I am the LORD which hollow you.] Have separated you to myself, as a special People, from all others, by Laws different from theirs, and more excellent.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 That brought you out of the Land of Egypt, to be your God.] And moreover, distinguished you from all others, by singular Benefits: particularly by delivering you from the most grievous Slavery, that I might make you a happy People.  
I am the LORD.] When you remember my benefits, remember I am your Sovereign, who expect your Obedience.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] All the Laws in this Chapter were delivered at one time, not long after the former.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel.] Who were highly concerned to observe all the Solemnities enjoined in this Chapter, in such a manner as God required.  
And say unto them, concerning the Feasts of the LORD.] It hath been anciently observed, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Syrians were great lovers of Feasts. Which made it the more reasonable (if they were so in Moses his days) that the Israelites, who were to be their Neighbours in the Land of Canaan, should have so many Feasts appointed them, weekly, monthly, and yearly; all in honour of their God. From whence they are called Feasts of the LORD. But this word MOED, which we translate a Feast, properly signifies an Assembly. And so Mr. Thorndike would have it here translated; because the name of Feasts is proper to those Solemnities which are to be celebrated with joy and cheerfulness: whereas under this general word Moed is comprehended the Day of Atonement, which is one of the Assemblies here named, v. 27. but was no Feast; being to be observed with the greatest Humiliation and Affliction that could be expressed. He therefore exactly translates these words in this manner, The Assemblies of the LORD (for the word concerning is not in the Hebrew) which ye shall proclaim for holy Convocations, these are my Assemblies. See Religious Assemblies, Chap. II. All that can be said for our Translation is, That the Day of Atonement being a Day of Rest from all Labour, it may go under the Name of a Feast, in opposition to working days.  
Which ye shall proclaim.] Or call, by the sound of the Trumpet, which the Priests were to blow upon these days, X Numb. 10.  
To be holy Convocations.] The same Hebrew, (Mikra) which here signifies a Convocation, signifies also reading, VIII Nehem. 8. For on these days they were called to Assemble together to hear the Law read to them, as well as to offer Sacrifice, and make their Prayers to God, with Thanksgivings for his Benefits.  
Even these are my Feasts.] Or my Assemblies, as I said before: the first of which was the Sabbath, than the Passover, Pentecost, the beginning of the New Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles: which are all contained under the general word Moed, and none besides.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Six days shall work be done.] They were allowed all these for any sort of business wherein they pleased to employ themselves.  
But the seventh day is the sabbath of rest.] See XX Exod. 9, 10. XXXI. 15. This was the greatest of all Solemnities appointed for Assemblies, returning once every week; and therefore is set in the head of all the rest; from which it seems to be distinguished, v. 37, 38. And accordingly in the next Verse, having here mentioned this as a day by itself, he gins to reckon the Feasts or Assemblies of the LORD. And the reason why this day was made a Sabbath of Rest, was, because God himself then rested from his Works. In memory of which they were to keep this Day free from all Labour, that the belief of the Creation of the World might be fixed in their Minds; or, as Maimonides phrases it, (More Nevoch. P. II. cap. 113.) A belief that nothing is coevous with God. Whence that saying of theirs (mentioned by Aben-Ezra) whosoever doth any work upon the Sabbath-day, denies the work of the Creation.  
Ye shall do no work therein.] They were commanded so to rest on this day from all bodily labour, as not to kindle a fire, to dress the meat they eat upon it: which is not required upon any other day, but only this and the great Day of Expiation, (v. 28, 30.) Concerning these two days alone it is said, Thou shalt do no work upon it: but of the days of other Assemblies, no more is said but this, Thou shalt do no servile work therein, v. 7, 8, etc. that is, only such work as they were wont to put their Slaves to do, was prohibited. For though they might not bake, nor boil their Meat on the Sabbath-day, XVI Exod. 23. nor on the day of Expiation, v. 28. of this Chapter; yet on other Solemn days they might make provision for their Tables, XII. Exod. 16. where Aben-Ezra notes of none of the solemn Assemblies, besides the Sabbath and the day of Atonement, it is said NO MANNER OF WORK: only of the Passover he saith it, and addeth an exception of the Meat of the Soul; that is, what was requisite for the Sustenance of Nature. As our Mr. Thorndike observes, in the place before quoted.  
It is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.] To be kept holy in honour of the LORD, by every man wheresoever he dwelled: For they had Synagogues for Worship in all their Towns; though most of the other Assemblies could be held only in the place where the Sanctuary, and afterwards the Temple was, whither all their Males went up thrice a year at the great Festivals. Aben-Ezra therefore thus glosses upon these words, IN ALL YOUR DWELLINGS, in your Land and out of your Land; at home and upon the way. To show that the Command XXXV Exod. 3. (You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitation upon the Sabbath-day) was to be observed not only whilst they lived upon Manna in the Wilderness (when God gave them a double portion on the sixth day, that they might prepare it against the Sabbath, XVI Exod. 5.29.) but in all places, wheresoever they dwelled afterwards.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 These are Feasts of the LORD.] Now follow the Solemn Assemblies which are to be kept by this Ordinance of mine; besides that of the Seventh day, which was celebrated from the beginning.  
This looks like a Title to all that ensues.  
Even for holy Convocations. Solemn Metting of the People, who were called together to celebrate the Mercies of God with Sacrifices of Thanksgiving and Public rejoicings. Such there were in all Nations, who had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Greeks called them) general Assemblies of all the Country, to do honour to their Gods. As in Egypt we are told by Herodotus, Lib. II. cap. 59 they did once a year 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in honour of Isis, Mars and Diana. The like was in other Nations, as every body knows.  
Dr. Hammond hath observed something concerning this phrase holy Convocations, upon XX S. Matth. not. c.  
Which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.] Or in their appointed times: which here follow.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 On the fourteenth day of the first month.] See XII Exod. 18.  
At even.] See XII Exod. 6.  
Is the Lord's Passover.] See XII Exod. 27.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month, is the Feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD, etc.] That is, than the seven days of eating unleavened Bread were to begin, XII Exod. 15.  
Seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.] See XII Exod. 19, 20.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 On the first day ye shall have an holy Convocation. XII Exod. 16.  
Ye shall do no servile work therein.] Such days as these were not observed so scrupulously as the seventh day of every week, on which (as I observed before) they might not coil nor bake, i. e. prepare their Meat; which on this day was allowed, as appears from the place last named in Exodus. Nor might they stir out of their place, i. e. take a Journey on the Sabbath, XVI Exod. 29. but on this day they might: As appears from XVI Deut. 7. where having sacrificed the Passover, and eaten it on the fourteenth day at Even, they have leave given them to go home the next Morning, which was the first day of unleavened Bread. For on this very day, betimes in the morning, they came out of Egypt, and traveled from Ramese to Succoth. By servile work therefore we are to understand their ordinary Labours on other days, from which both they and their Servants were to abstain on this day. Which it was the custom of all Nations to forbear, upon such great Solemnities, as Strabo informs us Lib. X. where he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is common both to Greeks and Barbarians, to keep their holy days, with a festival remission of their labours.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And ye shall offer an offering made by fire seven days unto the LORD.] These were not merely idle times, but days for Divine Service; about which there is a particular direction given afterwards, XXVIII Numb. from the 19th Verse to the 25th, where the Sacrifices for every one of the seven days are prescribed. And though there is no mention of any particular work of the Moral Service of God upon these days (no more than there is of that Sanctification of the Sabbath-day) yet the Jews were not so blind, but that they were able to perceive the Spiritual Service of God, by Prayers, and Praises, and hearing the Law, and meditating upon God's works, was required on these days, especially on the Sabbath: which appears from Josephus, and Philo, and divers others of their later Writers.  
In the seventh day is an holy Convocation.] XII Exod. 16.  
Ye shall do no servile work therein.] It was to be observed as the first day of the seven; that the Feast might conclude as it began.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Though the following Command could not be yet practised; yet he would have them take a particular notice of it, as no less solemnly enjoined than the foregoing.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 Speak unto the Children of Israel.] They being all concerned in this Precept.  
And say unto them, when ye be come into the Land which I give unto you.] In the Wilderness they sowed no Corn, and therefore could not be obliged by this Precept till they came to Canaan: nay, till they had driven out the old Inhabitants, and God had given them rest in the Land of Promise, as Moses himself seems to expound it, XII Deut. 10, 11.  
And shall reap the harvest thereof.] Begin to reap it, as it is explained, XVI Deut. 9  
Then ye shall bring a Sheaf.] Or an handful, as it is translated in the Margin of our Bibles. And there was the very same custom among the Heathen, to bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an handful of the new Corn, to be offered to their Gods, as Diodorus Siculus saith the practice was among the Egyptians.  
Of the First-sruits.] There were several things comprehended under the name of First-fruits, which are commanded to be offered unto God, XXIII Exod. 19 The Greeks have accurately distinguished them by proper and peculiar Names. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Firstborn of Men or of Cattle mentioned XIII Exod. Then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the first Corn that was ripe, or the first fruit of Trees, which they brought from the Field, or from their Plantations, before they eat any themselves. And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which the Hebrews call Terumoth, or Trumoth) were the First-fruits of their Wine and Oil (XVIII Numb. 12.) and the first Loaves or Cakes made of their Wheat, mentioned below v. 17. See there.  
Of your harvest.] Of Barley-harvest, which began at the Passover, when they offered the First-fruits here mentioned; as Wheat-harvest began at Pentecost, when they offered the First-fruits mentioned v. 17, as at the Feast of Tabernacles those of the Vine, and other Fruit-trees were brought and offered. And so much weight was laid on this, and there were so many of them, and such care taken of their payment, because this was held by all Mankind as a principal part of Religion, to make this early Acknowledgement to God for his Goodness. Insomuch, that they who offered no First-fruits were looked upon as Atheists. So Porphyry, Lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sect. 78. And indeed this was a practice derived from the beginning of the World, IV Gen. 3, 4. Aristotle himself testifies as much, when he saith Lib. VIII. ad Nichomachum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The ancient Sacrifices and Assemblies were after the carrying in the Harvest, when they offered the First-fruits, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they chief relaxed themselves at those Seasons.  
Unto the Priest.] Who offered part of it to God, and had the rest himself. For thus the Jews describe the gathering and offering of them. On the Evening of the first day of the Passover-week, some were ordered by the Sanhedrim to take Sickles and Baskets, etc. and go out when it was dark (having a great Company with them) and cut a Sheaf of Corn; which they brought into the Court of God's House, and parched it, (as may be gathered from the second Chapter of this Book, 14, 15, 16.) and having ground it, they sifted it often (no less than thirteen times) till it was very fine flour. After which they took out a Tenth-deal (an Omer, which was the tenth part of an Ephah) and brought it to the Priest, who took out an handful, and put it on the Altar with Oil and Frankincense; and the remainder he had for himself. See Dr. Lightfoot in his Temple Service, Chap. XIV. sect. 2. Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis, Lib. I. cap. 8. n. 6. And J. Wagenseil upon Sota, cap. 2. Annot. 11.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD.] They did not offer the Corn green in the Ears (as I observed in the foregoing Verse) but parched, dried, ground, and searsed, and then they waved a Tenth-deal of the Flour, which came from the Sheaf, as a present to the LORD of the whole Earth.  
To be accepted for you.] To procure God's Blessing upon the rest of the Harvest; and that they might have liberty to use the Corn it produced: which it was not lawful for them to do, till the First-fruits were given to God.  
On the morrow after the Sabbath the Priest shall wave it.] We are not to understand by the Sabbath the Seventh days Rest, which was the Opinion of the Sadducees, as R. Levi been Gersom tells (upon the fifth of Joshua) but the day here mentioned v. 7. which was a kind of Sabbath, because no Servile work might be done therein. And therefore this morrow after the Sabbath was the sixteenth day of Nisan, or the next day to the first of Unleavened Bread. So the LXX translate it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the morrow after the first: and Josephus more plainly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. on the second day of Unleavened Bread, which is the sixteenth day of the Month, etc. Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. This was the first of the fifty days, which they reckoned till Pentecost, v. 15. and was the day on which Manna ceased when they came into Canaan, because than they eat of the Fruits of that Country (V Josh. 10, 11, 12.) And indeed it was not lawful for them (as I said before) to eat of the Fruits of the Earth, till after the Passover; because then the Sheaf of the First fruits was waved, which consecrated the rest of the Corn. And so God continued Manna to them, till they had other Food to eat.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf, an he-lamb without blemish, etc.] Though this day was not so holy as the first day of Unleavened Bread, yet it was a part of the Festival, and was called Moed katon, a lesser Solemnity; as all the rest of the days were, between the first and the seventh. And therefore a special Offering is here ordered upon this day, besides the daily Burnt-Sacrifice; and besides the Sacrifice which was appointed (v. 8.) to be offered upon every one of the seven days.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the Meat-offering thereof shall be two Tenth-deals of fine flour, etc.] I observed before (upon the second Chapter, v. 1.) that all sorts of Bread might be offered to God, as being a very ancient Sacrifice, and commonly used at every Table: for which reason Wine also is here ordered; but it was to be simple Wine, not mixed, as was the Heathenish Custom. Salt also was added (II. 13.) as common at all Tables; but no Honey, nor Leaven, which men's Superstition had introduced, (and therefore expressly forbidden in that place, v. 11.) as it did also Milk, and Herbs, and Leaves of Trees; not a word of which is to be found in the Law of Moses. But here it is observable, that he commands two Tenth-deals of fine Flour to be offered; whereas one Tenth was the common Meat-offering (XXIX Exod. 40.) Because, as one of them was a necessary attendant on the Lamb (mentioned before v. 12.) so the other was in honour of the day, which was a lesser kind of Festival.  
And the Drink-offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin.] Here is not a double proportion of Wine ordered, but the usual quantity; because, perhaps, this was a Thanksgiving only for their Corn, not for their Vintage, which came afterwards.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the self same day, that ye have brought an offering to your God.] It was not lawful for them to reap, and therefore not to eat any of the Fruits of the Earth, till the forenamed First-fruits were offered, as an acknowledgement to the Donor of them. For nothing was more just and equal, all Men thought, than to give some part to him, who gave to them all they had: and in the first place, to give him his due, before they took any thing to themselves. The Romans in this expressed the sense of all Mankind; who as Pliny tells us, Lib. XVIII. cap. 2. Ne gustabant quidem novas fruges, aut vina, antequam Sacerdotes primitias tibassent, did not so much as taste of their Corn or Wine, till the Priests had offered the First-fruits.  
It shall be a statute for ever, etc.] As long as their Polity lasted.  
In all your dwellings.] Throughout the whole Land of Canaan.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath.] From the sixteenth day of Nisan, or the second day of Unleavened Bread; which was the morrow after the Sabbath, v. 11.  
From the day that ye brought the sheaf of the Wave-offering.] This is added only as a fuller description of the time, from which they were to count.  
Seven Sabbaths shall be complete.] Seven whole Weeks, reckoning that day from which the account begun, for the first day of the first of those Weeks; which made XLIX. days in all. Maimonides thinks it was for the honour of this great Day of Pentecost, that they were to count the days till it came; just like a Man, saith he, who expects his best Friend, is wont to tell the days and hours till he arrive, More Nevoch. P. III. c. 43. And therefore the present Jews begin this Supputation, with a solemn Prayer, saying, Blessed art thou, O LORD our God, the LORD of the World, who hast sanctified us with thy Precepts, and commandest us to number the days of Harvest: and this is the first day. And thus they go on to pray till the seventh day, when they add, Now there is one Week: and so they proceed in the same Prayers to the Evening of Pentecost. Which Feast they not being able now to keep, as the Law appoints, they pray to God every day, after they have done counting, that he would restore Jerusalem and the Temple, and then they promise to do all that is here prescribed. And this counting in some places is performed publicly in their Synagogues; yet so that every Master of a Family is bound every Night to do it at home. See Buxtorf. Synag. Judaica, cap. 20.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days.] The next day after the seventh Sabbath (or Week) made just fifty days; from which this Feast was called Pentecost: and in the Old Testament, the Feast of Weeks; because it began the next day after the seven Weeks , XXXIV Exod. 22.  
And ye shall offer a new Meat-offering to the LORD.] Viz. Of new Corn made into Loaves, as it follows in the next Verse: which was the First-fruits of Wheat-harvest, as the place  tells us, XXXIV Exod. 22.  
This day the Samaritans take to have been the first day of the Week; after the very Letter of this Law, which is thus made out, by the great Primate of Ireland: Our blessed LORD being slain at the Feast of the Passover, the whole Sabbath following (which was the first day of Unleavened Bread) he rested in his Grave. The next day after that Sabbath, the Sheaf, or Omer of the First-fruits of the Barley-harvest was offered to the LORD; when Christ risen from the dead, and became the First-fruits of them that slept. From this day was the account taken of the seven Sabbaths, or Weeks: and upon the morrow after the Seventh (that is, upon our Lord's Day) was celebrated the Feast of Weeks; which is called the day of the First-fruits, (XXVIII Numb. 26.) because then were offered the First-fruits of their second, or Wheat-Harvest; and therefore called the Feast of 〈◊〉 (XXIII Exod. 16.) because then was the principal, and the Conclusion of the whole Harvest of the year. Upon which day the Apostles, having themselves received the First-fruits of the Spirit, begat three thousand Souls, through the Word of Truth; and presented them as the First-fruits of the Christian Church unto God, and unto the Lamb. Now the matter being so ordered by God, that in the observation of the Feast of Weeks, the Seventh day of the Week (the Jewish Sabbath) was purposely passed over, and that great Solemnity kept upon the first day of the Week, no wonder the Christian Church hath appropriated that day, instead of the Seventh, for the Service of God.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations.] These Oblations seem to have been offered at a common charge, in the name of the whole Nation; which is the reason of this phrase, Out of your habitations. For to affirm, as some do, that two Loaves were to be brought out of every House, or at least out of every Town, is absurd: for they may as well say, seven Lambs (as it follows) which were offered with this Bread, were to be furnished in like manner, out of every Family, or Town.  
Two Wave-loaves, of two Tenth-deals.] A double proportion, as before v. 13. which was presented to God, the LORD of the whole World, by waving them to all quarters. Each Loaf did not contain two Tenth-deals; but there was one in each Loaf.  
They shall be of fine flour.] Of Wheat.  
They shall be baken with leaven.] And therefore were not burnt upon the Altar (for that was unlawful, TWO Leu. 11, 12.) but wholly given to the Priests. Whence it was, as the Jews observe, that the Bread accompanying their Peace-offerings of Thanksgiving were leavened, (VII. 13.) and not burnt on the Altar, but entirely given to the Priests, the Servants of God, who attended at his Altar, that they might Feast together with him.  
They are the first-fruits unto the LORD.] Other First-fruits are mentioned v. 10. but these were the principal, being the First-fruits of Wheat-harvest; which with all the rest are exactly enumerated by Nehemiah X. 35, 36, 37. And that place of Pliny, mentioned v. 14. seems to prove that the Heathen offered both the first of their Fruits, before they brought them out of their Fields and Vineyards; and also the first of what was made of them after they were brought home. Which they did partly out of gratitude to God, to thank him for making the year fruitful; and partly to pray him to grant fruitful Seasons for the future.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And ye shall offer with the Bread seven Lambs without blemish, etc.] This being a great day, and Burnt-offerings being the noblest sort of Sacrifice, purely in honour of God, a greater number, both of Lambs and other Creatures, are required upon this Solemnity.  
And one young Bullock, and two Rams.] In XXVIII Numb. 27. it is said, Two young Bullocks, and one Ram, besides the seven Lambs. Perhaps they were left to their liberty, either to bring one young Bullock and two Rams, or one Ram and two young Bullocks. Or else, those mentioned in Numbers were distinct Sacrifices besides those here mentioned: and so Josephus saith, Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. that there were offered upon this day, three young Bullocks, two Rams (it should be three Rams) and fourteen Lambs. All which were offered, besides the Morning and Evening Sacrifice of every day.  
They shall be a Burnt-offering to the LORD, with their Meat-offering, etc.] There being all sorts of Sacrifices prescribed for the great Solemnity of this Day, he mentions the Burnt-offering in the first place, because it was the principal, and offered next to the two Loaves.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 Then shall ye Sacrifice one Kid of the Goats for a Sin-offering.] Next followed the Sin-offering: Which, for a particular sin of the Congregation, was a Bullock, 18.14. but for the sins of the Nation in general only a Kid of the Goats. For as Maimonides observes (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.) the more grievous the Sin was, the viler the Sacrifice; there being no greater Sin than Idolatry, nor viler Sacrifice than a She-goat: and yet this was the Expiation of that Sin, as they interpret IV. 27. XV Numb. 17.  
And two Lambs of the first year, for a Sacrifice of Peace-offerings.] Double the number, to what was commonly offered. For this being an high day all sorts of Sacrifices (as I said before) were offered (Burnt-offerings, Sin-offerings, and Peace-offerings) upon it: and in greater proportions (except the Sin-offering) then on other days. And these were the only Peace-offerings of the whole Congregation of Israel, offered only at this one time of the year, and never else.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And the Priest shall wave them with the Bread of the First-fruits, for a Wave-offering before the LORD.] These Sacrifices, with the Trespass-offering for a Leper (XIV. 12, 24.) were the only Offerings that were waved about towards all the corners of the World. So Abarbinel upon this place: The waving was performed by the Priest, who reached them out, upward and downward, this way and that way, towards the six quarters of the World; to show that the Earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof. Or, as R. Levi been Gersom speaks, that they might understand, the Providence of God is every where, above and beneath, in every corner of the World.  
With the two Lambs.] This seems to signify the forenamed Burnt-offering and Sin-offering were thus waved, as well as these Peace-offerings: That is, some part of them all, in the name of the rest; for the Priest could not wave the whole Body of them, they were so heavy.  
They shall be holy to the LORD for the Priest.] Who had not only the Breast and the Shoulder (as was usual) but all the flesh of these Peace-offerings (their Blood being sprinkled, and their Inwards burnt) was given unto him, to be eaten by the Males among the Priests, in the Court of the Sanctuary; even as the Sin-offerings were. For these Peace-offerings being (as I before-noted) the only Peace-offerings of the whole Congregation, were reckoned among the most holy things: whereas the Peace-offerings, of private Men, were less holy; as Dr. Lightfoot observes in his Temple Service, cap. 8. sect. 4. And the true reason why the Priest had all the Flesh of these Sacrifices, was, because they being for the whole Congregation, the Offerers were too many, to have any portion of them distributed among them.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And ye shall proclaim on the self same day.] Before the Solemnities began.  
That it may be an holy Convocation to you.] See v. 4. The reason of this holy Assembly, was partly to commemorate God's great Goodness, in giving the Law from Mount Sinai, on the fiftieth day after their coming out of Egypt, (which was the chief end of God's bringing them from thence, as Maimonides speaks, P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 43.) and partly to thank him for giving them such fair hopes of completing their Harvest, which had been begun at the Passover.  
