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, bad 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 [Page 2]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 spake 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 bad him come, (as he did after­wards when the Glory of the LORD dwelt 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 entred 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 entred 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 joyn 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 Hierusalem Targum explains it) that if Mount Sinai was so exalted, by the Divine Presence there for a [Page 3]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 applys 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 [Page 4]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 IV. 7. What Nation is there that hath God so nigh unto them, &c.

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 joyn 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 Perswasion, 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 Mens sins be expiated. By this means, saith he, Mens 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 [Page 5]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 lookt 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 it self, 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 fore-named place. For though Doves and Turtles were accepted when Men were not able to bring the other; yet in Publick Sacrifices these Birds were never allowed: but only the three sorts of four-footed Beasts before-mentioned. 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 [Page 6]cause also young Pigeons and Turtles were only of­fered among Birds. He gives other Reasons for this, which seem to me very far fetcht, 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 then Swines Flesh. See Petrus Castellanus de Esu Carnium, Lib. II. cap. 1. And afterwards they also sacrifi­ced not only Harts 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 Horse-flesh, and the Flesh of Wolves, nay Asses, which were offered to Priapus?

Ver. 3. Verse 3 If his offering be a Burnt-sacrifice.] Having [Page 7]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 [...], &c. 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 publick, or a private whole Burnt-offering, no Bo­dy partaked, no not the Priests themselves; but it was intirely 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 Acknowledgments of God the Creator of the World, and Testifications [Page 8]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 Beeves, 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 expresly 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; [Page 9]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, &c. 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 dwelt: 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 [Page 10]who brought the Sacrifice renounced all his Interest in it, and transferred it wholly to God, unto whose Service he intirely 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 signifie, 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 [Page 11]High-Priest laying them on the Scape-goat, XVI^th 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 killing of the Passover, for every one that was not clean, to sanctifie 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 killing 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 [Page 12]done at the Altar, when it was to be slain.

Before the LORD.] See v. 3.

And the Priests Aarons sons shall bring the blood.] Now begins the work of the Priests: the receiving of the Blood and that which immediately followed, be­longing to their Office. They received it in a Bason (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 Bason, 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, &c.] 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 [Page 13]burnt Skin and all, in some places, as Bochart observes out of Plutarch and Lucian in the fore-named 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 washt 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 stript 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; [Page 14]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 Aarons sons shall lay the parts, the head and the fat.] The Hebrew word Peder doth not simply signifie 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 [Page 15]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, &c.] That they might lye 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 before-mentioned (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. [Page 16]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 meer Sacrifice that was pleasing unto God, but, as Conrad. 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, &c.] 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 First-born, 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 lookt upon as belonging to the things most holy; and so was slain (as Maimonides tells [Page 17]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 fastned 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 four-footed Beasts before-men­tioned, 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, &c.] This Verse hath been sufficient­ly explained v. 5, 6, 8.

Ver. 13. Verse 13 And he shall wash the inwards and the legs, &c.] 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 expence, 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 [Page 18]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 North-west, 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 wringing 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 ministred 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 [Page 20]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 meerly 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, &c. 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 Wheat­flour. 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 Jealousie, 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, &c. 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. IV. [...].) 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 [Page 22]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.

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 before-named. When they came into the Land of Canaan, where they were required (XV Numb. 2, 3, &c.) 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.

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, Praecept. 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 Aarons sons the Priests.] To one of them that ministred 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 fore-mentioned 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 intire­ly 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, &c.

And the Priest shall burn the memorial thereof upon the Altar.] As a grateful Acknowledgment 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 [Page 24]not demonstrated by the greatness of its presents. The way of Piety is open and easie 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, &c. 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 [...], &c. 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 learnt 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 Aarons 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 then 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 [Page 25]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, then the Oil was kneaded together with them: But if they were thin (like a Wafer) then 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, &c.] 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, &c.] This re­lates to all the bake Meat-offerings before-mentioned, 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 acknowledgment of his Supream 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 Aarons and his sons, &c.] 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 intirely 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 before-mentioned 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 [Page 28]Customs in those days, as he found in the Books of the Zabij, 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 moistned 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, ( [...]) [Page 29] 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 forbad 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: [...], &c. [...], &c.

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 parcht at the fire, which was to be presented unto God; but not burnt on the Altar, because they belong'd to the Priests.