Ye shall do no servile work therein.] It was to be observed, as the first and the last days of Unleavened Bread, (v. 7, 8.) with such a Rest, as made it little different from a Sabbath. And that great Vision, (as Maimonides calls it) at the giving of the Law lasting but one day, was the reason the memory of it was celebrated only for one day in the year; whereas one Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted seven days; for the day was not sufficient to make them sensible enough of the Affliction they endured in Egypt. But perhaps one day only was appointed at Pentecost to be free from all Servile work, because of the great Business of Wheat-harvest, which was then coming on; and could not permit them to be so much at leisure, as they were when the Fruits of the Earth were all gathered. Then they kept a Feast seven days, (v. 39) as they did at the beginning of Barley-harvest, when the Feast of Unleavened Bread was held. At which time Harvest did not come on so fast, as it did at Pentecost: for the First-fruits than were of green Corn, parched, and dried, and offered to God, for the hope they had he would bring the rest to maturity.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And when ye reap the Harvest of your Land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of the Field, etc.] This Precept hath been sufficiently explained before, XIX. 9, 10. Only the occasion of its repetition here ought to be observed; which is the mention of Harvest and First-fruits, which in gratitude they then offered unto God. Of whose Goodness he would have them so sensible, as not to be unmindful of the Poor; but to be such Benefactors to them, that they might still receive more Benefits from God.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] These words are frequently prefixed to a new matter; though delivered at the same time with what went before.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 Speak unto the Children of Israel, saying.] Who (as I have often said) were all concerned to take notice of such Precepts.  
In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, ye shall have a Sabbath.] Such a Sabbath as those mentioned v. 7, 8, 21. on which no Servile work was to be done; as it follows in the next Verse. For the seventh Month was the first Month of the year, accordding to the ancient computation; and continued so still to several purposes: particularly with respect to their Jubilee, when they were to blow the Trumpet as they did on this day: which was the chief New Moon in all the year; and the more illustrious, because it fell in the time when all the Fruits of the Earth were gathered.  
A memorial of blowing with Trumpets.] It is not easy to tell, of what this blowing of Trumpets was a memorial. Maimonides in the place forenamed (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 43.) will have it to be instituted, to awaken the People out of sleep, and call them to repentance; being to put them in mind of the great Day of Expiation, which followed nine days after. This he explains more largely in his Jad Chazakah, in the Treatise of Repentance, cap. 3. where he saith, The sound of the Trumpet at this time, did in effect say, Shake off your drowsiness ye that sleep; and being awaked, watch to your duty. Search and try your ways; Remember your Creator, and repent. You whom the Vanity of the Times hath led into a forgetfulness of the Truth; who spend your days, wand'ring after empty things, which profit nothing; bethink yourselves, and take care of your Souls. Let every one forsake his evil way, and his thoughts which are not good. And accordingly, he saith in the same place, the Israelites were wont to multiply Alms and Good Works; and to apply themselves to the Precepts (as his phrase is) from the beginning of the year, till the Day of Atonement, more diligently than at any other time; rising in the night to pray in their Synagogues till break of day, etc. But, though this be very pious, I see no ground for it; no more than for what they say of Commemorating the Deliverance of Isaac: For why should not blowing of Trumpets be ordered for a preparation to other Solemn days, and in memory of other Deliverances, as well as this of Isaac?  
It seems more probable that all Nations making great shouting, rejoicing, and feasting in the beginning of the year, at the first New Moon, (as many have observed) hoping the rest of the year, by this means, would prove more prosperous: God was pleased to ordain this great rejoicing among his People, in honour of himself, upon the Day of the first New Moon, (which was to be continued every first Day of the Month) that he might preserve them from the Worship of the Moon; and make them sensible that he alone gave them good years, and renewed his Mercies daily, from Month to Month, upon them. Bonfrerius imagines that God put an honour upon this Month, because it was the seventh: that as every seventh day was a Sabbath, and every seventh year the Land rested, etc. so every seventh month of every year should be a kind of Sabbatical Month; there being more Feasts in this Month, then in any other Months in the Year.  
But all this doth not explain what this blowing of Trumpets was a memorial of; which I take to be the Creation of the World; which was in Autumn. Upon which account it was, that they anciently began their year at this time, as the Eastern People do at this day. They acknowledged also God's Goodness, in blessing all the year past, and bringing them to the beginning of a new year; which they prayed him to make happy to them.  
They began to blow at Sun-rise, and continued it till Sunset. He that sounded the Trumpet began with the usual Prayer, Blessed be God, who hath sanctified us with his Precepts, etc. subjoyning these words, Blessed be God, who hath hitherto preserved us in life, and brought us unto this time. When all was ended, the People said with a loud voice these words of the Psalmist, LXXXIX Psal. 15. Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance. See Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. cap. 24.  
Such blowing with Trumpets was used by the Gentiles; particularly in the Solemnities they observed in honour of the Mother of the Gods: One whole day (which was the second) being spent in blowing of Trumpets, as Julian tells us in his fifth Oration upon this Subject, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 168.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 Ye shall do no servile work therein.] It was a very Solemn Day, like the Day of Pentecost, (v. 21.) and others before noted, on which they might only make provision for their Meals, XII Exod. 16. which were wont to be very liberal upon this day. And among other Dishes they serve up to the Table a Ram's head, in the memory of that Ram, which was sacrificed in the room of Isaac; which they fancy was upon this day.  
But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] About which Directions are given afterwards, XXIX Numb. 2, etc. For it was not to be a Day of Rest merely, but of Religion.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] The following Precept is of great moment, which makes this Preface to be set before it.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month, there shall be a day of atonement.] This hath been explained XVI. 29, 30, 31.  
It shall be an holy convocation to you.] On which they were to assemble, to humble themselves before God, as it here follows.  
And ye shall afflict your souls.] See Chapter XVI. I shall only add, That the Jews fancy this Solemn day of Fasting was appointed, partly to avert those Diseases which were wont to be rife in the Autumnal Season: and this day chosen rather than any other, that they might express their Grief at that time, when the Sin of the Golden Calf was committed.  
And offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] A Burnt-offering; about which Directions are given in XXIX Numb. 8.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 And ye shall do no work on that same day.] See v. 3. and XVI. 31.  
For it is a day of atonement.] Set apart wholly for this work; which is at large described in the XVIth Chapter.  
To make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.] First the Priest made an Atonement for himself and his Family, XVI. 6, etc. and then for the People, and for the holy place, etc. v. 15, 16, 33.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 For whatsoever soul he be that shall not be afflicted on that day, he shall be cut off from among his people.] The Affliction here spoken of consisted chief in abstaining from all manner of Food (as the Jews make account) from one Evening to the next. In which time, if any Man eat to satisfy his Appetite, that is, above the quantity of a Date, he was in danger to be cut off; by the hand of God, I suppose. So they say in Joma, cap. 8. n. 2. Besides which, there were four other Mortifications: for no Man was to put on his Shoes; nor anoint himself; nor wash his Face; nor enjoy his Wife. See Buxtorf. Synad. Jud. cap. 26.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And whatsoever soul he be that doth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.] The two great things required on this day, being to Afflict themselves, and to rest from Labour; they who transgressed either of these Commands, are threatened to be cut off, and that by God himself, as this Verse teaches us to Expound the foregoing.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 Ye shall do no manner of work. It shall be a statute for ever, etc.] This is repeated again, because it was a thing of such high importance, that they should wholly attend to the business of this great Day; which was a Day of Humiliation, and Repentance, and making their Peace with God. And, as the Jews themselves observe, there was no Man so good but he had offended in some thing or other: and besides, they were to Afflict themselves for the Sins of the whole Body of the Nation.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 It shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest.] As the weekly Sabbath was, v. 3. when they did not merely rest from Labour, but employed themselves in the Divine Service; as v. 8. I observed they did on other Sabbaths of lesser strictness. And this the Heathens themselves could discern, that the design of their Festivals, which were Days of Ease and remission of Labours, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to withdraw the Mind from Human Employments, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that so a Man may have leisure to turn his Mind towards God. Which is a most Divine saying of Strabo, (which I think I have noted before, but cannot be too oft repeated) Lib. X. Geograph. p. 467.  
And ye shall afflict your souls in the ninth day of the month at even.] They kept the Highpriest on the Even of the Day of Expiation from eating much, because it would make him sleepy, as they tell us in Joma, cap. 1. n. 4. Where our learned Sheringham observes, that the Evening before is called the Even of the Day of Expiation, because they began the Fast before the setting of the Sun: so that the whole Evening belonged to the following Sabbath. By which, these two places, XVI. 29. where it is said they shall Afflict their Souls on the tenth day, and this Verse which saith on the ninth day, which seem to clash one with another, may be easily reconciled. For they began to afflict themselves in the conclusion of the ninth day, and ended the Fast in the conclusion of the tenth. See Menasseh ben Israel, Quest. 4. ad Leu.  
From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.] This justifies what was just now said, That this Day began in the Even of the ninth day, and continued till the Even of the tenth.  
Your Sabbath.] So this day was called, because no manner of work might be done on this day, no more then on the Seventh, or weekly Sabbath, v. 31. And so it is called by the Prophet, LVIII Isaiah 13.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] The same Preface is prefixed to this, as to the rest; because it was one of the three greatest Solemnities appointed by God in remembrance of his Benefits. See v. 39  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the Feast of Tabernacles, for seven days unto the LORD.] It was to begin on the fifteenth day, and continue seven days, as the Feast of Unleavened Bread did. The design of this Feast is thus expressed by Maimonides, who compares it with the Passover. Which served, saith he, (More Nevoch. P. III. c. 43.) to preserve the memory of all the Miracles which God did in Egypt, out of which he brought them at that time; as the Feast of Tabernacles did to preserve the memory of the Signs and Wonders he did in the Wilderness; where he afforded them his Divine Protection under a glorious Cloud, and preserved them without any Houses, both in the cold of Winter and heat of Summer. In short, there are two ends mentioned in this Chapter, of the Institution of this Festival: one to give thanks for the Fruits of the Earth, which were then gathered, v. 39 another, and the principal, in a grateful remembrance that they dwelled in Booths forty years, and were brought into better Habitations when they came to Canaan, v. 42, 43.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 And on the first day shall be an holy Convocation, etc.] It was to be observed as the day of Pentecost, v. 21. And they every one carried in their hands the Bough of some goodly Tree, as the Hebrews understand the first words of v. 40. Josephus describing this Festivity Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. mentions in the first place Boughs of Myrtle.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] The peculiar Sacrifices, with their Meat-offerings, which were to be offered on these seven days, are distinctly set down in XXIX Numb. from the thirteenth Verse to the end. Where it will be most proper to consider them.  
On the eighth day shall be an holy Convocation unto you.] See v. 4.  
And ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] A Burnt-offering, with a Meat-offering attending upon it; according to the appointment in XXIX Numb. 36, 37.  
It is a solemn Assembly.] This is a new word, which is not used hitherto concerning any of the Feasts here mentioned; signifying, as we translate it in the Margin, a day of restraint, or rather, a closing, or concluding day; for then the Solemnity ended. And so Theodoret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Conclusion of the Feasts. Whence the last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is also called by this Name of Atzereth, XVI Deut. 8. And so is the Feast of Pentecost (which was kept in the end of seven Weeks) called by Josephus by the same name of Asartha, Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. This therefore as it was the last, so it was the great day of the Feast, as St. John calls it, VII. 37. On which day they read the last Section of the Law, and so concluded the reading of the whole five Books of Moses. And thence any great Solemnity is called by this name of Atzereth, 2 Kings X. 20. I Joel 14. This seems to me to be a far better account of this word, then that which the Jews commonly give, who render it a day of detention; because, saith Abarbanel, they were bound to detain the Feast to this day (whereas no other Feast continued more than seven days) staying at Jerusalem till it was over. Whence this day seems to him to be to the Feast of Tabernacles, as the Day of Pentecost was to the Passover. For as they were bound to count seven Weeks from that time, and then make this fiftieth day a Feast; so they are here commanded, after the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles, to stay and feast one day more. Others of them, as R. Solomon Jarchi, say this was as if a Man, having been entertained by his Friend seven days, should, to express greater kindness to him, be detained one day more.  
And ye shall do no servile work therein.] But spend their time in Feasting, Mirth and Rejoicing; with thankful Acknowledgements of God's Benefits to them. See v. 7, 8.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 These are the feasts (or Assemblies) of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy Convocations.] This was the Preface to them, v. 4. and now is the Conclusion; to make them the more observed.  
To offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a Burnt-offering and a Meat-offering, and a Sacrifice, etc.] These Offerings are particularly set down (as hath been noted all along) in the XXVIII. and XXIXth of Numbers. And by a Sacrifice seems here to be meant a Sin-offering; which is ordered, throughout those two Chapters, together with Burnt-offerings upon all these Festivals.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 Besides the Sabbaths of the LORD.] i. e. Beside the Sacrifices appointed upon all the Sabbaths in the year: which were not to be omitted, if any of the Feasts here mentioned fell upon the seventh day of the Week.  
And beside your gifts.] Most understand by Gifts, such Presents as Men made to God, beyond their First-fruits and Tenths. But it may be thought only a general word, including the two particulars which follow, Vows and Free-will-offerings.  
Ver. 39 Verse 39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the Land, etc.] Here is no new injunction in this Verse, but only an enforcement of what was said before: the very same days being appointed to be observed, with those named v. 24. Therefore the Hebrew Particle Ak should not have been translated also, but surely, or certainly, or truly; as we translate it in other places: particularly XXIX Gen. 14. Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. LXXIII Psal. 1. Truly God is good to Israel. TWO Lament. 16. Certainly this is the day that we looked for.  
When ye have gathered in the fruit of the Land.] These words give a reason of the repetition of the Command; because there was something more designed in this Festival, than merely the remembrance of their Condition in the Wilderness; which was to express their Thankfulness to God for their desired Harvest, which they had now gathered. For which cause, besides the seven days which were in Commemoration of their dwelling in Tents in the Wilderness, there was an eighth added to acknowledge his Mercy, of receiving the Fruits of the Earth.  
Ye shall keep a Feast unto the LORD seven days.] These were the Feasts of Tabernacles, which lasted all these seven days.  
On the first day shall be a Sabbath.] See v. 35.  
And on the eighth day shall be a Sabbath.] In the institution of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it is said in the seventh day is an holy Convocation, ye shall do no servile work therein; i. e. it shall be a Sabbath, v. 8. but here the eighth day hath that honour put upon it (not the seventh) being added to the Festival for a peculiar reason; and therefore to be observed in a very solemn manner. For the Feast of Tabernacles fell in the time of Vintage, when the Fruits of the Earth were, in a manner all gathered, XVI Deut. 13. From whence it is called by the name of the Feast of Ingatherings, XXIII Exod. 16. not because the whole Feast was celebrated on this account; but because a principal part of it was kept on this score, viz. the eighth day; as the other seven days were in memory of their dwelling in Tents. But that the eighth day had no relation to this, is apparent; for they did not dwell in Tabernacles on the eighth day of this Feast, but only on the seven preceding. Which being ended, they returned to their Houses, and kept this day there to another purpose, here named: for so it is expressly said v. 42. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days. Which being over, a great Solemnity continued to another purpose; and was kept after another manner, not in Booths, but in their Houses. So Maimonides in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 43. That we go from the Feast of Tabernacles to another Solemnity, on the eighth day, it tends to make our joys perfect: which could not be done in Tabernacles, but in large and spacious Houses and Palaces. Where they made still greater Feasts, as well as sung the Praises of God at the Temple, with Trumpets and Instruments of Music. In which Service, some say those three Psalms were used, which have the Title of Al-hagittith (viz. VIII. LXXXI. and LXXXV.) For Gath signifies a Wine-press; and therefore they think these Psalms were sung in the time of the Vintage. Certain it is, that the two last named were sung at some great Solemnity, wherein they celebrated God's wonderful Providence over them. And that they used to sing and shout at their Vintage, is clear, from IX Judg. 27. XVI Isa. 9, 10. XLVIII Jer. 33. TWO Hosea 15. Which the Gentiles imitated, who when they pressed their Grapes, sung a Song to Bacchus, which was thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Song of the Wine-press. See Scaliger. Lib. I. Poet. cap. 55.  
Now this being a time of such great Rejoicing, in both respects, it led Plutarch into a fancy that the Jews celebrated two Feasts unto Bacchus at this time. For he writes in his Symposiaes', Lib. IU. Probl. 3. That in the midst of Vintage the Jews spread Tables furnished with all manner of Fruit, and lived in Tabernacles, made especially of Palms and Ivy wreathed together; and call the day which goes before the Feast, The Day of Tabernacles. And then a few days after, saith he, they keep another Festivity, which openly shows it was dedicated to Bacchus, for they carried Boughs of Palms in their hands, etc. with which they went into the Temple, the Levites (who he fancies were called so from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was the name of Bacchus) going before with Instruments of Music, etc. All which may very well incline us to think that the Gentiles corrupted this holy Festivity, (as they did other Sacred Institutions) and turned it into the profane Bacchanalia: which is no improbable conjecture of Jo. Mich. Dilherrus in his Dissert. de Cacozel. Gentil. cap. 3.  
Ver. 40. Verse 40 And ye shall take you on the first day.] Then they began to build their Booths, that they might dwell in them the rest of the Feast.  
Boughs of goodly Trees, etc.] Some fancy that this is not a direction for the building of Booths with these Branches, but for the carrying them in their hands, as Josephus tells us, Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. And they say these Branches were called Hosannas, because they sung those words of the Psalmist as they marched along with these Boughs in their hands, Save now [in the Hebrew the word is Hosan-na] O LORD: O LORD send now prosperity, CXVIII. 25. And this is so riveted in the Minds of the Jews, that Aben-Ezra makes it the Opinion of the saducees to hold that they were for any other use. But it is evident from VIII Nehem. 15. that they cut these Branches to make Booths, and not to carry in their hands; though it is likely that this might also be thought a fitting Expression of Joy in after times; especially after they were expelled out of their own Land. It is not unlikely also that they celebrated this Festival by singing of Hosannas, among other tokens of Rejoicing; praying for a happy new year, whose Feast went a little before on the first of this Month. Whence the Rabbins call this Feast of Tabernacles by the name of Hosanna; and the last day of it they call Hosanna Rabath. And they repeat this often in their Prayers at that time, as they tell us in their Minhagim (or Books of Rituals) saying, 
For thy sake, O our Creator, Hosanna.  
For thy sake, O our Redeemer, Hosanna.  
For thy sake, O our seeker, Hosanna.  As if they beseeched the blessed Trinity, to save them, and send help to them. In short, they call the Prayers they say at this Feast, by the name of Hosannas, as Joh. Michael Dilherrus hath observed, Lib. II. Electorum, cap. 20.  
Boughs.] The Hebrew word Primero signifies Fruit, as is noted in the Margin of our Bibles. From whence some have gathered that they were to be the Boughs of Fruit-bearing-trees: nay, the Jews fancy they were to be Boughs with their Fruit, as well as Leaves, on them. But Buxtorf made no doubt (in his XVIth Chapter of Synag. Judaica) that the word is rightly translated a Bough, whether without Fruit, or with it: though in later Editions of that Book this passage be lest out.  
Goodly Trees.] The Hebrew word hadar doth not merely signify that which is beautiful and goodly, but that which is large and well spread; as is observed by Hottinger in his Smegma Orientale, Lib. I. cap. 7. where he thinks these words may be thus exactly translated, Take to you the Boughs of Trees with broad Leaves, such as the Branches of Palm-trees. So that hadar is a general word, and Branches of Palm-trees, a special instance of a Tree with spacious Leaves; which were the fittest to be used, because they were best able to defend them, either from heat or cold, or rain. Maimonides takes this word to signify the Boughs of a particular Tree, which he will have to be a Citron. And the Jews are so possessed with this opinion, that, at this day, they fancy the Feast cannot be celebrated without such Branches. And therefore the Jews now in Germany send into Spain, and endeavour to get one every year with the Pomecitrons on it. And after the Feast they offer the Citrons to their Friends, as a great present. Hottinger saith he had one presented to him at Heidelberg, that very year he wrote his Book now mentioned. See Dr. Lightfoot in his Temple Service, chap. 6. sect. 3. and Buxturf. Synag. Jud. cap. 21.  
Branches of Palm-trees.] With which Judea abounded, and was so noted for them, that in the ancient Coins a Palmtree represented that Country.  
And the boughs of thick Trees.] Which were shady, and afforded a good shelter. The Jews take these for Myrtles, which have very thick Leaves and Boughs, close one to another; though the Leaves be small.  
And Willows of the Brook.] If this Translation be right, it's likely they served only to twine about the rest, and bind them together. And therefore in Nehemiah VIII. 15. no mention is made of them: their Tabernacles not consisting of such Boughs, which were used only for the compacting and tying together the other.  
And ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.] These were the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles (as I noted before) which were spent in Feasting and other tokens of Joy; with Thanks to God for his great Goodness, who had brought them out of the Wilderness, where they had no Figtrees, Vines or Pomegranates, into a Country which abounded with fruitful Trees of all sorts. Which was the reason, Maimonides thinks, that Moses bids them take the Boughs of the most goodly Trees wherewith to build their Booths, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 43.  
But of all the Joys at this Festival, none was comparable to that of drawing and pouring out water: concerning which the Talmudists have this noted saying, He that never saw the rejoicing of drawing Water, never saw rejoicing in all his life. The manner of which is described out of the Jewish Writers, by Dr. Lightfoot in his Temple Service, Chap. 16. sect. 4. And our blessed Saviour is thought to allude to it, when in the last, the great day of this Feast, he cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, etc. out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, VII John 37, 38. But I have not met with any one that gives a tolerable reason of this Custom at the Feast of Tabernacles. Which I take to have been in memory of that Water which followed them all the time they were in the Wilderness, without which they had perished: and in thankfulness to God, that he had brought them into a Land of Brooks of Water, of Fountains and Depths that spring out of Valleys and Hills, as well as into a Land of Vines and Figtrees, and Pomegranates, etc. as Moses speaks, VIII Deut. 7, 8.  
Ver. 41. Verse 41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year.] He repeats it again, because it was of very great importance that they should keep in mind such a singular Benefit as this, of their Preservation in the Wilderness.  
It shall be a statute for ever in your generations.] For the end mentioned v. 43.  
Ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.] They came out of Egypt in the first Month; and then began to dwell in Tabernacles at Succoth (XII Exod. 37.) and from that place were conducted ever after under the Cloud, XIII Exod. 20, 21. Which being in that Month we call March, some may think it had been most proper to have kept this Feast at that time of the year, 〈◊〉 not in September. To which the Jews answer, That in March Summer began, when it was usual for People to dwell in Booths, as more refreshing than Houses. So that if they had kept this Feast then, it would not have been known that they dwelled in Booths by a singular Command of God, and in memory of a Divine Benefit; but Men would have thought the season of the year led them to it. Therefore God appointed it in the seventh Month, which is a time of Cold and Rain, when Men commonly left their Tabernacles, and betook themselves to their Houses, that it might appear they did not go out of their Houses into Booths for their own pleasure, or from common Custom, but by the Divine Precept, in memory of a marvellous Benefit. Yet the fifteenth day of this Month was appointed for the beginning of this Feast, because it was upon the fifteenth day of the first Month that they marched out of Egypt to Succoth.  
Ver. 42. Ye shall dwell in Booths seven days.] They left their Houses for seven days, and went into the Fields, and pitched their Tents there; or on their House tops; or in their Court-yards, as we read in VIII Nehem. 17.  
All that are Israelites born shall dwell in Booths.] Sick People were excepted; and the Rabbins also freed Women and little Children from this Obligation. If the Rain likewise proved so great that they could not live there dry, and the Cold so intense that it endangered their Healths, they might all return to their Houses.  
Ver. 43. Verse 43 That your generations may know that I made the Children of Israel to dwell in booths.] This expresses the end and intention of this Feast, which was to preserve a memory in future Ages, of the Goodness of God to their Forefathers, in affording them his Divine Protection; which overshadowed them ●●d was a covering to them (when they had no Houses) by that glorious Cloud which went before them to conduct them. For all the forty years they were in the Wilderness, it overspread them like a Tabernacle, and defended them from the Injury of the Wether, and wild Beasts, and all their Enemies; they having no other shelter, in that desolate place, but only this. And consequently, this Feast was instituted to make them sensible, how very happy they were in goodly Cities and fine painted Houses, (as Maimonides speaks in the place ) when they came to the good Land promised to their Fathers, who wandered in an howling Wilderness, without any certain dwelling place.  
And another Feast was tacked to this on the eighth day on purpose, to make them more sensible of the happy exchange of their Condition from a Wilderness, into a Land of Corn, and Wine and Oil, which they had plentifully gathered. Dr. Lightfoot in his Harmony of the Evangelists upon III Luke 21. hath another reason for the Observation of this Festival: For which I can see no ground, and therefore do not mention it, but refer the Reader to the first Volume of his Works, p. 477.  
When I brought them out of the Land of Egypt.] For the very first place where they rested, after their first days march out of Egypt, was called Succoth, (as I observed before) that is, Tabernacles: because here they began to spread their Tents, in which they lived ever after, for forty years. Nay, in the very Land of Canaan there were some who preferred Tents before Houses; as appears by that phrase we meet with so often, when any Assembly or Army was dissolved; They went every man to his Tent. And indeed, it was the most ancient way of Living, for Shepherds, and such as fed Cattle, as Moses observes IV Gen. 20. and therefore no wonder it lasted so long among the Israelites, who originally were such People.  
I am the LORD your God.] Whose Commands ought to be observed, and whose Benefits ought to be remembered.  
Ver. 44. Verse 44 And Moses declared unto the Children of Israel the Feasts of the LORD.] So he was commanded to do, v. 2. they being concerned, as much as Aaron and the Priests, in keeping these holy Solemnities, in honour of the LORD.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Directions having been given, after the setting up of the Tabernacle, for the several sorts of Sacrifices that were to be offered there, (particularly upon the great Day of Atonement) and Aaron and his Sons having been consecrated, and care taken that none of their Posterity should Minister before God, but such only as were without blemish; nor any other Sacrifices be offered, but such as were every way perfect; and only such Feasts observed, as are mentioned in the foregoing Chapter; he proceeds now to give order for the daily Service of God in the Sanctuary, which was not yet settled, till the Princes had all made their Offerings, etc. VII Numb. 1, 2, etc. VIII. 1.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Command the Children of Israel, that they bring unto thee.] The daily Sacrifices were to be maintained at the public Charge; and so were the Incense and the Lamps: and therefore it was proper to speak to all the People, in whose name the Priests performed all these things, to take care they should be furnished with them. See XXX Exod. 13, etc.  
Pure Oil-olive, beaten, for the light, to cause the Lamps to burn continually.] All this hath been explained XXVII Exod. 20. where this order was first given, and now is commanded to be put in execution. It is not improbable, that the Oil, to make it more pure and free from all Dregs, passed through two Strainers into the Lamps; as Fortunatus Scacchus endeavours to make out, Myrothec. I. Elaiochris. Sacr. 10.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Without the vail of the Testimony, etc.] This is a short expression, which in XXVII Exod. 21. is delivered more fully, without the Veil, which is before the Testimony, that is before the Ark.  
Shall Aaron order it.] He or his Sons, as it is explained in XXVII Exod. 21.  
From the evening unto the morning.] The Hebrew word Boker properly signifies that part of the Morning, which is from break of day till Sun-rise; and the other word Arvaim the Evening, after Sunset till it be dark. Therefore very early in the Morning, and late at Night, the Priests were to look after the Lamps.  
Before the LORD continually.] For the Lamps burnt on one side of the Sanctuary, as the Table stood on the other side with the Shewbread on it: and both of them before the LORD, i. e. before the Ark of the Testimony, where the Divine Majesty dwelled, XXV Exod. 30. XXVI. 35.  
It shall be a statute for ever, etc.] XXVII Exod. 21.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 He shall order the Lamps upon the pure Candlestick.] The Candlestick was made of pure Gold, XXV Exod. 31. XXXVII. 17. and thence seems to be called the pure Candlestick, XXXI Exod. 8. But here it is possible, Moses may have respect to the making it clean every day, before the Lamps were lighted.  
Before the LORD continually.] See XXX Exod. 7, 8.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And thou shalt take fine flour.] Of the best Wheat.  
And bake twelve Cakes.] These are called the Bread of the Presence (which we translate Shewbread) in the place now named, XXV Exod. 30. where see what I have noted. They were prepared by the Levites, 1 Chron. 9.32. XXIII. 29. and were in number XII. to represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel, as continually before God, i. e. under the care of his gracious Providence. Nor was this number diminished after the Apostasy of Ten Tribes from the Worship of God at the Tabernacle; but still Twelve Cakes were set before the LORD; because there were a remnant of true Israelites among them, (1 Kings XXX. 18.) and this was a constant Testimony against those Apostates, and served to turn them back to the right Worship of God at that place; where they were assured they and their Sacrifices would be acceptable, and no where else. Which made Abijah mention this to Jeroboam and the Ten Tribes, among other things, that should induce them to repent of their forsaking God and his dwelling place; where he tells them, The Priests the. Sons of Aaron minister, and the Levites wait on their business: And they burn unto the LORD every morning and every evening, Burnt-sacrifices and sweet Incense: the Shewbread also set they in order upon the pure Table; and the Candlestick of Gold with the Lamps thereof, to burn every evening, etc. See 2 Chron. XIII. v. 9, 10, 11, etc.  
Two tenth deals shall be in one Cake.] That is, two Omers; for an Omer was the tenth part of an Ephah, XVI Exod. 36. Where we likewise read v. 22. that every Israelite, while they were in the Wilderness, gathered just his his quantity against every Sabbath. On which day these Cakes being set upon God's Table, (as it here follows v. 8.) Dr. Lightfoot thinks, both the Measure and the Time, were designed to put the Israelites in mind of their Sustenance in their Wilderness.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, etc.] One upon another, as the Hebrew Writers expound it. Who say also, that they were set length-wise cross over the breadth of the Table: and that they were ten hand-breadths long, and five broad, and seven fingers thick. See Dr. Lightfoot's Temple Service, Chap. 14. sect. 5.  
Upon the pure Table.] It was called pure; because it was overlaid with pure Gold, XXV Exod. 24. and we may be sure, was kept very clean and bright.  
Before the LORD.] Who dwelled in the most holy place; before which the Bread was set.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And thou shalt put pure Frankincense.] The best that could be got, unmixed with any thing else. And there was no better in the World, than their neighbouring Countries afforded.  
Upon each row.] On the top of each row of Cakes, there was set a golden Dish, with an handful of Frankincense therein.  
That it may be on the bread.] Or, for the bread. That is, offered unto God, instead of the Bread; which was to be given to the Priests, who waited on him at his Table, for their portion.  
For a memorial.] For an Acknowledgement of God and of his Sovereignty over them; and to beseech him to be always gracious to them, (See Chap. 2. v. 2.) and to represent also (as Conradus Pellicanus understands it) that God was ever mindful of his People, and had a great love to them; for the eyes of the LORD are over the righteous, and his ears open to their prayers.  
Even an offering made by fire unto the LORD.] The Frankincense being set upon the Bread, they seem to be considered as one thing: part of which was to be offered unto God; and the rest to be given to his Ministers. Now instead of the Bread, which was the principal, the Frankincense was burnt every Week unto the LORD, when the Bread was eaten by the Priests. Which Bread, it is evident, (v. 9) is called one of the Offerings of the LORD made by fire: because this Frankincense, which stood upon it all the Week, was burnt as an Oblation to him.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually.] The Shewbread was prepared the Evening before: and then on the Sabbath four Priests went in to fetch away the old Loaves and Frankincense that had stood there all the Week before; and other four followed after them to carry new ones, and Frankincense in their stead. For two of them carried the two rows of Bread (six Cakes apiece) and the other two carried each of them a golden Dish, in which the Frankincense was set upon the Bread. See Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple Service, Chap. 14. sect. 5.  
Being taken from the Children of Israel.] At whose charge they were provided; though prepared by the Levites. See X Nehem. 32, 33.  
By an everlasting Covenant.] By virtue of that Command (which they had all agreed to observe) which required the Shewbread to be set before the LORD always, XXIV Exod. 3. XXV. 30.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And it shall be Aaron 's and his sons.] Who as God's Servants, eat of the Bread which came from his Table.  
And they shall eat it in the holy place.] For the most holy things could be eaten no where else. See VI 26, 29.  
For it is most holy unto him.] See Chap. II. of this Book, v. 3.  
Of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.] It need not seem strange that this Bread, which was not burnt upon the Altar, as Meat-offerings were, should be reckoned among the Offerings made by fire: for as the Altar (where those Meat-offerings were burnt) is called God's Table, I Mal. 12. so this Table where the Shewbread stood was really God's Altar. Insomuch that the Bread which was set upon it before him, was looked upon as offered upon him: and the Frankincense set upon the Bread as a part of it, being really burnt, it may be called an Offering made by fire. Thus the Gentiles also, as an excellent Person of our own hath observed, thought Tables, rightly dedicated unto their Gods, to supply the place of Altars. So Macrobius saith (Lib. III. Saturnal. cap. 11.) it evidently appeared by Papyrian's Law, That arae vicem praestare posse mensam dicatam, a Table consecrated might serve instead of an Altar. Of which he gives an instance in the Temple of Juno Populonia; and then proceeds to give a reason for it, because Altars and Tables, eodem die, quo aedes ipsae, dedicari solent, were wont to be dedicated on the same day with the Temples themselves. From whence it was that a Table, hoc ritu dedicata, dedicated in this manner, was of the same use in the Temple with an Altar. See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis, Lib. I. cap. 8. n. 7.  
By a perpetual statute.] As long as these Sacrifices lasted.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the Children of Israel.] In the Hebrew the words run thus; And there went out the son of an Israelitish woman, and he was the son of an Egyptian man, in the midst of (or, among) the Children of Israel. Which last words signify, that though his Father was an Egyptian by birth, yet he was become a Proselyte by Religion. And was one of those (it is probable) who went along with the Israelites when God brought them out of Egypt, XII Exod. 38. So R. Solomon Jarchi interprets this phrase, Among the Children of Israel. Hence, saith he, we learn that he was a Proselyte of Righteousness. And Aben-Ezra to the same purpose, He was received into the number of the Jews. See a great many more in Mr. Selden, Lib. II. de Synedriis, cap. 1. numb. 2. where he observes, That it is the common Opinion of the Jews, this Man was the Son of him whom Moses killed in Egypt, TWO Exod. 12.  
And this son of the Israelitish woman, and a man of Israel, strove together in the Camp.] When God was delivering the foregoing Laws unto Moses, this Case seems to have happened. And the Jews say the Controversy between these two was this: The former, looking upon himself as having a good right to it by his Mother, came and endeavoured to set up a Tent among the Children of Dan, in that place where their Tribe had pitched their Tents: which was opposed by one of that Tribe, who told him the right of his Mother would do him no service, unless his Father had been an Israelite: for the Law was (TWO Numb. 2.) that every Man of the Children of Israel should pitch by his own Standard, with the Ensign of their Father's House. Which Law, though given afterward, yet they suppose was the Rule before: by which this Man was condemned, by those that heard the Cause, to be in the wrong.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the Name of the LORD, and cursed.] Sentence being given against him, he uttered blasphemous words against God himself, (perhaps renounced the LORD) and also cursed those Judges that had condemned him.  
The Jews commonly think that this Blasphemy was his pronouncing the peculiar Name of God; which he heard at Mount Sinai, when the Law was given. But this is a mere fancy; for there were some reproachful words uttered against God, as well as against the Judges, as appears from v. 15. And they themselves acknowledge, that a Proselyte was guilty of death, whether he cursed by the proper Name of God, or any other, as Mr. Selden shows, Lib. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 12. Pellicanus thinks it probable that this Man mocked at the foregoing Laws which were delivered about the Worship of God; and contemned God himself when he was told by whose Authority they were enacted.  
And they brought him unto Moses.] If the occasion of their strife was such as the Jews imagine, than Mr. Selden thinks it highly probable that the Cause had been heard and judged by some of the lesser Courts established by Jethroes advice, (XVIII Exod. 21, 22.) where the Blasphemy had been so plainly proved, that he was convicted of it: but they doubting about the Punishment of so high a Crime, referred the consideration of that to Moses, as the Supreme Judge.  
And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the Tribe of Dan.] I see no reason of mentioning the name of the Woman from whom he was descended; but that all might be satisfied of the Truth of this History.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And they put him inward.] Committed him to Prison; that he might be secured till his Punishment was declared.  
That the mind of the LORD might be showed them.] In the Hebrew the words are, That it might be expounded to them (viz. by Moses) according to the mouth of the LORD: that is, as the LORD should declare to him. And so Onkelos renders them, Till the matter was expounded to them, according to the sentence of the word of the LORD. For it is noted here by a famous Commentator among the Jews, (as Mr. Selden observes in the place before mentioned, Lib. II. de Synedr. c. 1.) that God was consulted about this matter, because they did not know whether he was to die for this crime; or whether his judgement was to be expected from the hand of Heaven, or otherwise. Whence Jarchi says, they did not know whether he was guilty of death or not. And so Theodoret Q. XXXIII. in Leu. There was no Law, as yet, about this matter. But there was a plain Law, that whosoever cursed his Father or Mother, should die, XXI Exod. 17. from whence they might justly infer he was to be so punished, who cursed his heavenly Father; there being also another Law against those that reviled the Judges and Rulers, XXII Exod. 28. And therefore I take it, they only doubted what kind of death he should die, about which Moses consulted the Divine Majesty.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] It's likely Moses went into the Sanctuary to inquire of God, who from the Mercy-seat pronounced the following Sentence against him; and also made a perpetual Law about this Case, with some others.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 Bring forth him that cursed without the Camp.] This is the Sentence pronounced by the mouth of God, from whom they expected it. And first he order the Criminal to be carried forth out of the Camp, as an unclean, (V Numb. 2, 3.) nay an accursed thing, VII Josh. 24.  
And let all that heard him.] Next, he order the Witnesses to be produced, who heard him speak the blasphemous words.  
Lay their hands upon his head.] This was a peculiar thing in this Case, Hands being laid upon no Man's head condemned by the Sanhedrim, but only upon a Blasphemer. By which Ceremony they solemnly declared, that they had given a true testimony against him, and thought him worthy of the Death he was condemned to suffer. And perhaps prayed God, that all the punishment of this Sin might fall upon this Man, and not upon them, nor the rest of the People. And so the Jews tell us their manner was to say, Let thy blood be upon thy own head, which thou hast brought on thyself by thy own guilt.  
And let all the Congregation stone him.] This was the last part of the Sentence, that when they that heard him Curse had taken off their hands, all the Congregation should stone him. Which is the same Punishment the Law inflicted on him that cursed his Father or his Mother, XX. 9 See there.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel, saying.] Upon this occasion a new Law is made, in express terms against Blasphemy.  
Whosoever curseth his God.] Some of the Hebrews understand this of a Gentile who lived among them, and was not yet solemnly made a Proselyte of the Gate, that if he cursed the God which was worshipped in his Country, he should die for it. See Selden Lib. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. ult. And Procopius Gazaeus extends the words to such Persons as cursed the God they worshipped, though he were a false God. Which is according to the common Rule of the Talmudists, that where we find these words isch, isch, (man, man, which we well translate whosoever) they comprehend Gentiles as well as Jews. But no doubt this Law particularly concerned the People of Israel; whom God intended by this Law to preserve from such horrid impiety, as is here mentioned.  
Shall bear his sin.] Be stoned. See XX. 9 If the word curseth be understood in the proper sense, Procopius well observes, that nothing could be more senseless than this Sin, and upon that account deserved stoning; for he that curseth his God, upon what God will he call to confirm his curse? But the Hebrew words seems to import only speaking contemptuously of God.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death, etc.] It is uncertain whether this be an higher degree of the Sin mentioned in the foregoing Verse; or only a repetition of the same Law, with a more express declaration of the punishment he should bear for his sin. The Jews unreasonably understand it of him alone that expressed the Name, i. e. the most holy Name of God, as they say in Sanhedrim, cap. 7. num. 5. where Joh. à Coach observes out of the Jerusalem Targum on XXXII Deut. that it is thus explained, Woe unto those that in their Execrations use the holy Name; which is not lawful for the highest Angel to express. But this is a piece of their Superstition: the meaning undoubtedly is, That if any Man reproached the most High, he should die for it; but the mere pronouncing his holy Name, could be no Crime, when Men might swear by it, though not take it in vain, VI Deut. 13. XX Exod. 7.  
All the Congregation shall certainly stone him.] As they were ordered to do with the present Offender, v. 14.  
As well the stranger, as he that is born in the Land, etc.] By Stranger may be meant a Proselyte like the Egyptian, whose Offence was the occasion of this Law: But the Jews extend it to Samaritans and Gentiles; only they say, such were to be punished by the Sword, and not by Stoning.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And he that killeth any man, shall surely be put to death.] This Law was given before XXI Exod. 12. And it is not easy to give an account, why it is here repeated after the Case of a Blasphemer. Perhaps it was upon the occasion of the last words in the foregoing Verse, As well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. For, after the following Laws, they are repeated again as a general Rule, v. 22. that no Man might think it hard a Stranger should be punished for Blasphemy, as much as an Israelite; when in other Cases the same Judgement passed upon them both. Procopius Gazaeus thinks a Murderer is joined with a Blasphemer, because they have the same mind and intention; the one desiring to destroy God, if it were possible, as the other doth his Neighbour. Therefore the Law puts them together; just as on the contrary, when it commands the love of God, it couples with it the love of our Neighbour. So he.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he that killeth a beast, shall make it good, beast for beast.] It was not incongruous, as the same Procopius speaks, to annex unto the Law against Murder, a Law against other Injuries. And concerning this, see XXI Exod. 33, 34. For the Hebrew word Behemah here used, signifies such domesticktame Beasts as are there mentioned.  
Ver. 19, 20. Verse 19, 20. If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him, etc.] This Law concerns only free Persons, not their Slaves: and hath been explained, XXI Exod. 24, 25.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.] This is a short repetition of the two first Laws here mentioned, v. 17, 18. to make them the more regarded.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own Country.] In these, and in all other Cases, as well as Blasphemy, (v. 16.) you and the Stranger shall be judged by one and the same Law.  
For I am the LORD your God.] Who will neither favour your wickedness, nor suffer theirs to go unpunished; but do equal Justice unto all. Yet the Jews, by a Stranger here, will understand only a Proselyte of Righteousness, as they call him: that is, one who had entirely embraced their Religion; for such alone, they imagine, were equalled with them. See Selden, Lib. IU. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 1. pag. 468.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 And Moses spoke unto the Children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed, out of their Camp, etc.] It appears by this, that all the foregoing Admonitions were repeated to Moses, upon the occasion of the Law against Blasphemy, before he proceeded to put it in execution.  
And the Children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.] Executed the whole Sentence pronounced by God against the blasphemous Person, v. 14.   

CHAP. XXV.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses in Mount Sinai, saying.] That is, in the Wilderness of Sinai, I Numb. 1. For they stayed almost a whole year not far from this Mountain; from whence they did not remove till the twentieth day of the second Month of the second year after their coming out of Egypt. See X Numb. 11, 12. And thus the Hebrew Particle Beth is often used for by or near; as in XXXVII Gen. 13. V Josh. 13. and we find this expression again in the end of the next Chapter, and in the conclusion of this Book. Which shows that all here related was delivered to Moses in the first month of the second year after their coming out of Egypt, immediately after the Tabernacle was set up, XL Exod. 17.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them.] For what follows was of universal concernment.  
When ye come into the land which I give you.] This Law, though delivered before they left Mount Sinai, could not take place till they came into Canaan.  
Then shall the land keep a Sabbath.] Rest from being tilled, or sown, etc. See XXIII Exod. 11.  
Unto the LORD.] In obedience to him; and in honour of him. Some have understood the foregoing words, When ye shall come into the Land which I give you, as if they were to begin the Sabbatical year as soon as they entered into Canaan: which is very absurd; for so, not the seventh, but the first, would have been the year of Rest. And that had been very inconvenient, if not destructive; the War making such great waste, no doubt, that Provision would have been very scarce, if no care had been taken for the ensuing year. It is to be considered also, that the old store upon which they lived when they entered into the Land of Promise, was the fruit of the labour of the Canaanites, and not of the Children of Israel. The meaning therefore is, that the seventh year after their entrance into Canaan, or rather, after they were settled, and had rest in it, they should let the Land rest.  
The only question is, When this year was to begin? whether in the month of Tisri, (which answers to our September) which was the ancient beginning of the year; or in Nisan, (answering to our March) which was made a new beginning of it, by an express Law, XII Exod. 2. the former still continuing the beginning of the year for Civil things, as this for Sacred. Now there is great reason to think that this Sabbatical year was to commence from September, when all their Harvest was over, which began in March. Then they were not to sow, as they were wont to do in October and the following Months; but to stay till the return of this Season the next year. For if this year had been to begin in March, they could not have reaped the Harvest of the sixth year.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 Six years shalt thou sow thy fields, and prune thy Vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof.] XXIII Exod. 10. But what was allowed in other years, is forbidden in this.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 But in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of rest unto the Land, a Sabbath for the LORD.] Or, unto the LORD, (as we translate it before v. 2.) who though he gave this Land to them, continued the Proprietor of it (as he declares v. 23.) and the LORD in chief, himself. Of whom they held it by this Tenure, that they should till it, etc. only six years together, for their own use; and in the seventh, let it lie in common, for such uses as he appointed. And it was for the honour of the LORD, that they observed this Law: for as the weekly Sabbath was an acknowledgement that they were his, so this Sabbatical year was an acknowledgement that their Land was his.  
Thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.] By this he explains what he means by letting it rest. And these two words, sow and prune, comprehend all other things that were usually done about their Fields or Trees; as ploughing, digging, dunging, etc. And though a Vineyard be only mentioned, yet it is plain by XXIII Exod. 10. that Olive-yards are comprehended under the same Law: and these are mentioned only as examples of all other Fruit-trees, which were to be left in common, as these were.  
Maimonides seems to be something too curious in what he saith upon this Subject; for enquiring why Moses mentions only these two things, sowing and pruning, his resolution is, That for these two, if Men offended in them this year, they were punished with that scourging called Malkut; but if they offended in any other sort of Labours belonging to the Culture of the Fields, or of Trees, they were not punished with the scourging of Malkut (which was by a certain measure, not exceeding thirty nine stripes) but with the scourging called Mardut, i. e. of Contumacy and Rebellion, which was without number or measure. As if a Man digged or ploughed his ground; if he gathered out the stones, or dunged it, etc. if he planted Trees, or grafted, etc. he suffered the scourging of Rebellion. And more than this, he saith it was not lawful in the seventh year to plant any Tree, though it was not a Fruit-tree; nor to cut off the dead Branches; nor to make a smoke under them to kill the Worms; nor to anoint young Plants to preserve them from the bitings of Birds, etc. If they did, they were liable to the scourging of Murdut. Nay, he is so nice, as to say it was unlawful to sell to any Man any Instrument of Husbandry, in this year; as a Plough, a Yoke, a Sieve, etc. yet he allows them, when they were under the oppression of the Gentiles, and bound to find Provision for their Armies, to sow so much as would maintain them. Of which things he discourses at large in his Treatise called Schemitta ve Jobel, cap. 1. and cap. 7.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 That which groweth of itself.] Either from Seed which fell casually the year before; or from the old Root which sprouted out again, as Maimonides expounds it in the same Treatise, cap. 4. which is wholly about such things.  