Ver. 13. Verse 13 And every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt.] All the fore-named 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 [Page 30]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 signifie 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 ratifie 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 it self 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 enjoyned, (as Maimonides says in the place before-named) 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 [Page 31] R. Levi of Barcelona explains it, (Praecept. 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 learnt 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 Publick 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 North­side of the Court (as there were three other on the South-side, 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 lookt 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 expresly 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, &c.] This is very different from the Oblati­on [Page 32]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 signifie 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 [Page 33]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 rost 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, &c.] 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 Priests portion, except the Frankincense; which is here ordered to be intirely 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 sence, 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 sence 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 ben 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 Acknowledg­ments 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, Ac­knowledgment of some Benefit received.

The Gentiles called such Sacrifices [...], as ap­pears from many places of Dionys. Halicarn. L. VI. & [Page 35]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 entertain'd 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 Acknowledgments. 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 expresly, [...], it was not lawful among them to sacrifice Females, L. II. cap. 41.

He shall offer it without blemish, &c.] 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 [Page 36]with Prayer to God, that he would accept the Oblati­on (which the Jews say always accompanied this A­ction) but with acknowledgment 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 acknowledg­ment 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 Sin­offerings 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 Acknow­ledgments to the Divine Majesty, which was always to be done in that posture.

And Aarons 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, &c.] 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 [Page 37]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. de 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 Country-man Dr. Highmore.

Which is by the flanks.] The Hebrew word Cesilim signifies the Loyns (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 caul 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, &c. 31. 32, &c.

Ver. 5. Verse 5 And Aarons 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 in­tirely consumed, as the Holocausts were, it is called in the following words, an offering made by fire, of a sweet [Page 38]savour unto the LORD. See ch. 1. v. 9. That is, God was pleased graciously to accept of their pious Acknowledgments: 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, &c. 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, &c.) 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 meagre 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, &c.] 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 back-bone.] The He­brew word Atzah, which we translate the Back-bone, denotes that part which is next to the Tail or Rump; and therefore must signifie that which Galen calls [...]. Which is a Bone at the extremity of the broad Bone, called Os Sacrum; confisting 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, &c.] 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, [Page 40]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 dwelt, 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, &c.] 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, &c.]. See before v. 11.

All the fat is the LORDS.] That is, all the Fat before-mentioned; 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 signifie, 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 [Page 33]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 before-mentioned, at home, as their ordinary Food; because it is said, throughout all your dwellings ye shall eat no fat. And Fat being joyned 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 intirely abstained, for the foregoing reasons, as Maimonides observes in the Book fore-named; and for another also which he men­tions in the XLVI^th Chapter of it. Where he saith, The ancient Idolaters, called Zabij, 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 joyned [Page 34]in faederal Society with them; and by this kind of Com­munion enabled to prophecy, and foretel things to come.

CHAP. IV.

Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake 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 14^th Verse of the V^th 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, &c.] 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 forbad something to be done. So it is said here expresly [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. [Page 35]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 threatned to them by the Law: which they ga­ther from XV Numb. 30. But that phrase with an high hand seems not to signifie 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 High-Priest: 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 before-mentioned. Or, as R. Solomon interprets it, if he hide 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 [Page 36]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 expence. 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 bullocks head.] As every one that brought other Offerings were bound to do, (See ch. I. 4. III. 2, &c.) but here for another [Page 37]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 High-Priest 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 High-Priest himself did not kill the Sacrifice, but some of the other Priests that then ministred. For he that did this, seems to be distinguished, by the next words (v. 5.) from the Priest that is anointed; i. e. the High-Priest. 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 High-Priest himself, for whom it was offered, did what follows.

Shall take of the bullocks 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 signifie 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 bad Naaman go and wash seven times in Jordan, to cure him of his Leprosy; so Apuleius in the begin­ning of the XI^th 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 learnt 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 Lev. 7.) in dedicating the Altar (XXIX Exod. 37.) when the Oil was sprinkled on it seven times, (VIII Lev. 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 [Page 39]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 Parocheth, which is the word here used (XXVI Exod. 31, 33, 35. XVI Lev. 2, &c.) as the other Vail, 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, &c.] 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 West-side 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 West-side of the Foundation of the Altar. And, if we may believe the Jews, the Gardiners bought this Blood of those that were the Treasurers of the Tem­ple, to inrich their Ground with it, as Constantine [Page 40]l'Empereur there observes. And while they were in the Wilderness, and all the time they had only a move­able 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 Zabij; who made a collection of the Blood in a Vessel, or in a little Pit, about which they sat, and ate 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 [Page 49]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 Corps from Achilles) intituled 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 [Page 50]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 High-Priest, 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 Guilt.