Of thy harvest.] Of the Corn scattered last Harvest. He saith nothing of their Gardens; which, it is probable, every Man had to his own private use, and was not bound to lay them open to all.  
Thou shalt not reap.] That is, saith he, not the whole Field, so as to gather it into Cocks, and to tread out the Corn with his Oxen, (if any did, they were scourged with thirty nine stripes) but they might cut down a little, in common with other Persons, and shake it out, and eat it, as he there determines, sect. 2.  
Neither gather the grapes of thy Vine undressed.] In the Hebrew the words are, The Vine of thy Separation: for it was separated this year from his dressing. And what he gathered in common with others, was not to be pressed in a Wine-press, but with another Instrument; the like he saith of Olives, and of Figs, and other things, which were to be ordered after another manner in this year, then in the foregoing, sect. 23.  
For it is a year of rest unto the Land.] This general reason is so oft repeated, to make them sensible they were no more to do any thing about their Land this seventh year, than they were to labour upon the seventh day. But he acknowledges, that if a Gentile hired Land in their Country, he was not bound to let it rest, sect. 29. of that Chapter.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Sabbath of the Land.] Here the word Sabbath signifies the Fruit that grew in the Sabbatical year; as the word Sabbaths is used before XXIII. 38. for the Sacrifices upon the Sabbaths.  
Shall be meat for you.] This explains the prohibition of reaping any Corn this year, or gathering any fruit, not to be meant absolutely; but only that they should not look upon any thing that grew this year, as peculiarly theirs, because it grew in their ground; but let all be common to others, as well as themselves.  
For thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, etc.] This, and the next Verse, show that all the Fruits of the Earth, were perfectly in common this year: for the very Beasts were not excluded, and therefore much less any Man that dwelled among them, though he was uncircumcised. But it is very plain likewise, that the Owner of the Land and his Family were not forbidden to take their share; but might gather for their daily use as well as others: only not lay up any thing separate for themselves.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And for thy Cattle, and for the Beast that are in thy Land, shall all the increase thereof be meat.] For his own Cattle, and for other men's: which were not to be fed with the Fruits which are proper to Men, (as Maimonides observes in the same Book, cap. 5. sect. 5.) but if they came of themselves, and eat Figs, for instance, they were not to be hindered. But it seems probable that wild Beasts might be driven out of their Vineyards, etc. in this year, as well as others; because they made such waste, as would have very much damaged the owner for the future. As for all other tame Creatures, the Jews (if we may believe Maimonides, cap. 7.) were so superstitiously careful they should have an equal share with themselves; that when there was no Fruit any longer for the Beasts in the Field, they ceased to eat what they had gathered for themselves; and if they had any thing of it left, threw it out of their Houses.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee, etc.] Which put together made XLIX years, as it follows in the rest of this Verse. They began their first Account (as Maimonides there observes) from the fourteenth year after their entrance into Canaan: for they were seven years in conquering the Land; and seven more in dividing to every one their portion; so that the first Sabbatical year was in the one and twentieth, and the first Jubilee in the sixty fourth year after they came to the Land of Promise: So he cap. 10. where he observes they numbered seventeen Jubiles from that time, to their Captivity in Babylon, which fell out in the end of a Sabbatical year, and the thirty sixth of the Jubilee.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 Then shalt thou cause the Trumpet of the Jubilee.] The word Jobel (which we translate Jubilee in the next Verse) is not in the Hebrew, but Teruah, which in the Margin we translate loud of sound. For the Trumpet was blown after a different manner at this time, than upon other occasions, that every one might understand the meaning of it.  
To sound.] In the Hebrew the word is, cause it to pass, that it might be heard every where, throughout the Land. So these words may be most literally translated, Thou shalt cause to pass the Trumpet loud of sound.  
On the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement.] This day was very fitly chosen, that this year might begin at the same time that a general Atonement was made for the Sins of the whole Nation. For they would be the better disposed, to forgive their Brethren their Debts, when they craved Pardon for their own.  
Shall ye make the Trumpet sound (or pass) throughout all your Land.] This is repeated, to make them careful to awaken every one to their duty, by the sound of the Trumpet at every door; there being an unwillingness in most People, to part with their Servants, and their Lands, etc. which they had long enjoyed. And therefore every private Man, as Maimonides saith, was bound to blow with a Trumpet, and make this sound nine times, that they might fulfil these words of this Precept, throughout all your Land. By this means, as R. Levi Barcelonita notes, every one was the better inclined to hearken, when he saw it was a duty incumbent on the whole Country, which all were to perform.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And ye shall hollow the fiftieth year.] Distinguish it from all other years, by doing what follows. Maimonides fancies that these two Precepts of numbering seven Sabbaths of years, v. 8. and of sanctifying the fiftieth year, were delivered only to the House of Judgement; whose business, no doubt, it peculiarly was, to give notice of this year, and to cause the Trumpet to be sounded, and all the following Precepts to be observed. Schemitta ve jobel, cap. 10. num. 1.  
And proclaim liberty.] Unto all Servants, who were this year made free.  
Throughout all the Land.] Even in all the Highways, as Aben-Ezra glosses; that every one might have notice.  
Unto all the Inhabitants thereof.] That is, to all the Children of Israel who were Servants; or so poor that they had sold their Estates, as it here follows. From these words the Jews gather, that after the Tribes of Reuben and Gad, and half Tribe of Manasseh were carried Captive, Jubiles ceased. They are the words of Maimonides in the forenamed Treatise; for then all the Inhabitants of the Land were not in it. And therefore much more ●hen they were all carried Captive, they only numbered the rest of every seventh year, without any Jubilee.  
It shall be a Jubilee unto you.] Whence this year hath the name of Jobel; there are so many Opinions, that Bochartus himself scarce knew which to follow. Josephus saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, liberty; and the LXX and Aquila translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, remission: having a regard to the thing, rather than to the import of the word Jobel; which never signifies any thing of that nature. D. Kimchi tell us that R. Akiba, when he was in Arabia, heard them call a Ram by this name of Jobel; and thence some fancy this year was so called, because it was proclaimed with Trumpets of Rams-horns. But what if there were no such Trumpets? as Bochart thinks there were not, these Horns being not hollow. See Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 43. p. 425, etc. where several other Opinions are confuted. The most probable that I meet withal, is, that it was called Jobel from the peculiar sound which was made with the Trumpet, when this year was proclaimed. For the Trumpet blowing for several purposes, viz. to call their Assemblies together; to give notice of the moving of their Camps; to excite Soldiers to fight, and to proclaim this year; there was a distinct sound for all these ends, that People might not be confounded, but have a certain notice what the Trumpet sounded for. And this sound mentioned before (v. 9) was peculiarly called Jobel; as Hottinger thinks, who considers a great many other Opinions, in his Analecta Dissert. III. wherein he follows Joh. Forsterus, who, near an hundred years before, observed that Jobel, which we commonly translate Trumpet (XIX Exod. 13. and other places) doth not signify the Instrument itself, but the sound that it made. And when it is used absolutely, alone, it signifies this year; which was called Jobel from that sound which was then made; as the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called Pesach, from the Angel passing over them, when he slew the Egyptians. The Opinions of the Hebrew Writers about it, are collected and largely represented by Josephus de Voisin, Lib. I. de Jubilaeo, cap. 1.  
And ye shall return every man unto his possession.] Unto his Field, or his House, which his Poverty had forced him to sell; but now was restored to him without any price; because they were not sold absolutely, but only till this year. By which means the Estates of the Israelites were so fixed, that no Family could ruin itself, or grow too rich. For this Law provided against such Changes; revoking once in fifty years all Alienations, and setting every one in the same Condition wherein they were at the first. By which means Ambition was retrenched; and every Man applied himself with affection, to the improvement of his Inheritance, knowing it could never go out of his Family. And this application was the more diligent, because it was a religious duty, founded upon this Law of God.  
And ye shall return every man unto his family.] From which he had been estranged by being sold to another Family; either by himself, or by his Father, or by the Court of Judgement. So here are two parts of the liberty forenamed, more expressly declared: Their Land, which was alienated, returned to the first Owner; and such as were sold for Servants into another Family, came home again to their own Family, being freed from their Servitude. Which was a figure of that acceptable year of the LORD, as St. Luke calls it, IV. 19 in the Prophet Isaiah's Language; wherein our blessed Saviour preached Deliverance to all Mankind. The Jews themselves are not so stupid, as to thin● nothing further was intended, but only freedom from bodily Servitude, in this year of Jubilee: for Abarbanel himself, in this very Verse, endeavours to discover something of a Spiritual Happiness. For the former part of the words now mentioned, Ye shall return every man to his possession, he saith belong to the Body: but the latter part, And every man unto his family, belongs to the Soul, and its return to God. So several others, whom J. de Voisin produces in the forenamed Book, cap. 2. And if our Dr. Lightfoot hath made a right Computation, the last year of the Life of our Saviour, who by his Death wrought an Eternal Redemption, and restored us to our heavenly Inheritance, fell in the year of Jubilee; the very last that was ever kept. For if we count from the end of the Wars of Canaan, which was seven years after they came into it, (and I do not know why we should not think they began to number then, and not seven years after, as Maimonides would have it) there were just fourteen hundred years to the thirty third of Jesus Christ; that is, just XXVIII Jubiles. And it is the Confession of the old Book called Zohar, as he observes, That the Divine Glory should be freedom and redemption in a year of Jubilee. See Harmony of the New Testament, sect. 59 And Vsserij Chronologia Sacra, cap. 13.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 A Jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you.] It is a question whether the year of Jubilee was the year following the forty ninth year; or the forty ninth year was the Jubilee; which, reckoning the foregoing Jubilee for one, was the fiftieth year. Josephus Scaliger in his fifth Book de Emend. Temporum, and several other great Men are of this last opinion; to avoid a great inconvenience which otherwise would ensue, viz. That the forty ninth year being the Sabbatical year in which the Land was to rest, if the next year to that had been the Jubilee, two Sabbatical years would have come immediately one after another, for the Land was to rest in the year of Jubilee, as it here follows. One would have expected therefore that in the forty eighth year there should have been a special Promise, that the Land should bring forth Fruit for four years, and not for three only; as the Blessing is promised every sixth year, v. 21. Thus Jacobus Capellus reasons in his Historia Sacra & Exotica ad A. M. 2549. But others think this Objection not to be so great as to make them departed from the letter of this Law, which saith v. 10. Ye shall hollow the fiftieth year: and here in this Verse, A Jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you. Though a very learned Man, P. Cunaeus thinks this is of no great moment either way; for it is usual in common speech, Septimanam octidum appellare (and Hospinian in like manner, we call a Week octiduum (eight days) because we reckon utramque Dominicam both the LORD's days) And the greatest Writers anciently called an Olympiad, which contained but the space of four complete years, by the name of Quinquennium. See Lib. I. de Republ. Judaeorum, cap. 6. Yet, besides the express words of the Law, the Consent of the Jews sways very much the other way: for they accurately distinguish between the Schemitta, or Year of Remission, and Jobel, the year of Jubilee, even then when these two Solemnities immediately succeeded each other; as I shall have occasion to observe on the next Verse.  
Ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it.] Because it was the Sabbatical year, (v. 4, 5.) as some will have it; from the observance of which they were not absolved by its being the Jubilee. But others think, as I observed, that the Jubilee itself, was a new Sabbatical year.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 For it is the Jubilee.] He doth not say it is the Sabbath of the Land, as he doth of the seventh year, v. 6. Which makes for their opinion who think the Jubilee was not the same with that, but a new Sabbatical year: so that two years together they neither sowed nor reaped. But they that maintain the other opinion, look upon this only as a new reason why they should forbear such labour this year; because, besides that it was the Sabbatical year, it was also the Jubilee: a time of great joy, in regard of the Liberty to which every one was restored; which made it more necessary every one should enjoy what the Earth brought forth of itself, and none appropriate any thing to themselves.  
It shall be holy unto you.] Because it was the LORD's Sabbath. v. 3. Separate from the common Employments of other years; being dedicated to the uses expressed in this Law, v. 10. which are two, Manumission of Servants, and Restitution of Men to their ancient Possessions. Unto which some add a third, viz. Remission of Debts. But the Jews are of a quite contrary opinion; that in this the year of Jubilee differed from the Sabbatical year; that Debts were remitted in the one, but not in the other. Whence those words of Maimonides in the Treatise I have so often mentioned, cap. 10. sect. 16. In this the Sabbatical year excels the Jubilee, that it remits Debts, which the Jubilee doth not: But the Jubilee in this excels the Sabbatical year, that it sets Servants free, and restores Possessions, which the other doth not. And the Jubilee likewise restores Possessions in the very beginning of the year: but the Sabbatical year doth not release Debts till it be ended.  
Ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.] By plucking what they needed for every days use; but not by reaping, and gathering, and laying up in Barns.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 In the year of this Jubilee ye shall return every man to his possession.] This being the most remarkable thing belonging to the Liberty of this year, it is therefore here again repeated. For it was so famous, that the Heathens themselves took notice of it: insomuch that Diodorus Siculus saith, Lib. XI. it was not lawful for the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sell their own Inheritances. Meaning, as Mr. Selden expounds it (Lib. de Success. ad Leges Hebr. cap. 14.) to sell them quite, so as to alienate them for ever from their Families; which is expressly forbidden v. 23. And so the Locrians, as is observed by Aristotle in his Politics, were prohibited by their Laws to sell their ancient Possessions. See P. Cunaeus Lib. I. de Repub. Jud. cap. 4.  
Many Reasons are given by learned Men for this Law among the Jews, (See Menochius Lib. III. de Repub. Hebraeor. Quaest. 3.) The most obvious is, that by this Law God fixed the Jews to the Land of Canaan: since all their Possessions were so entailed, that the right Heir of any of them could never be wholly excluded from his Estate; but it would entirely return to him after a certain number of years. And by this means also they preserved a distinct knowledge of their several Tribes and Families to which they belonged: for which end their Genealogies were of necessity to be carefully kept, that they might be able to prove their right to the Inheritance of their Ancestors. By which means, as Menochius notes, it was certainly known of what Tribe and Family the Messiah was when he was born. And M. Alix hath taken notice (which is worth observing) that God ordered things so, that they should have the means of preserving their Genealogies, by not suffering them to continue in Captivity out of their own Land, for the space of two whole Jubiles. For they were but LXX years in Babylon; in which short time their Genealogies could not be easily confounded; especially since several who saw the first Temple burnt, lived to see the second begin to be rebuilt. Two other Reasons are most judiciously managed by Petrus Cunaeus, Lib. I. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 3. to which I refer the learned Reader.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 If thou sellest aught to thy Neighbour, or buyest aught of thy Neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another.] As Moses took care that the Wealth of some should not oppress the Poverty of others, by making the foregoing Law, that a poor Man should not lose his Land for ever; so in the buying of a poor Man's Land, he would not have the rich Man give less for it than it was worth; no more than the poor Man require more for it than its just value, till the year of Jubilee. The Hebrew Doctors have form a Rule about this: that if a Man bought any thing for a sixth part less than its worth, or sold it for a sixth part more than its worth, he was bound to restore that sixth part: but nothing at all if it were short of a sixth part, wherein he had damaged his Neighbour. But if the difference was more than a sixth part, the Buyer might rescind his Contract, if the Bargain was not quite finished, and require his Money again. And the Seller (if the damage was on his side) might at any time require the thing to be returned to him, at the price for which he sold it. See Selden, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 5.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 According to the number of years after the Jubilee, thou shalt buy of thy Neighbour.] They were to consider how many years were gone since the last Jubilee; and consequently to purchase the Profits of the remaining years till the next. For they could not either by Sale, or any other Contract, transfer plenum fundi dominium (as Cunaeus speaks) their full interest in the Land, to any other Man.  
And according unto the number of years of the fruits, he shall sell unto thee.] He that sold the remaining term of years till the Jubilee, was to consider that every sixth year there was no Fruit; and therefore he should demand nothing for them: but set his price only according to the number of the other years, not reckoning those.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price.] This is added only to make what was said before plainer; that the price should rise or fall, according as there were more or few years to come before the next Jubilee. For example Maimonides puts this Case; If there be ten years to the Jubilee, and a Man buy another's Field for an Hundred pence; after which the Buyer having enjoyed it three years, the Seller hath a mind to redeem it, he must then give to him that bought it of him Seventy pence. In like manner if the Buyer have enjoyed it six years, the Seller must give him Forty pence.  
For according to the number of the years of the Fruits doth he sell unto thee.] Therefore if a Man, saith the same Maimonides (cap. 11. num. 6.) sell another a Field full of Fruit, and after two years would redeem it, he must not demand him to restore the Field as he sold it, full of fuit, because it is said here, according to the multitude of years, or fewness of years (and in the foregoing Verse) according to the number of years after the Jubilee) which show the years only were to be considered in the Redemption, and not the Fruits.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 Ye shall not therefore oppress one another.] The Seller by demanding too much; nor the Buyer by giving too little.  
But thou shalt fear thy God.] For nothing could be so powerful as the Fear of God to restrain them from Oppression; and to preserve an equality between the Land to be sold, and the price to be paid.  
For I am the LORD your God.] Whose Land this is, and by whose Favour you enjoy it.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgements.] Which are the Tenure whereby you hold this Land of me.  
And ye shall dwell in the Land in safety.] And if you obey them, you shall not be disturbed in it by your Enemies.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And the Land shall yield her increase, and ye shall eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety.] He incourages them in their Obedience, by a promise of Plenty and Abundance; as well as of Safety and Security in their Possessions.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And if ye shall say, what shall we eat the seventh year? etc.] To take away all distrust of his Promise, he removes an obvious Objection which might arise in their Minds; that they might want food if they neither sowed, nor gathered in their increase, in the seventh year, as he required.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 Then will I command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years.] This is the Answer to the doubt they might have of wanting Sustenance, that he would bless them with such a plentiful Crop in the sixth year, as should be sufficient for that and for the two following years. From which Petrus Cunsus thinks the Argument very strong, that there were not two Sabbatical years together, one in the forty ninth, and another in the fiftieth year; for then the Earth in the sixth year, should have brought forth not for three years, but for four; which was never heard of in any Country. Palestine indeed was a Country, to which God afforded an extraordinary blessing, beyond the common Laws of Nature; yet since there are no Testimonies of so great and frequent a Miracle in the Book of God, we ought not easily to believe this. Thus he Lib. I. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 6. To which it may be replied, that this was not so frequent as he makes it, but only once in fifty years: and the reason why Moses here saith, the Land should bring forth fruit for three years, and not for four, is because he speaks only with respect to the common Sabbatical years (every seventh year) not to the great Sabbatical year, as they call the XLIXth. Before which God may very well be supposed to have blessed the Earth with a larger Crop than in any other preceding sixth year. Besides, though it is said they should not sow in the Jubilee, v. 11. yet it is not said they might not prune their Trees, as it is of other Sabbatical years, v. 4. so that they might be dressed as in other common years, to yield a plentiful Increase for their support in the succeeding year.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old fruit, until the ninth year.] Some have interpreted these words, as if they were to eat the old store, till the Fruits of the ninth year came in; and bring it as an Argument that the Sabbatical year began in March: whereas the plain sense is, that the Fruits of the eighth could not be thrashed out for food till the ninth year. And then the next words,  
Until her fruits come in, ye shall eat of the old store.] Are not to be understood of the Fruits of the ninth year, but of the Fruits of the eighth, which were to be eaten in the ninth. Till than they were to live upon the old store; which served for two years, beside the sixth.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 The Land shall not be sold for ever.] Having mentioned the selling of their Land (v. 14, 15, 16.) he here again enacts it should not be sold for ever. Which may be called the Lex agraria of the Jews; whereby Estates were preserved in the Family to which they belonged, at the division of the Land by Joshua. For they could not be quite cut off, as the words are in the Hebrew, which we translate for ever; or as it is in the Margin, for cutting off: so that the Seller and his Heirs should be cut off from it, as Mr. Selden interprets it. Or, as the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by an alienation never to be rescinded: but all Estates were at the Jubilee to return to their first Owners, or their Heirs, though they had changed Possessors an hundred times, by being sold so oft. And the same Law held in Donations, as much as in Sales, as Maimonides observes. Yet this is to be understood only of absolute Alienations, without any mention of time: for if any Man sold without fraud an Estate to his Neighbour for sixty years, it was not to return to him or his Heirs in the year of Jubilee, which came before the expiration of that term: for in the Jubilee, saith he, nothing returns but that which was sold for ever, Halicoth Schemitta ve Jobel, cap. 11. sect. 2. And see Selden de Successionibus ad Leges Hebr. cap. 24.  
For the Land is mine.] I reserve to myself the Supreme Dominion in it, and propriety of it; and have disposed it to you, on such terms as I thought fit.  
For ye are strangers and sojourners with me.] These words suggest another sense of the foregoing; that their Land was God's, as he dwelled in a special manner there in the Sanctuary, which was his Royal Palace: And they were all his Tenants, who held the Land of him as long as he pleased; but were no more to him, than the Proselytes were to them. The Land was his, and not theirs; and they did but enjoy the use and the fuits of it, but had not the property. See Mr. Mede pag. 157.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 And in all the Land of your possession, ye shall grant a Redemption for the Land.] If any Man whose Poverty had forced him to sell his Land, grew afterward so rich, that he was able to redeem it before the year of Jubilee, this Law provides he should be permitted to do it, and the Buyer could not refuse it. But then this was to be done honestly and truly: he was not to borrow Money of another Man to redeem it; no, nor sell other Land to redeem that which he had sold before, which they looked upon as a Fraud to the Buyer. Therefore he had this right, only in case he was grown rich since the sale: otherwise, he was to stay till the year of Jubilee, when it returned to him for nothing. So Cunaeus out of the same Maimonides, Lib. I. cap. 2.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession.] No Man, if we may rely upon the same Maimonides, might sell his House or his Field till the time of Jubilee, unless Poverty compelled him to it. For it was not lawful to sell it, that he might lay up the price of it in his Coffer; or exercise Merchandise; or buy Goods, Servants, or Cattle; but only buy necessary Provision with it. But if any Man did transgress, and employ the Money otherwise, the sale notwithstanding was held to be good.  
And if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall be redeemed what his brother sold.] Here is a further enlargement of this Liberty, that if any of his near Relations would redeem the Land he had sold (though he was not able to do it himself) it should be allowed. For the design of Moses in this Law was, Ne paucorum opulentia quandoque caeteros opprimeret, lest the wealth of a few should at any time oppress the rest.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And if the Man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it.] In the Hebrew it is his hand hath attained and found sufficiency: which justifies the limitation the Jews put upon this, (as I observed v. 24.) that he should not have the right of Redemption, unless he was grown able to repurchase it, since the sale of it.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it.] This was the manner of the Redemption: they counted how many years were gone since the Sale; and if there remained just so many more to the Jubilee, than he paid the Buyer half the price at which he purchased it, for its Redemption. But if the number of years from the Sale to the Jubilee, were not equal, than he deducted proportionable to the years he had enjoyed it since the purchase, and gave him as much as the years remaining till the Jubilee were worth. And if he sold a Field at first for an hundred pounds, suppose, and he that bought it, sold it to another for two hundred, he was to redeem it, as Maimonides saith, according to what was first given for it, because it is said here he shall restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it: In like manner, if a Man sold a Field for an hundred pound, which in the hands of the Buyer so improved, that it might be sold for Two hundred, the Redemption was to be according to what was first paid for it. But if he sold it for Two hundred pound, and it was grown so much worse that it was worth but an hundred, it was to be esteemed in the Redemption according to the present value. His reason is, Because the condition of him that sold his Inheritance was always to be bettered; and the condition of him that bought it to be made worse.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it, until the year of Jubilee.] If he could not pay him the Money it cost him, according to the  proportion, nor any of his Kindred redeem it for him; then he that bought it was to enjoy all the Profits of it till the Jubilee.  
And in the Jubilee he shall go out, and he shall return to his possession.] The Purchaser was to quit his possession of the Land; and he that sold it enjoy it again for nothing. And whosoever he was that possessed the Land at the Jubilee, though it had been sold never so often before it came to him, the Jubilee ejected him; and restored the Land to the first Owner or his Posterity. For no Man, as was before observed, could either by Sale, or any other Contract, transfer the full Dominion of his Land to another Man; so that it should be his for ever.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled City, than he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold.] This Verse and the next make a great difference between Houses in walled Cities, and Lands in the Country. If such Houses were sold, Men could not redeem them from the Purchaser when they pleased, but must do it within the compass of a year, or else they were barred for ever: and the year of Jubilee would not relieve them.  
Within a full year may he redeem it.] He might redeem it the next day after he had sold it, if he pleased; paying the full price that was given for it. And if he that sold it was dead, his Son might redeem it; or if he that bought it was dead, it might be redeemed from his Son, if done within the year. But his Kindred could not redeem it; nor might he borrow Money to redeem it; nor redeem it by parcels: but he might sell some of his Goods to redeem it. So Maimonides in the  Treatise, cap. 12. where he saith, If a Man sold an House in such a City, and the Jubilee fell out in the year of Sale, it did not restore the House to the seller; but continued his that bought it, unless within a year from the day it was sold it was redeemed.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, than the house shall be established for ever to him that bought it.] The Reasons for this Law seem to be such as these; That by this means (as Menochius observes, Lib. III. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 11.) City's might be better filled with Inhabitants; who were invited thither, when they had hope of a Settlement there. And secondly, that Men might not rashly and easily part with their Houses, which they could never recover, after they had let one year slip, which was allowed for their redemption. And thirdly, Tribes and Families were not distinguished by Houses they had in Cities: from whence it was that the Levites might possess them, who otherwise are said to have no possession in the Land of Canaan. And lastly, perhaps it was intended by this Law, that Proselytes, who were not of the Hebrew Nation, and could have no Fields or Vineyards, might yet have something of their own stable and certain; and not be forced always to want a perpetual possession.  
It shall not go out in the Jubilee.] They say in the G●mara of Bava kama, that the Houses in Jerusalem were not subject to this Law; because that City, as they pretend, did not belong to any certain Tribe. See L'Empereur upon that Book, cap. 7. p. 172.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 But the houses in the Villages, which have no walls round about them, shall be counted as the fields of the Country, etc.] The quite contrary Law is made for Country-houses; which might be redeemed at any time: and if they were not, returned to their first Owners at the Jubilee. The reason of this difference is very plain: for the Houses in walled Cities were their own proper Goods; but in the Country they were accounted part of the Land which was God's. And so these words are to be understood, they shall be counted as the fields in the Country: that is, fall under the same Law with the Lands, v. 23.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 Notwithstanding the Cities of the Levites.] Of which we have an account XXXV Numb. 2. These are accepted from the foregoing Law concerning Houses in walled Cities, as it here follows.  
And the Houses of the Cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.] Not any of their Houses; but only those which they possessed in the XLVIII Cities assigned to them for their Habitations. If they purchased Houses in any other places, they were subject to the same Law with other Men, v. 29. Insomuch that a Levite, who was Heir to his Mother who was an Israelite, was to redeem as other Israelites did, and not after the manner of the Levites; for the Levites had a Right different from other Men only in the Cities of their Possessions; as Maimonides observes in the forecited Book, cap. 13. But if an Israelite was Heir to his Mother a Levite, he redeemed as the Levites did, though he were not of that Tribe; because the Right of their Redemption was tied to the places, and not to the persons, as he there speaks.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And if a man purchase of the Levites, than the House that was sold, and the City of his possession (i.e. in the City of his possession) shall go out in the year of Jubilee.] If he did not redeem it before, it was to come back to him for nothing in this year. But there is another Translation in the Margin, which the first words will bear, viz. If one of the Levites redeem them. Though he was not near of kin, (v. 25.) yet any Levite might redeem any of these Houses: However, they were to be restored to that Tribe at the Jubilee.  
For the Houses of the Cities of the Levites.] It is plain by this, that in the foregoing words he speaks of the Houses, and not of the Cities themselves.  
Are their possession among the Children of Israel.] They were of the same nature of the Land that other Tribes had; which could not be alienated for ever. For they having no other Possessions that could be sold, but Houses, it was reason these Houses should return to their Owners at the Jubilee, as other men's Possessions did, v. 10.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 But the field of the Suburbs of their Cities.] See XXXV Numb. 4, 5.  
May not be sold]. As their Houses might be: but if any Man bought them, the Bargain was immediately void. The Tradition among the Jews (as Maimonides says in the same place) that not be sold in this place signifies not be changed: so as to turn a Suburb into a Field, or a Field into a Suburb: but Fields, Suburbs, and Cities, were to continue perpetually in the same state.  
For it is their perpetual possession.] Their Fields were to be always in their own hands. And the reason why Houses may be sold, when the Fields could not, seems to be this; because the Houses belonged to particular Levites, who might alienate them for a time, and not suffer much by it; but the Fields of the Suburbs were common to the whole Body of the Levites, who would have been undone, if they had wanted Pasture for their Flocks, which were all their Substance. Some indeed fancy that these Suburbs were enclosed, and every Family of them had its several Portion: but as there is no proof of this; so had it been thus, such Families could not without great inconvenience, have wanted their Lands for the feeding of their Flocks.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen to decay with thee.] In the Hebrew it is, When his hand faileth: so that he is not able by his Labour to support himself and his Family.  
Then shalt thou relieve him.] By bestowing Alms upon him (as the Jews interpret it) not by lending him Money: though the following words seem to incline this way. See Selden, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6.  
Yea, though he be a stranger or a sojourner.] By a Stranger they understand a Proselyte of Righteousness; and by a Sojourner, a Proselyte of the Gate, as Mr. Selden there observes out of Jarchi and Abarbanel, p. 694. They say Hyrcanus was the first that began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to entertain Strangers of other Countries, by building Hospitals for their Reception.  
That he may live with thee.] Have a comfortable Subsistance by the Relief of Charitable People: for every Jew, they say, was bound to contribute something towards it; and this was to prevent their selling themselves, as some did, through extreme Poverty, v. 39  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase.] Though these are promiscuously used, yet the next Verse seems here to expound Usury to signify that which is taken for Money; and Increase that which is taken for Corn, Fruits, or Goods. They that would see more of these two words, Nesek and Tarbith, may consult Salmasius de Vsuris, where he hath largely discoursed of them. I shall only further observe, that this Precept follows the other of Relieving poor People by Alms, very fitly: because it is as great a Charity unto some to lend them Money without Usury, as it is to give freely unto others. See Notes on XXII Exod. 25. XXIII Deut. 19  
But fear thy God.] Lest he that is so good to thee, should punish thee for thy inhumanity towards the Poor; of whom he hath a care, as well as thee.  
That thy brother may live with thee.] This is repeated, to show that by these Laws God intended to provide for the Poor such a comfortable Subsistance in their own Country, that they might not be tempted to forsake it, and therewith perhaps forsake their Religion.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.] Some thought if they lent Money freely, they might receive more than they lent of other things; therefore the latter Clause of this Verse was added, to prevent such Oppressions as St. Hierom mentions; who says, some would lend a Neighbour ten Bushels, of Corn suppose, in Winter, to receive fifteen Bushels for it the next Harvest.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the Land of Egypt.] Who have obliged you with far greater Blessings, than I command you to bestow upon others.  
To give you the Land of Canaan.] Under such Covenants as have been mentioned.  
And to be your God.] To preserve you in the possession of it, in Peace and Plenty, if you keep these Covenants, v. 18, 19  
Ver. 39 Verse 39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee, be waxed poor, and be sold unto thee.] Some were sold by the Court of Judgement, when they had committed Theft, and were not able to make Satisfaction: of whom the Hebrews interpret that place XXI Exod. 2, etc. Others were sold by their Parents, v. 7, 8. of that Chapter. But others sold themselves, being reduced to great Poverty, notwithstanding the Alms that had been bestowed upon them, and the Money or Goods that had been freely lent them. And of such the Hebrew Doctors understand these words; and say, it was not lawful for a Man to sell himself, till his Poverty was extreme, and he had nothing at all left, but must preserve his Life, by the price which was given for him. Thus Maimonides in these words, A man might not sell himself to lay up the Money which was given for him; nor to buy Goods; nor to pay his Debts: but merely that he might get Bread to eat. Neither was it lawful for him to sell himself, as long as he had so much as a Garment left. See Selden, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 7. where he observes that the Court of Judgement might not sell a Thief of their Nation, to any but to an Hebrew: not to a Proselyte of either sort; much less to a mere Gentile. But if an Hebrew sold himself to a Proselyte, or to a Gentile, (which he was admonished not to do) the Bargain was good: but he was to be redeemed by his Kindred, or by the People, as it here follows, v. 48, 49. Which other People imitated, who derived their Laws from Moses; particularly the ancient Indians (as Huetius observes out of Diodorus) whose Philosophers commanded that none of their Nation should submit themselves to Servitude, Demonstr. Evang. Propos. IV. cap. 6.  
Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant.] As a Slave; which they bought of other Nations; or took in their Wars: over whom they had an absolute Dominion (as they had over their Goods, or Cattle) and might bequeath them and their Children to their Sons and Posterity for ever, (v. 45, 46.) or sell them and their Children at their pleasure.  
Ver. 40. Verse 40 But as an hired Servant, and as a sojourner.] They were to treat him gently; as they did those who let out their Service for Wages, for a certain time; and then were at their own disposal again.  
Shall he be with thee.] Some of the Jews have carried this very far in Speculation. For thus they gloss upon this place in Jalkut: Let him be with thee in Meat and Drink; so that thou do not eat bread of fine flour, and he of bran; nor thou drink old Win●, and he new; nor thou lie on a soft Bed, and he upon Straw. But it is not likely that this was their practice.  
And shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee.] Beyond which time it was not lawful to keep him in Service: for in the very beginning of this year all such Servants were immediately dismissed. Which made the year of Jubilee such a time of joy, that for nine days together before it began, these Servants kept a kind of Saturnalia, in prospect of their approaching Happiness. For as Maimonides saith in the latter end of the tenth Chapter of Schemitta ve Jobel, from the beginning of the year, until the Day of Atonement, Servants were neither dismissed, nor yet served their Masters; but they did eat, and drink, and made merry; wearing Garlands on their heads. And when the Day of Atonement came, the Sanhedrim commanding the Trumpet to be sounded, all Servants immediately went whether they pleased; as Lands were restored to their first Owners.  
Ver. 41. Verse 41 And then shall he departed from thee.] His Master to whom he was sold might keep him till the Jubilee: Whereas he that was sold by the Court of Judgement might go free, if he pleased, in the seventh year of Release, XXI Exod. v. 2.  
Both he and his Children with him.] He that bought a Servant of the Court of Judgement, was bound to maintain his Wife and Children, if he had any, with Meat, Drink, and Clothes: and yet they were not bound to serve him, much less did they remain Servants, when their Fathers or Mother's Servitude was at an end; as Mr. Selden observes in the forenamed place: and therefore it was much more reasonable in this case, that he and his Children should go out together.  
And shall return unto his whole family.] From which he was gone, while he remained a Servant.  
And unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.] If any was befallen him, since his Servitude.  
Ver. 42. Verse 42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt.] A good reason why they should not be treated like Slaves; because they were all redeemed by God out of the slavery of Egypt, into a state of perfect liberty.  
They shall not be sold as bondmen.] Not publicly, and in the common place of Sale, or in the street; but privately, and in a way of honour, (as the Jewish phrase is) So Maimonides alleged by Mr. Selden in the forenamed place, p. 705. But the plainest sense is, they should not be used like Slaves, while they continued in Servitude: for though they had the use of them in all bodily Employments, yet their Bodies or Persons were not theirs, and therefore they might not use them as they pleased. So it follows in the next Verse.  
Ver. 43. Verse 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour.] As Pharaoh did over all the Israelites, I Exod. 13, 14. or as the Israelites were wont to do over their Servants of other Nations; but gently use their Service in such Employments, as would not be unworthy of them, if they were Freemen.  
But shalt fear thy God.] Remembering that they were all Slaves in Egypt, and delivered by his wonderful goodness: which was thankfully and reverently to be acknowledged.  
Ver. 44. Verse 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shalt be of the heathen.] If they would have any Slaves, they were to be such of other Nations, as were sold to them, or were taken by them in their Wars. Whence the very name of Mancipia came, as the Roman Lawyers tell us, quasi manu capti: and the name of Servus also, which signifies one who was saved, when he might have been killed.  
Round about thee.] He doth not say, in the midst of thee, for they were bound to destroy the People of Canaan.  
Of them shall ye buy bondmen, and bond-maids.] If they had need of their Service. But it does not appear that they had any great number of them; nor had they any great occasion for them, being themselves so laborious, and breeding their Children to look after their Land and their Cattle (in which their Estates chief consisted) and being also so very numerous in a small Country.  
Ver. 45. Verse 45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers, that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy.] Whether they were perfect Proselytes by Circumcision, or only Proselytes of the Gate (as Mr. Selden observes, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 8.) their Children were not exempted from being made Slaves, if they sold them to the Hebrews.  
And of their families that are with you, which they begat in your Land.] If any of their Family or Kindred, as the LXX. translate it, had begat Children in Judea, and would sell them, the Jews might make a purchase of them.  
They shall be your possession.] Become your proper Goods, and continue with you as your Lands do; unless they have their Liberty granted to them. And the first sort of Proselytes obtained it three ways: either by purchasing it themselves, or by their Friends; or by being dismissed by their Master, by a writing under his Hand; or, in the Case mentioned XXI Exod. 26. where the loss of an Eye or a Tooth by the Master's Severity, serve only for Examples of other maims, which procured such a Servant his Liberty. But the second sort of Proselytes did not obtain their Liberty, if we may believe the Hebrew Doctors, by this last means, but only by the two first. And the year of Jubilee gave no Servants of either sort their Liberty.  
Ver. 46. Verse 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your Children after you.] To whom they might bequeath the very Bodies of them and their Children.  
To inherit them for a possession.] That they might have the same power and dominion over them that they had over their Lands, Goods, or Cattle.  
They shall be your bondmen for ever.] Not have the benefit of the year of Jubilee, but be your Slaves as long as they live; unless they by any of the means  obtained their Liberty.  
But over your brethren the Children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour.] As they did over the Slave's beforenamed; whose Masters (as the Hebrew Doctors say) were not bound to find them Food and Raiment; and besides, might treat them with the greatest Severity, provided they did not strike out an eye, etc.  
Ver. 47. Verse 47 If a sojourner or stranger.] The Chaldee interprets these words, an uncircumcised Proselyte. And so Maimonides says, they signify one who hath undertaken the Precepts of the Sons of Noah; whom they also call in their Books, the pious among the Gentiles. See Selden, Lib. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 3. p. 153.  
Wax rich by thee.] As many of them did by Trading; though they could not purchase Land.  
And thy brother that dwelleth by him waxeth poor.] Which was a Case, Moses supposes before v. 35. might happen.  
And sell himself unto the stranger and sojourner by thee.] So I observed before v. 39 they might do; though they were admonished not to do it: And the Bargain held good, though they sold themselves to a Gentile. So Onkelos here translates it, if thy brother sell himself to an Aramite, i. e. to an Idolater. For Idolatry was thought to have sprung first from them: Terah and Nahor being Aramites, who were the first Idolaters mentioned in the holy Scripture.  
Or to the stock of the stranger's family.] To one that sprung out of the Family of a Profelyte: who though now incorporated into the Jewish Nation, yet being originally of a Stranger's stock, was not to have the privilege to keep a Hebrew sold to him from the benefit of Redemption.  
Ver. 48. Verse 48 After that he is sold.] And actually in the possession of a Stranger.  
He may be redeemed, etc.] The Hebrews understand this, as if some of his Kindred were bound to redeem him; or if they did not, he was to be redeemed at the Charge of the Country: And that, though he sold himself a second time, after he had been redeemed. But if he sold himself a third time, they looked upon him as unworthy of Redemption; unless it were merely to save his Life. See Selden, Lib. VI de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 7. But the 54th Verse seems to suggest, that they were not bound to redeem him; though they might, if they pleased, and his Master could not refuse it.  
One of his brethren may redeem him.] This Redeemer (saith R. Bechai) is the MESSIAH the Son of David, of the Tribe of Judah. Which I mention to show, that the Jews thought there was something more Divine couched under this Law of the Jubilee (as I observed v. 10.) then the very Letter of it imported. Though the truth is, they wretchedly mistook the business of the MESSIAH: for the same R. Bechai (speaking of this Section of the Law) saith, It contains a sign and a hope to Israel of Redemption from the Captivity of the four Monarchies: as if the Messiah should have nothing to do, but to put them in possession of their own Country, and to make them Lords of the World.  
Ver. 49. Verse 49 Either his uncle, or his uncle's son may redeem him, etc.] Here the Persons are named by whom his Redemption might be made: which, in short, was by any Man of his Family.  
Or if he be able, he may redeem himself.] If, after his sale, an Estate fell to him, whereby he became able to redeem his Liberty.  
Ver. 50. Verse 50 And he shall reckon with him that bought him, from the year that he was sold to him, unto the year of Jubilee, etc.] That no Injury might be done to his Master, they were to compute how long he had served him, and how long he had still to serve, and what price was paid for him: and then according to the number of years gone, and to come, he was to make his Demands. Which is the meaning of the following words, And the price of his sale, shall be according to the number of years.  
According to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.] The labour and service that he had done him, was to be valued, as they would do that of an Hireling, (who wrought for so much, by the day or the year) and deducting that from the price which was given for him, the remainder was the price of his Redemption.  
Ver. 51. Verse 51 If there be yet many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption.] If he had served but a few years, and there were many to come before the Jubilee; then there was less to be deducted from what his Master gave for him, and the price of his Redemption was higher. But if there remained but few years unto the year of Jubilee, (as it follows in the next Verse) than less was to be given for his Redemption, Verse 52 because he had had his Service a long time.  
Ver. 53. And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him.] His Master was to treat him as a hired Servant, who let out his Service for Wages by the year: and that both with respect to the price of his Redemption, and to his usage while he remained in his Service; as appears by the next words.  
And the other shall not rule with rigour over him.] Use him harshly and severely: for one Israelite was not permitted to use another in that manner, v. 43. and therefore much less was it to be suffered from a Stranger.  
In thy sight.] If they observed any such rigorous usage, they were to endeavour to get it remedied by the Authority of the Magistrate.  
Ver. 54. Verse 54 And he be not redeemed in these years, than he shall go out in the year of Jubilee.] If neither his Kindred nor Country redeemed him, nor he was able to redeem himself (v. 49.) from the time he was sold, to the year of Jubilee, he was to stay till then: when he went out, as others did, without paying any thing for his Liberty. By which it is evident, that he had not the benefit of the seventh year of Release, as Hebrew Servants had who served Hebrew Masters. For it had been unequal, if Hebrews sold to Proselytes, had been discarged from their Service so soon; when the Children of Proselytes sold to Hebrews (v. 45.) were to be their Inheritance for ever. It was more reasonable (and therefore so here enacted) that the Hebrews sold to Proselytes should not be free till the year of Jubilee, unless they were redeemed by themselves or their Friends. By which Law also they were made more careful not to sell themselves to Strangers.  
He and his children with him.] It seems a Proselyte was bound, when he bought a Hebrew Servant, to maintain his Family while he served him: as the Hebrews were bound to do, when they bought one of their own Nation, v. 41.  
Ver. 55. Verse 55 For unto me the Children of Israel are servants, they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt.] He would not have them serve with rigour, nor beyond the year of Jubilee, because they were his Servants by a peculiar Title; being redeemed by him from the Egyptian Bondage; where they were held a long time in cruel Servitude, v. 38.  
I am the LORD your God.] Your Sovereign; who will be ever kind to you, while you serve and obey me.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 YE shall make you no Idols.] This Precept hath been often mentioned: but being now to enforce all his Precepts by the most solemn Promises and Threaten, he repeats the principal thing upon which all depended, which was, that they should keep close to the Worship of him the only God; and abhor all Idolatry, which he knew would corrupt their Manners.  
The Hebrew word Elilim, hath been observed before XIX. 4. to express Contempt: signifying the Idols (as we translate it) which the Heathen worshipped, to be mere empty Vanities, things of nought, as we speak; and therefore to be rejected with disdain, rather than any way regarded.  
Nor graven Image.] The Hebrew word Pesel signifies the Image of any thing hewn out of Wood or Stone: See XX Exod. 4. These Images the Gentiles did not Worship, till they were dedicated and consecrated with certain Rites and Ceremonies, (which were very various, according to the difference of the Deities, and the Superstitions of several Countries) by which Consecration they imagined their Gods were invited to be present in these Images and Statues: otherwise they were not so stupid, as to worship Wood and Stone.  
Neither rear up a standing Image.] The Hebrew word Matsebah is translated by the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Pillar, as we also translate it in the Margin. And if we translate it Statue, or standing Image, we are not to understand by it, the figure of a Man, or of any other Creature: but as the Hebrews seem rightly to take it, for any Work, an Altar for instance, which is erected and set up for Sacred Assemblies to be held thereat; though they be to the true God. So Maimonides (as Mr. Selden observes Lib. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6.) who saith, this was the custom among Idolaters, to erect such Statues to their Gods. And so Pausanias saith (in his Achaica) that in ancient time among the Greeks, universally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rude Stones, instead of Images, had Divine honours paid to them. See Maimonides de cultu Stell. & Plan. cap. 6. sect. 8. These were the most ancient Monuments of all other; and being plain and simple, might be thought to be less tempting and inviting, than those Images which had the figure of Men, or other Creatures: yet even these God forbids to his People, because he would have no Representation of him whatsoever; though it might seem to have no danger in it. These were they which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See upon XXVIII Gen. 19 and Selden de Diis Syris, Syntag. 2. cap. 1.  
Neither set up any Image of Stone in your Land.] There was greater reason they should not set up Eben Maschkith, which signifies carved or figured Stone that had Pictures cut in it, as the Hebrews understand it. See Maimonides in the place beforenamed, and Dionys. Vossius his Notes upon him. And Mr. Selden observes also it was unlawful to set up these in their Land (as Moses here speaks) though it were without the Temple: and it was no more permitted to a Proselyte, then to an Israelite. If any Man did make such Statues he was beaten.  
Possibly this may signify such Images, as were common among the Egyptians in after times; which were not Representations of their Gods, but were full of Symbols and Hieroglyphics, expressing some of the Perfections of their Gods. These God would as little allow among his People, as any of the former: such caution he used to prevent this sort of Idolatry, by Image-worship.  
To bow down unto it.] Though they did not worship it; but only worship God before it.  
I am the LORD your God.] Who admit of no such things where I am worshipped, XX Exod. 4.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuary, etc.] See XIX. 30. Where there is the same Precept. Which seems to be here repeated, because if they kept his Sabbaths, they would preserve them from Idolatry; being appointed for the worship of the Creator of all things: especially if they had such a sense of his Divine Majesty, as wrought Reverence in them, even to his Sanctuary.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 If ye walk in my Statutes, and keep my Commandments, and do them.] If the regard you have to my Majesty, make you obedient to my Laws.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then will I give you rain in due season.] Here follow the Promises of all things that Men naturally most desire, for their happy living here in this World. And first he assures them they should have fruitful Seasons, which depended upon Rain in due time, V Jerem. 24. For Canaan was not a Country like Egypt, which was watered and made fertile by the overflowing of their River: but without Rain was quite barren.  