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 intirely, 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 re­membred 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 hapned 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, Prae­cept. CXVIII. For they sometimes erred in Judgment; 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 Judgment 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, [Page 52](v. 15.) which is certainly the name for their Judges and Governours. 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 forbid 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 High-Priest, 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, &c.] 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 High-Priest: See v. 5. All the rest that follows to v. 22. is exactly the same that is prescribed in the foregoing Offering, for the High-Priest 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 High-Priest only sin, the Holiness doth not depart: but if all the Congregation sin, then it doth depart. 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 subtil: For in the 18^th 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, &c.] The word Na­si, which we translate Ruler, signifies the Head of a Tribe, in I Numb. 4.16. VII. 2. But the Jews com­monly [Page 54]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 signifie 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 signifie, 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 our selves 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 High-Priest 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 High-Priest 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 High-Priest, 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 fore-mentioned Offer­ings (for the High-Priest, 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, &c.] See chap. III. 9. It is not here said what should be done with the Flesh; which in the two fore-going 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 Guilt was ex­piated; which must be understood to be the effect of the Sacrifice for the High-Priest; 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 threatned 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 Guilt.

Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance.] Commit the same Offence that a Ruler or publick Officer doth.

And be guilty; or if his sin which he hath committed come to his knowledge.] See how this ought to be tran­slated, v. 22, 23.

Ver. 28. Verse 28 That he shall bring his offering, a Kid of the [Page 57]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 High-Priest, 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 entred 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, Prae­cept. 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, &c.] 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 Peace­offerings, 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 [Page 58]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 High-Priest, 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 before-mentioned, though it were by one and the same Error, he was bound to offer as many expiatory Sacrifices, as Maimonides resolves in the fore-named 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 stoln 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 Judgment, 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 [Page 60]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 testifie, 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, Praecept. CXX. They who would see more of these several sorts of Oaths among the Jews, may find them consi­der'd 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. IV. 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, &c.] 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 threatned 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, &c.] Such uncleannesses as are mentioned in the XII^th, XIII^th, and XV^th Chapters of this Book.

And if it be hid from him, when he knoweth of it, then 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 meerly 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, [Page 62]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, &c. 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, &c. 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 sware; 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 XVI^th 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: Quippe victimas caedi sine precatione, non videtur referre, [Page 63]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 Sin­offering (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 expresly called a Sin-offering.

For his sin which he hath sinned.] In any of the four fore-mentioned 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 Judgment to do it. Thus R. Levi of Barce­lona explains this, Praecept. 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 fore-named Author, and many other of their Doctors observe; and is plain of it self 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, [Page 64] because it was very easie 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 Guilt upon his heart; and preserve him that he may not hereafter offend.

The one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt­offering.] 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 expresly 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, &c.] 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, Praecept. CXXVIII.) the Bird looking more hand­some with its Neck still joyned 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 Sin­offering, &c.] Some of the Blood, which ran out of it self, as the Priest held it by the Neck, where he nipt 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 ran out, as would of it self, 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 burnt­offering, according to the manner.] Prescribed in the first Chapter, v. 15.

And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, &c.] 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 Acknowledg­ment 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 Mens Poverty, [Page 66]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, &c. cap. 10.

Then he that hath sinned, shall bring for his offering a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, &c.] 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, Praecept. 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 Acknowledgment 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 fore-mentioned 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, sutable 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 intirely consumed.

Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the LORD spake 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 Guilt.

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 [Page 68]First-fruits, and the First-born of Cattle, or medling 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, Praecept. 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, [Page 69]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 easie 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 expresly 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 [Page 70] 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 Bond-woman 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 satisfie, 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 [Page 71] 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 betwen Sin and Trespass, consisted only in the Sacrifi­ces which were offered for them. See him upon the IV^th 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, &c.] 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, &c.] i. e. did eat any of the holy things be­fore-mentioned; which God forbad any but the Priests to eat.

Though he wist 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. Praecept. CXXIII.) [Page 72]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, &c.] The Offering be­fore appointed, v. 15, &c. 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 wist 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 Guilt required a Sacrifice. As for all those Offences which might be committed by Men, who had no sense nor suspition 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 [Page 73]offer either Sin-offering, or Trespass-offering of his own accord; unless he knew or feared he had contracted some Guilt.