And the Land shall yield her Increase.] Corn for the use of Men; and grass for the Cattle.  
And the Trees of the Field shall yield their Fruit.] Which was very various every one knows, such as Figs, Pomegranates, Dates, Apples, etc. which he promises they should never want.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And your threshing shall reach unto the Vintage, etc.] This is a promise of such plenty of Corn, that before they could have reaped it all, and threshed it out, the Vintage would be ready, and call for their labour about it: and before they could have pressed out their Wine, it would be time to sow again. As much as to say, they should have such abundance, that they should have scarce time enough to receive and lay up one blessing before another came upon them.  
And ye shall eat your bread to the full.] Have no want of any sort of Provision (which is comprehended under the name of Bread) but as much as you can desire. Which promise may seem to have a peculiar regard to the Command lately given, XXV. 4, 11. though there he took care to secure them by a special Promise, that they should not want in those year, (v. 20, 21.) and therefore much less in any other.  
And dwell in your Land safely.] Plenty would have been little satisfaction to them, if they had been in danger to lose it, or to be disturbed in it: and therefore he promises to defend and protect them in the secure enjoyment of it. See XXV. 18, 19  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And I will give peace in your Land.] There shall be no Insurrections or Seditions in your Country; which are wont to arise from Poverty and Discontent. For this seems to relate to Peace among themselves; as the latter end of the Verse to Freedom from the Desolations their Enemies might make among them.  
And ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid.] It is a promise to preserve them from House-breakers and Robbers.  
And I will rid evil Beasts out of the land.] Which (as it will appear from v. 22.) made lamentable havoc, when they increased, and were let lose upon them: but these God promises to extirpate, if they would be obedient, either by hindering their breed; or making them devour one another; or driving them out of their Country.  
Neither shall the Sword go through your Land.] Their Enemies should not be able to penetrate their Country, to make any Ravage there.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And ye shall chase your Enemies, and they shall fall before you by the Sword.] This supposes their Neighbours might Invade their Country, but should fail in their attempt, and be driven away with shame.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight.] That is, a few shall be too hard for a great multitude; as it proved in the Conquest of Canaan. Insomuch that Joshua saith XXIII. 10. One man of you shall chase a thousand. Which was fulfilled in the days of Gideon, who with three hundred Men, put to flight a vast Army, VII Judg. 22.  
And your Enemies shall fall before you by the Sword.] Which commonly made a greater slaughter in their flight, than was made in the battle.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 For I will have respect unto you.] The reason of which great Success (as well as of the Plenty before mentioned) he would make them sensible, was God's great kindness and favour towards them, as the reward of their obedience. This Joshua most thankfully acknowledges, XXIII. 9  
And make you fruitful and multiply you.] Make you a populous, and consequently a powerful Nation.  
And establish my Covenant with you.] Keep it inviolably, and most certainly perform it. See VI Gen. 18.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 And ye shall eat old store.] Have a great deal of old Corn left, when the new is come in.  
And bring forth the old because of the new.] Have so much of it left, as to want room for it, when the new is to be laid up.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 And I will set my Tabernacle amongst you.] This is the great promise of all, that his Tabernacle, wherein he dwelled among them, should remain and abide with them: For it was set already among them; but now he promises it should be fixed: that is, his Divine Presence should continue with them.  
And my soul shall not abhor you.] I will not cast you off, because of your Offences; for which I have appointed an Expiation.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And I will walk among you.] Conduct you from place to place, all the time you are in this Wilderness. For he dwelling in the Tabernacle, in the Cloud of Glory, which covered it: when that Cloud was taken up, the Ark presently moved to go before them, and led them to the next Station, where they should pitch their Tents, X Numb. 11, 12. See XXV Exod. 8. This is given as the reason why they should keep their Camp from all Impurities. See XXIII Deut. 12, 13, 14.  
And I will be your God, and ye shall be my People.] Bring you to the Land of Canaan; and there continue with you, and bless you, as my peculiar People.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the Land of Egypt.] I will not leave my own work imperfect; but as I delivered you from the Egyptian Slavery, so I will continue to preserve your Liberty and Happiness.  
That ye should not be their Bondmen.] Remain any longer their Slaves, as they intended to make you for ever.  
And I have broken the bands of your yoke.] When you could not deliver yourselves, I set you free from the heavy burdens which oppressed you.  
And made you go upright.] They were so loaded with insupportable burdens in Egypt, that they could not look up; but hung down their Heads with heaviness: till God by setting them free, made them go out from thence, not with dejected, but with cheerful Countenances. For that's the meaning of making them go upright: as Freemen, not bowed down with Oppression; but lifting up their Heads for Joy at their Deliverance. See XIV Exod. 8.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these Commandments.] After the promise of these extraordinary Blessings, as the Reward of their Obedience, he threatens them with as extraordinary Plagues and Calamities, if they were disobedient. And as nothing moves us more powerfully than hope of some Good, or fear of some Evil; so there are no greater Blessings in this World than those which God's Promises gave them hope to enjoy, nor greater Evils than those of which his Threaten put them in fear. But such is the Divine Goodness, he always offers Mercy before he proceeds to Judgement: and mingles Judgement with Mercy before he proceeds in rigour of Justice. Which will appear in the following Threaten.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if ye despise my Statutes, or if your soul abhor my Judgements.] They were not thus wicked at the first; but disobedience to God's Commands (mentioned in the foregoing Verse) proceeded to a contemptuous neglect of them; and that in time to an abhorrence of them.  
So that ye will not do all my Commandments.] Though often admonished by his Prophets; whose Messages they not only rejected, but slighted and despised.  
But that ye break my Covenant.] By forsaking him, and falling to Idolatry. For that was the principal thing in the Covenant, That they should have no oter God, but him alone.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 I also will do this unto you.] I will alter the method of my Providence towards you.  
I will even appoint over you.] Or, as it is in the Hebrew, upon you: causing the following Diseases to seize upon them (as the Phrase signifies) and arrest them. That they might feel the heavy displeasure of him, whose Laws they set at naught.  
Terror, Consumption, and the burning Ague.] It is not certain what Diseases are comprehended under these words: especially the first, Behalah, which we translate terror. But coming from a word importing haste and precipitancy, I take it to signify the falling sickness: whereby People are so suddenly surprised, that they sometimes fall into the fire, by which they sit.  
The other two words probably are rightly translated. For the next, Sachepheth is by Kimchi and a great many others understood to signify a Consumption or an Hectic Fever: though R. Solomon and some others, seem to take it for a Dropsy; for he says it is a Disease that puffs up the flesh, or (as David de Pomis) makes it to break out in Blotches. See Bochart in his Hierozoic. P. II. Lib. II. cap. 18. As for the last word, Chaddachat, it coming from a word denoting great heat, may well be translated a burning Fever.  
That shall consume the eyes.] Make you look ghastly.  
And cause sorrow of heart.] Take away all the comfort of Life.  
And ye shall sow your seed, but your Enemies shall eat it.] Next to Bodily Sickness, he threatens them with the Incursions of their Enemies: which was an higher punishment than the former, according to that of David, it is better to fall into the hands of the LORD then into the hands of Men.  
Here also it is observable, he doth not threaten the worst that their Enemies might do to them; but first, that they should carry away their Harvest, and make a Scarcity among them: and in the next Verse, speaks of delivering them to be slain by them.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 And I will set my face against you.] Be extremely angry with you. See XVII. 10.  
And ye shall be slain before your Enemies.] The neighbouring Nations oftimes made great slaughter of them, and conquered them: as we find in the Book of Judges; and in the beginning of the first Book of Samuel.  
They that hate you shall reign over you.] And grievously oppressed them, IV Judges 3. VI 2, etc. This made them very contemptible; and was a just punishment of their contempt of God's Laws.  
And ye shall flee when none pursueth you.] Lose all your Courage: directly opposite to the promise v. 7, 8.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me.] If by these sore punishments they were not reclaimed from their Idolatrous Practices, he threatens to send greater.  
Then will I punish you seven times more for your sins.] The number seven is used for any indefinite multitude, and therefore here signifies a great increase of their Plagues: which by their continued Provocations, became more and more grievous, then in former Ages.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 And I will break the pride of your power.] That Power wherein you glory. Which some understand of the Sanctuary; which in the days of Eli, was forsaken of the Ark of God's strength, (as the Psalmist calls it) 1 Sam. IV. 10, 11. But it seems rather to relate to their numerous Forces, which at the first were every where victorious: but after sundry Defeats in foregoing times, were in the days of Saul reduced to such straits, they hide themselves in Caves, and Pits, and Thickets, etc. and there was not a Sword or a Spear to be found in any of their hands (save Saul's and Jonathan's) when they should have fought with their Enemies, 1 Sam. XIII. 6, 7. 22.  
And I will make your Heaven as iron, and your Earth as brass.] The one, he means, should afford no Rain, and the other, for want of moisture, bring forth no Fruit: which must needs make a sore Famine among them.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And your strength shall be spent in vain, &c] This is a further description of that Calamity; when after all their labour in ploughing and sowing their Land, or digging and dunging their Trees, they brought forth nothing for their Sustenance. We read in Scripture of such Famines, wherein Man and Beast were ready to perish; particularly 1 Kings XVII. 1, 12. XVIII. 15. 2 Kings VIII. 1.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 And if ye walk contrary unto me.] Go on in your Idolatrous Courses, directly contrary to my Commands, v. 1.  
And will not hearken unto me.] Be obedient to the Admonitions of his Prophets, whom he sent to call them to Repentance.  
I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.] As their Sins increased, so did their Plagues; for these that follow are more dreadful than the foregoing. And it was a high aggravation of their sins, that they would take no warning by the severe Punishments, which God inflicted upon their Forefathers. This augmented his Plagues upon succeeding Generations: which, as Dr. Jackson speaks, usually run by the scale of seven. So that if we call the literal meaning to a strict Arithmetical Account, these later Plagues were Nine and forty times heavier than the former. But it is most likely, a certain number is put for an uncertain: yet denoting a very great increase of their Punishments, beyond what had been in preceding times.  
It ought to be observed that there is in the Margin another rendering of the first words of this Verse, (If ye walk contrary to me) which some follow; If ye walk at all adventures with me. That is, live carelessly, as if you had no regard at all to me; I will have as little regard to you, or concern for you. But the ancient Translations go the other way.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 I will also send wild Beasts among you, which shall rob you of your Children, etc.] If the terrible famine would not work upon their stubborn hearts, no more than the forenamed sicknesses and wars, (v. 16, 17, 19, 20.) then he threatens they and their Cattle should be devoured by wild Beasts. The principal of which were Lions, unto which the depopulation and devastation of Countries are ascribed in Scripture; particularly in the Prophet Jeremiah II. 15. iv 7. where the Assyrians and Nabuchadnezzar are therefore compared to Lions, because by those fierce Beasts Countries were sometimes laid desolate; Man and Beast being destroyed by them. We read of no other, that killed the People planted in Samaria by the King of Assyria, instead of the Israelites whom they carried away Captive, 2 Kings XVII. 25. And God threatened to destroy the remnant of Moab by the same means, XV Isa. 9 But there were other wild Beasts also to do this Execution, V Jerem. 6. As Bears, who killed Two and forty Children at one time, 2 Kings II. 24. Serpents and Cockatrices, VIII Jer. 17. And in general, that Prophet threatens the destruction of Judea by such Creatures, XV Jerem. 3. Nor are Examples wanting in other Histories of such Calamities; one Monument of which continues still in the Church. For the Solemn Prayers in ROGATION Week, were first instituted (as Sidonius relates) by Mamertus Bishop of Vienne in France, for this reason among others, that Wolves and other wild Beasts did very great mischief in those parts. See Sirmondus in Lib. VII. Epist. 1. Nay, some Countries have been so infested with smaller Creatures, particularly Spain by Coneys, that they left nothing untouched: being noxious not only to Roots and Seeds, but subverting whole Towns, which were undermined by them. And in the Neighbouring Islands called Baleares, they were so plagued with them, that they were forced to Petition Augustus to send Soldiers to defend them from these little Animals. See Bochartus in his Phaleg. Lib. III. cap. 7.  
And your highways shall be desolate.] For Travellers would not venture into the Highways, for fear of the wild Beasts; and because of the scarcity of People to give them entertainment. It is observable that this Plague is directly opposite to the Blessing promised unto their Obedience, v. 6. where he saith, I will rid evil Beasts out of the Land: which was never overrun with them, till it was overspread with wickedness.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 If ye will not be reform by me, by these things.] He would have them observe his Hand in all these Punishments; by which he intended their Reformation.  
But will walk contrary unto me.] See v. 21.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you.] Serve you in your kind; and still make your Plagues more grievous, as your Stubbornness grows more obstinate. To what was said before of this matter, I shall add the Interpretation of Maimonides in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 36. where he thus glosses on this place: If when I inflict upon you these Punishments, you believe them to be accidental things, mere Chances (so he understands the word keri, which we translate contrary) then will I deal with you according to your Opinion, and lay more heavy Punishments upon you. For because they believed these Plagues happened by accident, which were the Consequents of their false Opinions and evil Works, therefore they did not reform them: as Jeremiah saith, V 3. Thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved. Thus he.  
And will punish you yet seven times for your sins.] If we should follow the literal Exposition mentioned v. 21. then those Plagues there threatened being seven times multiplied, would make the Plagues threatened in this Verse, for their multiplied Transgressions, three hundred and forty three times greater than the first, v. 18. But the meaning is only, that they should still grow more numerous, and more destructive.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 And I will bring a sword upon you.] This seems to be no new Plague, having been before threatened v. 17. Therefore the meaning is, that he would send three sore Judgements upon them, all at the same time, viz. War, Pestilence, and Famine: which are contained in this and the next Verse. Of War and Famine at once, See XIV Jerem. 18. XVI. 4. Of Pestilence added to them, together with Captivity, XV. 2, 3, 4. XLIV. 12, 13. and see VI Ezek. 11, 12. and still worse XIV Ezek. 21.  
That shall avenge the quarrel of my Covenant.] My quarrel with you for the breach of that Covenant which you solemnly made with me, XXIV Exod. 3, 8. XXXIV Exod. 10.11, 12, etc.  
And when you are gathered together within your Cities.] Thinking there to defend yourselves against your Enemies, by impregnable Fortifications.  
I will send the Pestilence among you.] To destroy the Soldiers in your Garrison.  
And ye shall be delivered into the hand of the Enemy.] Forced to surrender; because you have no Men left to defend the place.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 And when I have broken the staff of bread.] Taken away its power to nourish you (as Bochart expounds it) or rather taken Bread itself from you, which is the support of Life, by a sore Famine, v. 10. If they either wanted Corn to make Bread, or their Corn had no heart in it (as we speak) either way, they would be starved.  
Ten women shall bake your Bread in one Oven.] That is, there shall be such Scarcity, that a small Oven shall be sufficient to bake Bread for ten Families; i e. for a great many, as the number ten in Scripture signifies, 1 Sam. I. 8. XIX Job 3.  
And they shall deliver you again your bread by weight.] Distribute to every one in the Family, a certain quantity; not enough to satisfy them, but only (as we speak) to keep Body and Soul together. So it follows:  
And ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.] Never have enough to satisfy their hunger; but by eating, made to crave the more to eat. So Pellicanus glosses, who thus concludes his Notes of these Verses, Haec sunt arma Dei contra insensatos, etc. These are the Weapons of God against stupid Wretches; which not wicked Man can evade, when God in anger gins to fall upon them. Let no Man, though never so great and rich, hope to be safe from the Hand of the Lord, who can kill Kings by Worms and Lice when he pleaseth.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if you will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary to me.] If all these Plagues have no better effect upon you than the former. See v. 21, 23, 24.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 Then will I also walk contrary to you in fury.] His Indignation rises proportionable to their Offences. For now he not only saith he will set his face against them (as he speaks v. 17.) but proceed against them, in fury: by such Punishments as should quite ruin them.  
And I, even I will chastise.] The very manner of Speech expresses Anger and Indignation: being as if he had said, I will make you know who it is that you have despised, v. 15. The word jissarti also, which we render chastise, imports smarter Punishments than those expressed by hickethi, I will smite, or punish you, v. 24.  
Seven times for your sins.] If we should by a literal account multiply the number of Plagues mentioned v. 24. seven times, the threatening here would amount to this: That their Rebellion, not amended by so many Plagues, but continued still from Age to Age (notwithstanding all the Corrections inflicted on them for their Reformation, v. 23.) should in conclusion be punished one thousand one hundred ninety seven times more severely than at first, v. 18. But the simple sense is, That their obstinate contempt of his Laws, should be punished with new and more grievous Plagues. Which was fulfilled, as our Dr. Jackson observes (Book I on the Creed, chap. 22.) in their Captivity, in the days of Manasseh, Jehojachim, and Zedediah: and again in the time of Ptolemy the first under Antiochus Epiphanes. For these later Calamities were at least seven times greater (both for extent and durance) than the former Persecutions, which they suffered from the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Syrians. By all which, and by what follows, it plainly appears that these Threaten were a kind of Prediction. For Moses evidently foresaw they would not prove so obedient as he desired, (XXXI Deut. 27, 29.) and consequently that these Threaten, in case of Disobedience, would turn into Prophecies. Unto every one of which their History exactly answers, as the Book of Deuteronomy will give me occasion to show more fully.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.] This is the very utmost Calamity that could come upon a People: and yet (as Conradus Pellicanus observes) it is put before the throwing down of their High-places and Images, etc. As if the devouring of their Children (such was their incredible Lust after Idols) would seem a less Evil to them, than the loss of their Images.  
This was fulfilled among the Israelites in the Siege of Samaria, 2 Kings VI 29. and among the Jews in the Siege of Jerusalem before the Babylonian Captivity, IV Lament. 10. and in the last Siege by Titus, as Josephus relates, Lib. VII. de Bello Judaico, cap. 8.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 And I will destroy your high places.] Where they were wont to worship their Idols, according to the manner of the Heathen; who built Temples, and Altars, and offered Sacrifices to their Gods, upon Mountains and high Hills; especially such as were shaded with Trees. Insomuch that the Indians in Philostratus call the high Mountain Caucasus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the House of the Gods. And the ancient Persians (as Herodotus saith in his Clio, cap. 131.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, going up to the top of the highest Mountains, there offered Sacrifices unto Jupiter; calling the whole Circle of the Heavens, by that name. And in the Island Naxus the highest Mountain was also consecrated to him; as from his worship on Mount Athos he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius. They that would see more of this matter, may look into Cuperus his Apotheosis Homeri, p. 15, 16, etc. And the reason of their choosing these places for their Worship was, because they thought their Sacrifices would be more acceptable there than in Valleys. For, as Lucian himself saith, they thought themselves in such High-places to be nearer to their Gods, and so should more easily obtain Audience, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. de De● Syr. and Tacitus saith the same in the last Book of his Annals.  
How much the Israelites were inclined to follow the Nations of the World in this, appears too plainly by their History; which shows that High-places were frequented in the Reigns of their good Kings, as well as of their bad. Yea, they were so fond of them, that when they could not go to them, they offered upon the tops of their Houses, XIX Jerem. 13. XXXII. 29. I Zephan. 5.  
And cut down their Images.] The Hebrew word Chammanecem, which we translate your Images, properly signifies Temples erected for the worship of the Sun, as Aben-Ezra says upon this place. For it is certain that the Hebrews call the Sun Chamma; from whence comes the word Chamman, the Temple of the Sun: whom the ancient Phoenicians took to be the Lord of Heaven. So Sanchoniathon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (speaking of the Sun) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though it is very probable, that as Superstition increased, the name of Chammanim was given to other Temples, as well as those of the Sun. See Bochart in his Canaan, Lib. II. cap. 17. Others take this word to signify what the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Temples of the Fire; which being worshipped by the Eastern People, Temples were erected in honour of it. But this is not much different from the former: the Persians worshipped the Sun in the Fire, which was the Symbol and Representative of the Sun. See Selden Syntagma II. de Diis Syris cap. 8.  
And cast your carcases upon the carcases of your Idols.] Which were both burnt together, as some imagine. However, this expresses the utmost Contempt both of them and of their Idols; who were alike detestable. Their fondness of them also when they were alive, seems to be represented by throwing them upon them when they were dead. And the Hebrew word gillulim (which we barely translate Idols) importing something belonging to the Dunghill, is taken by some to signify the Images of Baal-peor; who was worshipped, as the Jews say, after a most beastly manner. These Idols, whatsoever they were, though dressed up finely, yet were no better than dead Carcases, without any Life or Soul in them. And we might think (if that Superstition were so old) that Moses alludes to the little Images of Isis, which were made of Plaster and Clay, and are found frequently in the Sepulchers of Egyptians at this day. Unto which Christoph. Arnoldus (in his Epistle to Wagenseil) thinks the Talmudists allude, when they say that Pharaoh's Daughter, becoming a Proselyte to the Jewish Religion, washed herself in the River Megullile from these dunghill Idols (as some render it) of her Father's House, Excerp. Gemarae in Sota, cap. 1. sect. 40. The Dutch Interpreters translate it Dreck-goden, not merely for the matter (as Arnoldus thinks) but also for the form of a Beetle, which lives in dung. For so they represented Isis, as Plutarch tells us in his Book de Isid. & Offic. See Wagenseil Sota p. 1176.  
And my soul shall abhor you.] As so offensive to me, that I can bear with you no longer. This is directly opposite to his promise, if they would be obedient, v. 11. My soul shall not abhor you.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 And I will make your City's waste.] Their Walls being thrown down, and their Houses burnt.  
And bring your Sanctuaries unto desolation.] They had but one Sanctuary; and therefore some think their Synagogues are comprehended under this name; for they are sometimes called Sanctuaries, as I observed before. But the Sanctuary, properly so called, having several parts, which were all holy, Moses may be thought to speak of it here in the Plural Number. As Jeremiah represents the Jews, saying, The Temple of the LORD, the Temple of the LORD, the Temple of the LORD are these, VII. 4. That is, both these Courts wherein we stand, as well as that of the Priests, and the most Holy Place, are all the LORD's Temple. Or the word your is to be applied to such places of Worship as they themselves had consecrated, in opposition to God's Sanctuary.  
And I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.] This seems to determine the meaning of Sanctuaries, to God's own House; where sweet odours of Incense, made of several sweet Spices, were daily offered unto him. Which being a representation of their Prayers sent up to him, he here declares that he will not be appeased by them, nor by any Sacrifices they could offer to him, but utterly reject them.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And I will bring the Land into desolation.] The People being carried captive; or forced to flee into strange Countries, v. 33.  
And your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.] They that possess this Country, out of which you are expelled, shall be amazed when they reflect upon the Calamities that are fallen upon you. Which Jeremiah describes as very dreadful, VII. 20. And often mentions the Astonishment wherewith they were struck, who beheld them, XVIII. 16. XIX. 8. XXV. 9, 11. and see 2 Chron. XXIX. 8, 9 which shows this began before Jeremiah's time.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 And I will scatter you among the heathen.] Some fled into one strange Country, and others into another; according as they could find means and opportunity: insomuch that there were no known places where they were not dispersed. So Jeremiah threatens XIII. 24. XV. 4.  
And I will draw a sword after you.] So Jeremiah threatens those that would go into Egypt for safety; that the sword which they feared, should overtake them there, XLII. 16, 17, 18.  
And your Land shall be desolate, and your City's waste.] For they that were left there, and their Enemies to whom the Country was given, were now enough to cultivate the Land, and build their Cities. By all this, as well as by what follows, it appears that here is a plain Prediction of the Miseries that came upon Israel, by Tiglath-Pileser and Salmanasar; and upon Judah by Nabuchadnezzar; who laid their City's waste, destroyed the Sanctuaries, despoiled them of their Goods, drove them into strange Countries, and, as it here follows, made their Land keep its Sabbaths.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 Then shall the Land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemy's Land, etc.] This is a most bitter reproach to them for their ingratitude to God, and inhumanity to their Brethren, in not keeping the Sabbatical year, mentioned in the foregoing Chapter. Dr. Hammond hath another notion of the word, which we translate enjoy: See Note g. upon Psal. 102. p. 504.  
Ver. 35. Verse 35 As long as it lieth desolate, it shall rest.] Lie untilled; as it ought to have done every seventh year. And it lay thus seventy years; because, as some think, they had neglected to keep so many Sabbatical years. Which we cannot think to be true; without supposing that they kept none for half the time from their entrance into Canaan, till they were expelled out of it, by the Captivity of Babylon.  
Because it did not rest in your Sabbaths, when ye dwelled upon it.] For in these four hundred and ninety years, says Procopius Gazaeus, when they were under the Government of Kings, there were seventy years to be kept as Sabbaths: which, that the Land might enjoy its Sabbaths, were spent in the Captivity of Babylon. We do not expressly read indeed of this profane neglect, while they dwelled in their Land: but Jeremiah complains that they did not in his time give their Servants Liberty in the seventh year, (XXXIV. 17.) and he gives this as one reason why God delivered them up to Slavery, (for so I understand those words I Lament. 3. Judah is gone into captivity, because of affliction, and because of great servitude.) And from thence we may conclude that the same covetous humour (and distrust of God's Providence) made them not suffer their Land to rest in that year. Especially since the Author of the second Book of Chronicles expressly mentions this as a reason of their Captivity, to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah the Prophet, until the Land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years, 2 Chron. XXXVI. 21. Now their Punishment in this was made the more remarkable, if it be true that both the Kingdom of Samaria, and the Kingdom of Judah were destroyed in a Sabbatical year: and that immediately after a Jubilee, the City and Temple were destroyed by Titus, according to Scaliger's Computation. And so I observed before Maimonides makes account (XXV. 8.) that the year when they were carried captive to Babylon, and the first Temple destroyed, was in the expiration of a Sabbatical year, Schemitta ve Jobel cap. 10. sect. 3.  
Ver. 36. Verse 36 And upon them that are left alive of you.] This imports that the Body of the People should be destroyed.  
I will send a faintness into your hearts, in the Lands of their Enemies.] Where their Spirits Sunk, under their present Miseries.  
And the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them.] And yet they were condemned to live, in continual dread of more Miseries. For the Hebrew word we translate faintness signifies softness: which could not support the weight of their Affliction. And this last Phrase imports such a timourness as should make their Life always uneasy to them, and such a cowardice as should render them vile and despicable. And so they are noted at this day to be mean spirited, and faint hearted: it being scarce ever heard, that a Jew listed himself for a Soldier; or engaged in the defence of the Country where he lives.  
And they shall flee, as flecing from a Sword, and fall when none pursueth.] Fancy they hear the sound of Trumpets, or clashing of Arms; which made them start, and run away, any fall into a swoon, when there was no danger. Such Terrors the Heathen themselves have observed, in Men of an evil Conscience; who were afraid of their own Shadow, as they say of Orestes.  
Ver. 37. Verse 37 And they shall fall one upon another.] As people are wont to do, when they make too much haste, and run confusedly; or the foremost hinder the flight of those that follow, XLVI Jerem. 16.  
As it were before a Sword, etc.] For fear of the Sword; as this Hebrew Phrase certainly signifies, and is so translated in the Margin of our Bibles, XXI Isa. 15. XXXI. 8. See Bochartus in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 8.  
And ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies.] Being so timorous, as to flee, when there were none, (as it goes before) they could not stand before them, when they appeared.  
Ver. 38. Verse 38 And ye shall perish among the Heathen.] Die with Grief, or by Diseases, Poverty, Oppression, and hard Usage.  
And the Land of your Enemies shall eat you up.] Insomuch that the ten Tribes never returned to their own Land: but either perished by Hunger, and bad Accommodations; or were swallowed up (as we say) into the Body of another Nation.  
Ver. 39 Verse 39 And they that are left of you shall pine away, in their iniquities, in their enemies Land.] With grief and sorrow, and sad reflections upon the Miseries into which their sins, and the sins of their Fathers had thrown them. Insomuch that Death was more acceptable to them than Life, VIII Jerem. 3.  
And also in the iniquities of their Fathers shall they pine away with them.] Especially those of Manasseh King of Judah, whose wickedness was so great, that the zealous Reformation which his Grandchild made, could not turn away the fierceness of God's great wrath against them, 2 Kings XXIII. 26, 27.  
Ver. 40. Verse 40 If they shall confess their iniquity, etc.] Though Moses had been above three times as long in recounting the Plagues which he either foresaw, or feared would come upon them for their sins, than in the Blessings which he promised should follow their Obedience: yet he plainly shows that the Blessings would have far excelled the Curses, had not their Disobedience hindered. For after all these dreadful Calamities were come upon them, he concludes with a most gracious promise that God would restore them to their own Land, from whence they were expelled, if they truly repent of those sins which were the cause of it.  
That he means by confessing their iniquities, and the iniquities of their Fathers, etc. acknowledging them with such unfeigned sorrow, as wrought Repentance; without which he gave them no hope of Deliverance. And it is well observed by a great Divine of our own, That if without confession of their father's iniquities, they could not be absolved from their own; their father's iniquity not repent of, was their own; and so was the punishment due unto it.  
And that they have walked contrary to me.] Both they, and their forefathers: whose ways had been so contrary to God's Laws, that, if they sincerely confessed it, God expected they should take the quite contrary course, and observe those Precepts carefully which their Fathers had violated.  
Ver. 41. Verse 41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the Land of their Enemies.] Be sensible that all the Miseries they have endured, came not by chance; but the just Punishment I sent upon them for their sins: particularly that it was by my order, that they were carried captive into a strange Land.  
If then their uncircumcised heart be humbled.] By an uncircumcised heart seems to be meant an heathenish temper of mind, insensible of God: which made them stubborn and refractory; and therefore this Phrase is the same with an hard heart. For which there was no cure, but such remarkable Judgements, as evidently carried in them the marks of a Divine Hand. Which when they saw, and submitted to it, he gives them hope of deliverance.  
And they accept of the punishment of their iniquity.] Patiently bear it, as their just desert; and acknowledge they do not deserve to be delivered from it.  
Ver. 42. Verse 42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham.] See III Exod. 6. He promises to restore them to their own Land; according to the Covenant made with their Forefathers, that he would give it them, for an everlasting Possession. For to remember a Covenant, or Promise, in Scripture Language, is to perform it, and make it good. Accordingly we find the forenamed Confession made by Daniel (Chap. IX.) and he makes it in the name of all the People; among whom, no doubt, there were many that hearty joined with him: and then followed their wonderful Restoration in the Reign of Cyrus, of which we read I Esra, etc.  
And I will remember the Land.] Repeople it with its former Inhabitants, etc. See 2 Chron. 36. v. 22, 23. where this immediately follows the Relation he had made of the Land being laid desolate.  
Ver. 43. Verse 43 The Land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her Sabbaths, etc.] This Verse is very obscure; unless we take it to speak of a new Expulsion out of their Land, after their Reduction to it. And then the next words  
And they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity.] Must be interpreted, after they had accepted, or though they had accepted, etc. This made their sin the more provoking; that they offended God again, when he had so graciously forgiven them, and delivered them from a dismal Captivity.  
Because, even because they despised my Judgements, and because their soul abhorred my Statutes.] Returned to the very same wicked disposition, for which they had been formerly expelled, v. 15. This was fulfilled by degrees, by the Successors of Alexander, and at last by the Romans.  
Ver. 44. Verse 44 And yet for all that, when they be in the Land of their Enemies.] He would not have them utterly despair of Mercy, even after a new Banishment: which hath now continued many Ages. For this Promise is not yet fulfilled, as Dr. Jackson observes Book I. on the Creed, Chap. 31. sect. 9  
I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly.] As we see at this very day, they are not destroyed utterly: but remain a great Body in several Countries; after above six hundred years' Expulsion from their own Land.  
And to break my covenant with them.] Never more to own them for my People.  
For I am the LORD their God.] I still continue to have a peculiar right to their Obedience; as they have to my kindness, if they will return to their duty.  
Ver. 45. Verse 45 And I will for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors, etc.] The meaning cannot be, that God would be so gracious for their sakes who were so very wicked: but, as the words in the Hebrew are, he would for them (i. e. for their good and advantage) remember the Covenant of their Ancestors, whom he had brought forth out of the Land of Egypt. That is, once more deliver them from their miserable Condition, and restore them to his Favour; that he may be their God. And that great Man (now mentioned on the foregoing Verse) observes, That the continuation of their Plagues seems so much interrupted, and the Plagues themselves so much mitigated, in the last Age (since the Gospel hath been again revealed) as if their Misery were almost expired, and the Day of their Redemption drawing nigh. But then they must first confess their Iniquity, and the Iniquity of their Fathers, (as Moses speaks before, v. 40.) with their Trespass which they trespassed in crucifying Christ the LORD: and accept the Punishment of their Iniquity, acknowledging that so horrid a Crime, deserved so long and so heavy a Punishment. For every Child (as he observes in another place (Book XI. p. 3750.) is born, as it were, heir to his father's sins, and to their Plagues; unless he renounce them by taking their Gild upon him, and such hearty Confession as this Law prescribes; and patiented Submission of himself to God's Correction.  
Ver. 46. Verse 46 These are the Statutes, and Judgements, and Laws, which the LORD made between him and the Children of Israel.] This may be thought to refer either to all the foregoing Book of Laws; or to what is said in this Chapter. Menochius thus expounds it, these are the Punishments which God threathed, to the breakers of his Laws. But it is more reasonable to take in the whole, in this manner these are the Statutes, and Judgements, and Laws (together with the Promises and Threaten annexed to them) which the LORD made between him and Israel.  
In Mount Sinai.] See XXV. 1.  
By the hand of Moses.] By the Ministry of Moses, who delivered these Laws, from God's own Mouth.  
It is obvious to observe, that instead of, these are the Laws which the LORD made between him and the Children of Israel, Onkelos the famous Chaldee Interpreter, hath between his WORD and the Children of Israel. Which Theodorick Hackspan produces, among other places, to prove that in those Paraphrasts the WORD of the LORD signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself. Which, though it be true in some places, yet in others, as I have observed before, it cannot have that signification; particularly in CX Psal. 1. where the Hebrew words are, The LORD said unto my Lord, which are thus expounded by Jonathan, The LORD said unto his WORD. Where it can signify nothing, but another Divine Person. And so Onkelos might intent it here; that the LORD made all these Laws between his Eternal WORD and them.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying.] Some Religious People, it is possible, were touched with such a sense of what Moseshad now delivered, in the foregoing Promises and Threats, that they thought of giving themselves wholly unto God, or of vowing some of their Goods to him: and therefore he gives Moses further Directions for the regulating of such Vows.  
Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them, when a Man shall make a singular Vow.] And first, If any Man vowed himself, or his Children, wholly to the Service of God in the Tabernacle, he directs what was to be done in that case. Which he calls a singular, or extraordinary Vow; and by Philo is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the great Vow: it being a wonderful piece of Devotion (as the word japhli in the Hebrew imports) because Men were desirous to help God's Priests in the meanest Ministry; such as bringing in Wood, carrying out Ashes, sweeping away the Dust, and such like.  
The person shall be for the LORD, by thy estimation.] The meaning would have been more plain, if the words had been translated just as they lie in the Hebrew, According to thy estimation, the person shall be for the LORD. For this immediately suggests to ones thoughts, That the Service of the Persons themselves thus devoted, was to be employed in the Tabernacle; but a value set upon them by the Priest, and that to be employed for the LORD, i. e. for holy uses; for repairing the Sanctuary, suppose, or, any thing belonging to it. The reason why God would not accept the Persons themselves, as they desired, but the value of them for his Service; seems to be because there was a sufficient number of Persons peculiarly designed for all the Work of the Tabernacle; which he would not have encumbered by more Attendants there, than were needful.  
Ver. 3. Verse 3 And thy estimation shall be.] That the Priest might not either overvalue, or undervalue any Person; the Rates are here set down, which he should demand for their Redemption.  
Of the male from twenty years old, even unto sixty years old.] For at Twenty years of Age (saith Procopius Gazaeus) Men begin to be fit for business, and continue so till sixty; when it is time to leave it off.  
Thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver.] That this one Rule should serve for all Men, though of different qualities, Philo thinks was fit for several reasons, which he gives in his Book of Special Laws. The principal is, because God regarded only the Vow; the value of which was equal whosoever made it, whether a great Man or a poor.  
After the shekel of the Sanctuary.] See XXX Exod. 13.  
Ver. 4. Verse 4 And if it be a female, than thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.] Women could not be so serviceable as Men, and therefore were valued at a less rate: For all that they could do was to spin, or wove, or make Garments, or wash for the Priests and Levites.  
Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if it be from five years old, even unto twenty years old.] It appears by this, that though a Child of five years old, could not make a Vow, yet his Parents might solemnly devote one of that Age to God; and it did oblige them to pay what is here required for the use of the Sanctuary.  
Thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.] Less is required than for those above twenty; because their Life was more uncertain; and they were less capable to do any Service, before they came to their full growth.  
Ver. 6. Verse 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, etc.] Before a Child was a Month old, it seems it was not capable to be devoted to God; but than it might. And still less was still demanded, as the value of them; because Children so small were very weak and imperfect; and the price therefore set accordingly. But the words may be understood not of Children that were a Month old, but that were in the first Month of their Life: And Samuel we find was devoted to God before he was born.  
Ver. 7. Verse 7 And from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, than thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, etc.] They are valued much less after sixty than before, (v. 3.) because their Service then was little worth, and their Life likely to be short.  
And for a female ten shekels.] The Hebrews think it observable, that in their youth (v. 3, 4.) Males were valued almost double to Females: but now in old Age, they are made almost of equal value. For old Women continue very serviceable in many things, when old Men are not: whence they have a saying, An old Woman in an House, is a Treasure in an House.  
Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if he be poorer than thy estimation.] If he be not able to pay, according to the forenamed Rates.  
Then he shall present himself before the Priest.] Who was then in attendance at the Tabernacle: for he doth not speak of the Highpriest, but of the lower.  
And the Priest shall value him.] According to the best Information he could get of his Ability; as it here follows.  
According to his ability that vowed, shall the Priest value him.] He was to examine his Condition; and accordingly set such a Rate upon him as he might be able to pay, without undoing his Family.  
Ver. 9 Verse 9 And if it be a Beast.] Now he proceeds to the second Case; which was when any Man vowed to give God a Beast, of some sort or other.  
Whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD.] And first he mentions clean Beasts, such as God accepted at his Altar; as these are explained by the opposite unclean Beast, v. 11.  
All that any man gives of such unto the LORD.] Whether to be sacrificed, or not.  
Shall be holy.] Set apart for God's Service, according to the nature of his Vow: to be offered at the Altar, if he so expressed it; or to be given to the Priests and Levites, if that was his desire; or to be sold for the service of the Tabernable, if it was left at large.  
Ver. 10. Verse 10 He shall not alter it, nor change it.] Some think these words alter and change, are two Expressions of the same thing. But the first word may signify, that he should not alter it for any other Beast, or Thing; and the second, that he should not change it for any Beast of the same kind: but that very Beast, which was vowed, was to be given to the uses intended; and no other accepted in its stead, though it were really better.  
A good for a bad, or a bad for a good.] If Men had been left to their liberty, either to give unto God the Beast they had vowed, or another in its room, they might have given a bad instead of a good, as Maimonides observes, which had been a great profaneness. But supposing those that were truly Religious, would have brought a good instead of a bad (that is, one much fatter, and more valuable) God would not suffer it; because he would preserve a Reverence to things once Consecrated, which he would not should return to common uses, though a better thing was substituted in its room. If any Man did change what he had vowed, though it were for the better, he was to be beaten; as Maimonides saith in his Treatise on this subject, cap. 1.  
And if he shall at all change Beast for Beast, than it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.] The Man was to be beaten, and both the one and the other Beast, was to become God's. Which the Jews understand thus, (as Maimonides tells us in the same Treatise) that if he changed the Beast he vowed, twice or thrice, nay, a thousand times, they all became holy: and he was also to suffer the Punishment of stripes for every one of them.  
Ver. 11. Verse 11 But if it be an unclean Beast, of which they do not offer a Sacrifice unto the LORD.] Some comprehend under this, such Beasts, as though in themselves clean, yet had some blemish in them, which rendered them unfit for Sacrifice. But as they could not be offered in Sacrifice, so one would think it was not lawful to vow them either to that, or any other holy use.  
Then he shall present the Beast before the Priest.] That he might consider the worth of it.  
Ver. 12. Verse 12 And the Priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad.] Of a great price or a small. He was not allowed to exchange it for a clean Beast; both because it was dedicated to God, and because that exchange might have been a great damage to the Priest: many unclean Beasts being of greater value than some clean; an Horse or a Camel, for instance, of greater price than a Sheep, or a Goat.  
As thou valuest it, who art the Priest, so shall it be.] He directs his speech to the Priest, to awaken his Conscience, to attend and make upright Judgement; because that was to be the value of it, which the Priest determined it to be worth.  
Ver. 13. Verse 13 But if he will at all redeem it.] It was in the Man's choice; either to leave the Beast with the Priest, or to pay him the Money at which he had rated it.  
Then he shall add a fifth part thereof, unto thy estimation.] If he chose the latter, it was a sign he thought it worth more, than the price which the Priest had set upon it: who could not understand the value of it, so well as himself. And every Man, as Maimonides observes (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46.) regarding his own advantage, and inclining naturally to save what he can; if a Beast were not rated at its just value, he that had vowed it would be disposed rather to redeem the Beast, than let the Priest have it. Which is the reason that God orders, he should in this case pay a fifth part more than the Priest set upon it, that he might be sure to give the full value.  
Both this, and the foregoing Law, was to preserve that from being vile and cheap, which bore the Name of God (as he there speaks) and was consecrated to his uses.  
Ver. 14. Verse 14 And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD.] By vowing it to God's Service: for of such sanctifying he speaks in this Chapter, and this is the third Case about Vows. Which commonly consisted in promising to God some part of their Estates; either to serve for Sacrifices, or to be kept for some Sacred uses. Whence came those vast Treasures which were in the House of God, mentioned 1 Chron. XXVI. 26, 27, 28. for they were chief Oblations of part of the Spoils taken from their Enemies, which David and Saul and Abner and Joab had dedicated: together with the Oblations of such Persons as Samuel the Seer, who is there said to have dedicated a great deal to maintain the House of the LORD.  
Then the Priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad, etc.] He makes the same Law in this case, which he had done about unclean Beasts; that the Priest should consider the worth of it, and accordingly set the price: having respect to the condition of the House, whether it was great, or little, old or new, etc.  
As the Priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand.] That was to be the fixed price; which no Man was to attempt to alter.  
Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if he that sanctified it, will redeem his House.] If he that vowed it to God, chose afterward rather to pay the price himself, than part with the House, he was to submit to the Law made in the foregoing Case; which was, to add a fifth part to the Rate set upon it. For there was another reason why many might make this choice, (besides that mentioned in Verse 13.) because if they did not redeem it, the House could never return to them again; no, not at the Jubilee. For it is probable, the Law concerning Lands (which immediately follows) was the Rule for Houses also: which were valued according to their distance from the year of Jubilee, at a higher or lower price, as Lands were, v. 18, 22, 23.  
Then shall he add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation, and it shall be his.] He that gave us the Law (saith Maimonides in his Treatise on this Subject, cap. ult.) knows the most intimate sense of all men's souls, and penetrates into the most secret recesses, and lurking places of humane desires: and he seeing that their love of riches would make them very saving; so that, if out of a religious motion they had consecrated any thing to him, they would be prone to repent of it; he therefore ordained, that if any man had a mind to redeem what he had consecrated, he should add a fith part to its just value: that is, pay well for it.  
Ver. 16. Verse 16 And if a man shall sanctify unto the LORD.] By a Vow; after the same manner that some did a House, v. 14.  
Some part of a field.] This seems to signify that it was not lawful for a Man to vow his whole Field; that is, all his Estate: because God would have no Man's Family undone and made Beggars, to enrich his Sanctuary.  
Of his possession.] Not purchased by him, but descended to him as an Inheritance from his Ancestors.  
Then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof.] It shall be valued, according to the quantity of Seed which is required to sow it.  
An Omer of barley-seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.] So much Land as an Omer of Barley would sow, was to be rated at fifty Shekels. And so proportionably: so much as would take up two Omers at an hundred; or half an Omer at five and twenty. Menochius thinks it was to be rated at so much yearly; but there is not the least intimation of this in the Text: and his only reason for it, is this of Abulensis, That it would have been too little to give for a piece of Land to be held XLIX. years. See Lib. II. de Republ. Hebraeor. cap. 19 Quest. 7. Which is of no force at all; for it is plain God designed a moderate Rate should be set upon all things which Men vowed to him; where by Men were not discouraged to vow. And this yearly Rent had been excessive and oppressive: For a piece of Land, which an Omer of Barley (i. e. about a Pottle of our Measure) would sow, could yield no great Crop, and consequently could not be of a considerable value: Barley also being much cheaper than Wheat. Concerning an Omer see XVI Exod. 36.  
Ver. 17. Verse 17 If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee.] Make this Vow immediately after the Jubilee, or in that year.  
According to thy estimation.]  of fifty Shekels for an Omer of Barley.  
It shall stand.] It shall be so rated; and nothing abated.  
Ver. 18. Verse 18 But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee.] Some years after.  
Then the Priest shall reckon unto him the Money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of jubilee, etc.] The Priest was to compute how many years were gone since the last Jubilee, and how many yet remained till the next: and accordingly to deduct from the rate of fifty shekels ; either more or less, as the years yet to come were more or fewer.  
Ver. 19 Verse 19 If he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then shall he add the fifth part, etc.] The very same Rule is given in this Case, as in those of unclean Beasts and Houses, v. 13, 15.  
Ver. 20. Verse 20 And if he will not redeem the field.] When the Priest hath set hisvalue upon it, and tells him he may have it again at such a rate, if he pleases; and he refuses the offer.  
Or if hehave sold the field to another man.] That is, if the Priest upon his refusal, have sold it to another Man; and afterward he that vowed it hath a mind to it himself, and would give the price at which he might have had it.  
It shall not be redeemed any more.] He was then excluded from all benefit of Redemption.  
Ver. 21. Verse 21 But the field when it goeth out in the jubilee.] Out of the possession of him to whom the Priest sold it.  
Shall be holy unto the LORD.] Shall not return to him that vowed it; but continue God's portion.  
As a field devoted.] Being solemnly consecrated to the Divine Service.  
The possession thereof shall be the Priests.] Who were to have the Inheritance of it for their better support. But they might sell it (Menochius thinks) nay, were bound to sell it, to some of the Kindred of him that devoted it, or to some of his Tribe: For otherwise Lands would go out of the Tribe to which they belonged; and besides, the Priests were to have no Inheritance in the Land, XVIII Numb. 20. See him Lib. II. de Republ. Hebr. cap. 19 and his Annotations upon this place. But these seem not to be solid Reasons why the Priests should not enjoy this Land themselves. For though they were not to have any Inheritance in the Division of the Land of Canaan, yet if any sell to them by the means now mentioned, (which was but very seldom, since Men were very careful to preserve their Inheritances) God doth here bestow such Land upon his Priests: who might possess it, if they pleased, because they had it in God's right; or else sell it, (v. 20.) and keep the Money to their own use.  
Ver. 22. Verse 22 And if a man sanctify unto the LORD a field which he hath bought.] And consequently could enjoy only till the Year of Jubilee; when it was to return to the Family of whom he purchased it.  
Which is not of the fields of his possession.] No part of his Paternal Inheritance, (as that mentioned v. 16.) but bought of the Priests, to whom it was fallen by a Vow; or of him to whom the Priests had sold it.  
Ver. 23. Verse 23 Then the Priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation.] Set a value upon it, according to his judgement.  
Even unto the year of jubilee.] With respect to the number of years, between the time of the Vow and the year of Jubilee.  
And he shall give thy estimation in that day.] Presently pay the Price that the Priests hath set upon it, without the addition of the fifth part (as Menochius well observes in the place ) which he who redeemed his Paternal Inheritance was bound to pay over and above the price at which the Priest esteemed it, v. 19 For this was not so much worth as that, being but for a term of years till the Jubilee.  
As an holy thing unto the LORD.] As a thing devoted unto God, instead of the Land, which was redeemed with this Money.  
Ver. 24. Verse 24 In the year of jubilee the field shall return unto him, of whom it was bought, etc.] Not unto him who bought the Field, and then vowed it to God; but unto the Hereditary Owner: which is the meaning of the next words, Even unto him to whom the possession of the Land did belong.  
Ver. 25. Verse 25 All thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary, etc.] Full weight, according to the Standard kept in the Sanctuary. See XXX Exod. 13. and XIX of this Book, v. 36.  
Ver. 26. Verse 26 Only the firstling of the Beasts, which shall be the LORD's firstling, no man shall sanctify it.] By vowing it to be a whole Burnt-offering, or a Peace-offering unto the LORD, as Maimonides expounds it. The reason was, because no Man could lawfully vow that, which was not his own, as the Firstlings were not; they being the LORD's already, as it follows in the end of this Verse.  
The same Reason held (as Maimonides likewise observes) in all things belonging to God, as Tenths. Yet they devised ingeniously enough (as he speaks) a way to give these Firstlings to God by a new Obligation, and yet not offend, as they imagined, against this Law. For they interpret these words of Firstlings already brought forth: No Man might sanctify such, but while they were in the Womb, they might; saying, I vow that Lamb (suppose) which my Ewe goes with, to be a whole Burnt-offering to God, if it be a male. But they could not vow it for a Peace-offering, because no Man could alter any thing for his own profit.  
Whether it be ox, or sheep.] Under these two are comprehended all other kind of Creatures, whose Firstlings belonged to God.  
It is the LORD's.] III Numb. 13. VIII. 17. For this reason no Man was to presume to vow such things: it being a kind of mockery to make a present of that to another, which was his own before. See Mr. Mede concerning this Verse p. 512.  
Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if it be of an unclean beast.] Most understand this of the Firstling of an unclean Beast. Against which there is this Objection, That such things were before ordered to be redeemed, not with Money, but with a Lamb, XIII Exod. 13. Therefore it seems more reasonable to understand this of the Firstling of such an unclean Beast, which a Man had redeemed, (v. 13.) but afterward devoted to God: which he might do; for, after the Redemption, it was become his own again.  
Then he shall redeem it according to thy estimation.] At the rate thou shalt set upon it.  
And shall add a fifth part of it thereto.] As was ordained before in the like case, v. 11.  
Or if it be not redeemed, than it shall be sold according to thy estimation.] Any other Man might buy it, at that rate the Priest had set upon it; and the Money was applied to holy uses.  
Ver. 28. Verse 28 Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the LORD.] Nothing that was devoted by that sort of Vow, which was called Cherem (as the word is here in the Hebrew) with a Curse (as the word implies) upon themselves and others, if the thing was not employed according to their Vow.  
Of all that he hath, both of man and beast, etc.] All manner of things which might be sanctified to the LORD by the  simple Vow, might be thus devoted and consecrated to him by a Cherem: i. e. Beasts and Houses and Lands, and even Men themselves, as far as they had power over them. For that is meant by those words, all that a man hath. See next Verse.  
Shall be sold or redeemed.] For this was the peculiar nature of this sort of Vow; that the things devoted by it, should remain irreversibly, and unalterably to the use unto which it was devoted: for the Person was accursed, that applied it to any other use than that to which it was consecrated.  
Every devoted thing.] Of this kind.  
Is most holy to the LORD.] Other things devoted by a simple Vow were holy, v. 9, 10, etc. but these were most holy, so that none might touch them but the Priests: and they were so strictly applied to the Divine Service, that they could not be alienated, either by Sale, or Redemption, or Commutation, or Donation, or any other way. See Mede p. 160.  
Ver. 29. Verse 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death.] Some learned Men have, from these words, asserted, That Parents and Masters among the Jews, had such a power over their Children and Servants, that they might devote them to Death, and so kill them; only the Sentence of the Priest was to concur, to whom every devoted thing fell, as his portion. This is maintained by Ludou. Capellus, and confuted by Mr. Selden, Lib. IU. de Jure Nat. & Gent. juxta Discipline. Hebr. cap. 6. where he judiciously observes, That this Power would have too much entrenched upon the sixth Commandment, if private Men might have, at their pleasure, thus disposed of their Children and Slaves. And in the next Chapter he explains the sense of this Verse; and proves indeed that there may be a Cherem (minhaadam) of men, or from among men, as well as of beasts; but this word hath four several senses among the Hebrews. First, It signifies the Sacred Gift itself, which was devoted to God, or to holy Uses; and so it signifies in the foregoing v. 28. Secondly, It signifies that which was devoted to Perdition and utter Destruction; either by the right of War, or upon the account of Capital Enmities: an Example of which we have in Jericho, VI Josh. 17. where the whole City was a Cherem (devoted to Destruction) as a Punishment to their Enemies: yet so that the Metals were made a Cherem of the first sort; that is, Sacred to the LORD and his Holy Uses. And thus the great Sanhedrim (called in Scripture the whole Congregation) might devote those to be a Cherem, who going to the Wars, did not obey orders, and perform the Charge laid upon them. An Example of which we have XXI Judg. 5. 1 Sam. XIV. 24. I omit the other two for brevity's sake, (of which there are Examples VI Josh. 26. X Ezra 8. XXIII Acts 12, 14, 21. See Selden. Ib. cap. 7. & 8.) because the Cherem here mentioned by Moses is of this second sort. For it is evident that the Cherem of the first sort, mentioned v. 28. was of such things, over which they had an entire power, to dispose of them as they pleased. And therefore those words, both of Man and Beast, the Hebrews understand of their Slaves, whether Men or Women (who were Canaanites or Gentiles, not others) who were in their power as much as their Beasts, to give away, or to sell. But to take away their Life, or to give them to be slain, was not in their power: but all the effect of this Cherem was, that the whole right which they had to the Service of such Slaves, was transferred, by him that devoted them, to the Service of the Priests, and Sacred Uses. See Selden in that Book, cap. 9 p. 518, etc. But though they might not devote their Servants to death, yet they might their Enemies, before they went out to war with them; and such of their own People also as did not observe the Military Laws. An Example of which we have XXI Numb. 2. Upon which account also, the Inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead were slain, XXI Judg. 9, 10. for violating the solemn public Cherem, pronounced against those that came not up to Mizpeh, v. 5. And this is the Cherem spoken of in this Verse. See Selden cap. 10. For as for the Cherem whereby a Man was Excommunicated, it only loaded him with many Curses, and made him execrable, so that no Man might come near him; but did not touch his Life, as he there shows, p. 520.  
Ver. 30. Verse 30 All the tithe of the Land, etc. is the LORD's.] By an ancient right before the Law of Moses was delivered. For this is the first time we find any mention of a Law about Tithes: for which he giving no reason, it is a sign this was a pious Usage all the World over; and therefore being no new thing, but what all Nations practised, the Jews could not think it burdensome to them; unless they would be wholly irreligious, and not acknowledge God to be the Author and Fountain of all the plenty and happiness they enjoyed. Which was the intention of paying Tithes; as the Gentiles anciently did, and the Jews themselves, after Victory over their Enemies. For which there being no Precept that appears, what can we think, but that natural Reason, and the common Custom of Mankind (founded perhaps upon some direction given to our first Parents from above) taught them to make this Acknowledgement to God, as the Author of their Successes and Safety, as well as of all Plenty and Prosperity. See XIV Gen. 19 and XXVIII. 22.  
Whether of the seed of the Land, or of the fruit of the Trees.] By the seed of the Land is meant Corn (as Rasi expounds it) and by the fruit of the Trees Wine and Oil. For thus they are reckoned up in other places, XVIII Numb. 12. where he gives the Priests, the First-fruits of the Wine and Oil and Wheat. And the like we read in XVIII Deut. 3, 4. and in XIV Deut. 23. they are commanded to eat before God, the tithe of their Corn, of their Wine, and their Oil. Under which last is comprehended the Fruit of all other Trees; as under the word Seed in this place, seems to be comprehended all manner of Herbs, as well as Corn. For so the Pharisees understood it; and our Saviour doth not disallow it.  
It is holy unto the LORD.] God having declared his right in the Tithe, in the beginning of the Verse, here commands that it be reserved to him as his portion. Which he afterward conferred and settled upon the Levites, by a special Donation, XVIII Numb. 21.  
Ver. 31. Verse 31 And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.] Mr. Selden in his History of Tithes, Chap. 2. speaking of the second Tithe mentioned XIV Deut. 23. which was to be spent at Jerusalem (either in kind, or else if it were too far thither, by turning it into Money, and therewith to buy Provision to make Feasts) saith, that to this Tithe do the Jews apply that of XXVII Leu. 30, 31. But for this he quotes only R. S. Jarchi: who, though he were a great Talmudist, yet must not be thought to understand the sense of all their Doctors. Aben-Ezra it is plain (to name no more) takes it otherwise; making Moses to speak of such a Tithe as Abraham gave Melchisedeck, and Jacob vowed to God. Lyra, I might add, a converted Jew, agrees with him. And there is great reason for it; no such thing as a second Tithe being as yet ordained: and when they were commanded, and the changing of them into Money allowed, there is not a word said of adding a fifth part, (See XIV Deut. 24, 25.) which is sufficient to show that Moses, in these two Verses, speaks of the first Tithe, which was paid to the Levites, by a Law made some time after this; which transferred the right that God had in the Tithe of the Land, unto them. Which if any Man had a mind to redeem, and not pay it in kind, God allows him so to do; because the Tithe was not more holy than things vowed to God, spoken of before: but then he was to do, as in the case of such things, (v. 13.) add a fifth part, over and above, to what such a portion of Tithe was esteemed to be worth. The reason of which was, as Mr. Calvin well observes, not that the Priest should get more than his due by the Man who desired to redeem his Tithe; but that the Man might not make a gain of the Priest. For it is seldom seen that a Husbandman desires to pay Money, rather than his Tithe; unless he propound some considerable advantage to himself.  
Ver. 32. Verse 32 And concerning the tithe of the Herd and of the Flock.] Every one knows that by the Tithe of the Herd here is meant Calves, and by the Flock is to be understood Lambs and Kids, I Leu. 2. For this was the Tithe of those young ones that were brought forth that year; the same Cattle not being again tithed every year. And he speaks of clean Beasts, which were allowed in Sacrifice; for Tithe was not paid of other Beasts; but their firstborn only was the LORD's. This Tithe was paid to God every year, as an Eucharistical Sacrifice, for all the Benefits they received from God by their Cattle.  
Even of whatsoever passeth under the rod.] This expresses the manner of this Tithing; which, if we will believe the Jews, was thus: They were all brought into a Sheepcote, (saith Maimonides in his Treatise of Firstborn, cap. 7. in the beginning) in which there was but one Gate or Door, and that so narrow, as to suffer no more than one to come out at once. Their Dams being placed without, and the Gate opened, the young ones were invited by their Bleat, to press to get out to them: and as they passed by, one by one, a Man who stood at the Gate with a Rod, coloured with Ochre, told them in order, and when the Tenth came out, whether it was Male or Female, sound or not, he marked it with his Rod, and said, Let this be holy in the name of the Tenth. And this account R. Solomon, and others, give of this matter: of which Notion they are so fond, that R. Bechai (upon XVII Numb.) makes Jacob (who vowed Tithe of all that God should give him) to have decimated his Children on this manner, beginning at Benjamin, and stopping at Levi, who was the Tenth, according to that reckoning: and hath some pretty conceits about it. But Bochartus thinks Moses doth not speak here of the Rod of the Tithes, but of the Shepherd's Crook; and so doth Aben-Ezra, the Syriack and the Vulgar: For the Flock passed under his Rod, as oft as he numbered them: which was every Morning and Evening (if he was a good Shepherd) especially in the Evening. See Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 44. p. 499. Of this Jeremiah speaks XXXIII. 13. and Ezekiel alludes to it, when he saith XX. 37. I will cause you to pass under the Rod. Where Kimchi notes it is the same Phrase with this in Leviticus, and as much as to say, As he that telleth his Sheep holdeth a Rod in his hand, and telleth them one by one, and brings out the Tenth for the Tithe, so will I number you; and the sinners shall perish, etc.  
The tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.] That is, saith Maimonides (in his forenamed Treatise called Bechoroth) the Fat and the Blood of them was offered at the Altar; and then the Owners eat the Flesh any where in Jerusalem, as they did the lesser holy things. For the Priests had no portion of them, but all belonged to the Owner; as did the Paschal Lamb. If there was any Blemish in them, whether before or after the Tithing, than they might be eaten in any place. And so Bartenora (as Dr. Owtram observes, Lib. I. de Sacrificiis, cap. 11.) we do not find in the whole Law, that any part of these Tenths was given to the Priests. So a great many other of their Doctors, who observe that Moses doth not reckon these among the XXIV. Gifts (for so many they make the whole number of them) which were bestowed upon the Priesthood. But, as there is nothing else in Scripture to warrant this, which no where prescribes how these Tenths should be employed, but only declares that they are holy to the LORD; so this very Phrase, I should think, sufficiently signifies that they belonged to the LORD's Ministers. And if not entirely to the Priests, much less entirely to the Owners of them (before they were the LORD's) but if they were to eat them at Jerusalem, as the Jews imagine, the Levites sure were to have their share, and the Stranger and other poor People: as they were to have in their second Tithe of Corn, wherewith they made Feasts there, XIV Deut. 27, 28, 29.  
Ver. 33. Verse 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it.] It is not easy to give an account why God required so punctually the tenth Calf, Goat or Lamb, that though it were never so lean, or blemished, he would not suffer it to be exchanged for a better; unless it were to avoid all Disputes, Strife and Contention. There are those indeed that think the reason was, because in those Ages, this was looked upon as so Sacred a Number, that it mystically denoted God: whose Divine Perfections, Providence, and Bounty, they were thought to acknowledge, who gave the Tenth to him; which was not to be altered and changed, no more than he himself can be.  
If he change it at all, than both shall be holy.] As it was in Beasts vowed to God, v. 9, 10.  
It shall not be redeemed.] Nor might they sell it; no more than suffer it to be redeemed. If they did, he that sold it or bought it, got nothing (as Maimonides speaks) and besides, the seller was to be scourged, as he that sold the Cherems given to the Priest, v. 28. Bechoroth cap. 6. sect. 5.  
Ver. 34. Verse 34 These are the Commandments which the LORD commanded Moses, for the Children of Israel, in Mount Sinai.] That is, these moreover were added to the foregoing Commandments, before they removed from the Wilderness of Mount Sinai. See XXV. 1. XXVI. ult. For having said before in the Conclusion of the foregoing Chapter, These are the Statutes, and Judgements, and Laws which the LORD made, etc. which respect all that proceeded in this Book; the Commandments here spoken of can relate to nothing more, but the Laws delivered in this Chapter about Vows, and devoted Things, and Tithes.  
Which Laws ought not to be passed over, without serious consideration how far we may be concerned in them. And therefore to make what I have noted about them, more useful to us in these days, I desire the Reader to observe, That the very same pious Inclinations have ever been in all good Christians, which Moses here supposes (in the former part of this Chapter) would be in the Jews, to devote some part of their Goods, their Houses, or Lands to the Service of God: which became sacred things, and were to be employed to no other use but that. The very first Christians had so much of this Spirit in them, that they sold all their Possessions, and Goods, and let every one that needed have a share of them (TWO Acts 45. iv 35.) because the whole number of Believers attended to nothing else, but the Service of Christ; and the Apostles also were to be furnished with means, to go and propagate the Gospel in all the World. Where, as soon as the Christian Religion prevailed in any place, immediately there were the like voluntary Oblations made, in such a proportion, as served not only for the support of the Service of God in that Church, but helped to maintain the Christians at Jerusalem, who had been brought low by parting with their Estates, to further the first preaching of the Gospel. This we find in a great number of places: but it may suffice to say, that the Feasts of Charity were maintained out of these Oblations.  
By which it is apparent, that they took themselves to have the very same Obligations upon them in this matter, which the Jews formerly had: and therefore it is no wonder that Tithes came in time to be devoted for the maintenance of God's Ministers. For it is senseless to imagine that the Gospel which constrained them to give up themselves to God, should not constrain them, with the same freedom of mind to give some of their Goods (as Moses here supposes the Jews would do) for the maintenance of his Service. And it is as unreasonable to think, it did not move them to give the Ministers of God as honourable a maintenance, as had been allowed under the Law of Moses.  
Which required besides the Tenth here mentioned, another Tithe of the remainder, to be spent in Sacrifices at Jerusalem, of which the Levites had their share, as I observed from XIV Deut. 22, 28. To which if we add the Firstborn, with all Sin-offerings, and the Priests share of Peace-offerings, and the Skins of the Sacrifices, (which alone made a good Revenue, as Philo observes) and likewise all such Consecrations as are mentioned in this Chapter, the Levites Cities and Suburbs; it will easily appear it could not be so little as a fifth part of the Fruit of the Land which came to their share.  
Now the reason we find no such certain Rate determined by the Gospel, as was by this Law, is because there was no need of it. And for the same reason there was none, for a good while, settled by the Church: all the Revenues belonging to it, which served for all sort of pious uses, arising from the Devotion and Oblations of the People, which were more then enough for God's Service. This was visible in the beginning of our Religion, when the first Christians far outdid any thing that had been done under the Law. And they could not imagine, that they who succeeded them would fall so short as not to offer sufficient for God's Service; though not so much as they had done, because there could not be the same necessity. And so Mr. Selden himself observes, that this reason is given by Agobardus why nothing was decreed in Councils, or publicly promulgated by the Fathers in the first Ages, concerning giving of their Goods, and adorning Churches, because there was no necessity of it; the Religious Devotion, and Love of Christians to such things ultro aestuante, being very fervent and abounding of its own accord.  
And when Love began to wax cold, so that they found it needful to make Laws about such things, they could not think fit to order less for the settled Maintenance of God's Service then the Tenth, (besides all voluntary Oblations) which had been the part most eminently limited under the Law of Nature, long before the Law of Moses. See Irenaeus Lib. IU. cap. 34. where, he saith, Christians, having greater hopes, could not give less than they did in former times, when their hope was lower.  
I shall add but one Observation more, from an excellent Person of our own Church (Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church, etc. p. 219.) that as all such Consecrations, as here are mentioned by Moses, tended to Communion with God, by the participation of Sacrifices offered to him; which were maintained by such Contributions: so whatsoever is devoted by Christians unto such holy uses, as to build and repair Churches, to maintain holy Assemblies, and to support those who minister God's Ordinances, or enable the Poor to attend upon them, hath the like intention; to obtain an interest in the Sacrifice of Christ, represented in the Eucharist; which is the chief part of the Service rendered to God in the Church. This is notably exemplified in the account which Tertullian gives of Martion the Heretic, (Lib. de Praescriptionibus, cap. 30.) who when he first embraced the Faith of Christ, and was received into the Church, pecuniam Catholicae Ecclesiae contulit, contributed a Sum of Money to the Church: which Money, when he fell off from the Christian Truth to his own Heresy, was straightway thrown out together with him. This both demonstrates that they continued, in those days, to bring Offerings into the Treasury of the Church; and that the intention of them was, that they might have Communion with the Church in all its Services: for when Men fell off from Christianity, they cast out their Offerings, in token they had no Communion with them.  
I end all with the words of Conradus Pellicanus upon the thirtieth Verse of this Chapter: which will show the sense of the first Reformers in this matter. All the Tithe is the LORD's, and remains so for ever, etc. and therefore Tithes are to be paid by Divine and Natural Right; and religiously expended according to his appointment, etc. And if Tithes should not be sufficient for the maintenance of those who ought to be sustained in the Church, at the public Charge; the Ninths or the Eights ought of necessity to be raised by the Judgement and Consent of the Church. For the Law of Charity dictates this, and the excellent, irreprehensible Ordinance of God. Which Charity binds more strongly in the Evangelical Law, than in the Mosaical: inasmuch as the Church ought to be more perfect than the Synagogue; and Charity than Fear.   
The End of the Book of LEVITICUS.   

ERRATA.  
Page. Line. 11. 24. read Aammikdath. 15. 22. r. two Marble Tables. 21. 21. r. Arcadica. 34. 38. r. Tothah. 36. 19 r. Ashes were thrown out. 74. 24. r. concerning the Trespass-offering. 85. 22. r. Esch-jah. 88 1. r. Mincah of Initiation. 92. 11. r. most holy. 97. 27. Dilherrus. 102. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 104. 21. r. lie under. 137. 12. r. Dilherrus. 140. 5. r. attempted. 143. 25. r. eminency. 146. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148. 16. r. finished. 160. 3. d. the. 162. 9 r. Heliogabalus. 167. 6. r. yet God. 172. 23. r. Cholin. 176. 4. r. Arbeh. 177. 30. r. Locusts. 199. 2. r. this disease. 237. 19 r. Gemara. 250. 31. r. opinion be not true. 257. 20. d. Book before Baeotica. 265. 12. d. i e. 26. r. to be sacrificed. 285. 1. r. purge them from. 290. penult. r. where they were left. 291. 10. & 28. r. Happarvah. 293. 31. r. This reading began. 295. 4. d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 354. 9 r. be so to them. 356. 1. r. remarkable things. 365. antep. r. Nachmanides. 376. 13. r. Anah. 377. 10. r. Wagenseil. 12. r. Offingensis. 401. 11. r. Joh. Geusius. 403. penult. blasphemy or idolatry. 419. 15. r. successione. 425. 3. r. assertion. 430. 8. r. dak. 438. 5. r. from which. 453. 6. r. Hebrew word. 468. 9, 10. r. the Feast. 10, 11. r. one day. 478 27. r. Feast of Tabernacles. 489. 27. r. this quantity. 508. 31. r. think nothing. 521. 30. r. Gemara. 527. 20. r. old wine. 528. 19 r. his own family. 540. 9 r. on these verses. 554. 10. r. that he will. 555. 3. r. not enough. 29. r. in those four. 560. 16. r. though they had. penult. r. 1600. years. 563. 27. r. was not to be.