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, &c. 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, &c. then shall the WORD of the LORD be my God. Where the WORD of the LORD is so plainly made the Ob­ject [Page 74]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 Hierusalem 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 spake 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 signifie, that the LORD further spake 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 Soveraign of the World; who was peculiarly affronted by the follow­ing Sins; especially by swearing falsly, 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 Judgment: 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 IV. cap. 2.

Or in fellowship.] To carry on a common Trade, in joynt-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 oft-times 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 [Page 76]Theft not being punished among the Jews with death, they tendred 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.] Wrong'd 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 falsly.] 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, ought 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 fore-mentioned, and acknowledges [Page 77]his guilt, he shall restore that which he took away vio­lently, &c. 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 Thieves 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 Guilt 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, &c. 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 aware (he imagines) of a Rob­ber, and defend his Goods against him, better than a­gainst a secret Thief. Yet this is better than the ac­count [Page 78]of R. Johannes f. Zachei (mentioned by J. Coch upon the Gemara of the Sanhedrim, cap. 7. p. 271.) that a meer Thief fears Man more than God; but a Robber fears both alike.

Ver. 5. Verse 5 Of all that about which he hath sworn falsly, 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, Praecept. 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 subtilties 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 charg'd 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, [Page 79]whom he had left to act for him. Yet they are something humorsom in these Absurdities, for they do not tye 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, &c.] R. Levi Barzelon. inter­prets it a Ram worth two Shekels, Praecept. CXXIV.

Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, &c.] 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 spake 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 IV. 1.) being about a different Matter. For having declared what Offerings the Peo­ple should bring to the LORD, he now gives in­structions [Page 80]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 bad Moses speak unto the Children of Israel, I Lev. 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 Mens sins, or the Benefits he had bestowed on them.

It is the burnt-offering.] He explains what Burnt-offering he chiefly 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, &c. 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, &c. 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, &c.] 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 East­part of it, as far, as might be, from the most holy place. See I. 16. For this was most sutable 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 before-named, 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 [Page 82]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 Ministred, 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 fore-mentioned 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 [Page 83]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, &c.] 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 meerly 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 South-side 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: [Page 84]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 Fewel, 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. [...], &c. 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 Fewel 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 [Page 85]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 Delph; 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) de 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 sig­nifie 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, &c.

Ver. 15. Verse 15 And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat-offering, &c.] 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, Praecept. 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 easie and natural. If we translate it, as the Hebrew words plainly signifie, unleavened it shall be eaten. See X. 12.

In the holy place.] There was a room in the Court of the Priests, where they ate these holy things, as Kimchi observes upon XLII Ezek. Which may be confirmed out of XVIII Numb. 10. where the most ho­ly place can signifie 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-children 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 before-mentioned.

It is most holy, &c.] 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.] [Page 88]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 27^th 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 imployed to any other use. See XXIX Exod. 37.

Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the LORD spake 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 High-Priest, and every other Priest (as they understand it) were bound to offer, when they were Consecrated; and the High-Priest 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 High-Priest 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 High-Priest, 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, &c.] If it was a Meat-offering of the High-Priest, 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, Praecept. CXXXIV.) the High-Priest 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 High-Priest 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 (Praecept. 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 spake 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 begins 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 IV^th Chapter he distinguishes the Sin-offerings into two kinds: one, whose Blood was car­ried into the Sanctuary, and the Flesh of it burnt in­tirely without the Camp, (v. 7, 8, &c. 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-children: 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, &c. mentioned III. 9, 10. IV. 26. which were to be wholly burnt upon the Altar.

In the holy place shall it be eaten, &c.] 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 [Page 93]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 prophane 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 brasen 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, &c.] Such were those Sin-offerings for the High-Priest, IV. 3. and for the whole Congrega­tion, upon particular occasions, IV. 13, &c. Or, up­on the day of general Atonement, XVI. 27. No part of these were to be eaten, but intirely 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 numbred 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 High-Priest, or the whole Congregation, were also to be sprinkled seven times before the Vail 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 Ethiopick 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, &c.] 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, &c.] All the Fat being offered to God, the Flesh be­came the portion of the Priest; who, with his Male­children, 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 intirely his own.

Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the Priest that offereth any mans 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 imployed 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,

[Page 98]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 Jealousie, 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 Ministred 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 signifie 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, &c.] 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 compleat. If they were older, they were not fit for Sacrifice. All this R. Levi Bar­celonita, Praecept. CXXXVII. explains at large.

Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mingled with oil, &c.] 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 Re­joycing, i.e. at their great Solemn Festivals. But [Page 100]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 CVII^th 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.

Ʋnleavened 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.] Before-mentioned; which were to be unleavened.

He shall offer for his offering leavened bread, with the sa­crifice of thanksgiving, &c.] Not upon the Altar (for that was absolutely forbidden in the fore-named 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 rejoyce 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, &c.] One of the Cakes before-mentioned (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, &c.] 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 it self, XVI. 19, &c.) 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 gratifie Mens 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 [Page 102]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 vertue of an obligation) they might take more time to feast upon them with their Friends, and be more sparing: but the former being a thankful Acknowledg­ment of Blessings already bestowed, their hearts were to be inlarged in greater bounty. [...] that they upon whom God readily bestowed his benefits, might make a quick and speedy re­turn, by doing good to others without delay. And what is here said of the Flesh of the Sacrifice, the Jews also understand of the Meat-offerings mentioned [Page 103] v. 12, 13. None of which were to be kept longer than two days at the most.

There is no place here assigned, where these Sacri­fices should be eaten, at the Sanctuary; as there is for the other, VI. 16. 26. and here in this Chapter, v. 6. The reason is, because there was such a multitude of them, that it might have made too great a crowd in the Court of the Israelites, if they had been confined to it. Where they might eat them if they pleased (as I showed before, VI. 16.) but were not determined to that place; but left at liberty to eat them in any part of the City where the Tabernacle, and afterward the Temple, stood. See XII Deut. 6, 7. And consequent­ly while they dwelt in the Wilderness, they might eat them any where in the Camp; which was pitched round about the Tabernacle: only it was to be in a clean place, where the Priests might eat them as well as the People, X. 14.

Ver. 17. Verse 17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, shall be burnt with fire.] If there were such plenty, or they and their Friends were too sew, or they were so niggardly as not to call Poor e­now, to eat all in two days time; they were to have no further benefit of the Flesh of this Sacrifice, but what remained of it on the third day, was to be burnt. Which was to preserve the dignity of the Sacrifice, as the Jews speak, in preventing its stinking. And there was no nobler way of consuming it than by sire, which consumed the Sacrifice on the Altar. So R. Levi Bar­cel. observes, Praecept. CXXXVIII. where he also adds, that God taught them hereby, not to be solicitous for the future, nor careful to hoard up more than needed; when they saw him command the holy Flesh to be de­stroyed, after the time allotted for its use was past. The Heathens themselves thought this a decent Rite; [Page 104]for there was a Sacrifice at Rome which they called Protervia, (as Bochart observes out of Macrobius, L. II. Saturnal. cap. 2.) in which the Custom was, ut si quid ex epulis superfuisset, igne consumeretur, that if any thing of the Feast remained, it was consumed in the fire. See his Hierozoic. P. I. L. II. cap. 50.

Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, &c.] He lost the fruit of his Sacrifice which he had offered to God, by this profanation: which destroyed the Grace and Favour, which it had procured him with God.

Neither shall it be imputed to him that offered it.] He shall not be thought to have made any offering at all.

It shall be an abomination, &c.] And more than that, it rendered him abominable; being abominable it self: and made him liable to be scourged, as the Jews here understand the last words of this Verse, he shall bear his iniquity. Which, I think, also signifies, that he should die under a great guilt, till it was purged by a Trespass-offering.

Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing, shall not be eaten.] That is, the Flesh of the Peace-offerings before-mentioned, which might happen, as they carried it from the Altar to the place where they intended to make a Feast upon it, to touch any un­clean thing, might not be eaten by any body.

But burnt with fire.] As that which remained to the third day was, v. 17. This made them very careful to preserve it pure.

And as for the flesh.] That is, all the Flesh which was not defiled, by touching any unclean thing.

All that be clean shall eat thereof.] Whether the Priest, or other Persons. For the Priest had the right Shoulder and the Breast, (as we read expresly, v. 33, 34.) and he that brought the Sacrifice had the rest. Of the former, the whole Family of the Priest might eat; not only his Sons, but his Wife and Daughters, who were not married; or being Widows, were come back to their Father again, if they had no Children; or if those they had, were begotten by Priests: Yea, his Servants born in his House, or bought with his Money. See XXII. 11, 12, 13. XVIII Numb. 11. And of the rest of the Sacrifice, he that offered it might eat it, with all his Family and his Friends; ex­cepting those who had any uncleanness upon them. There are frequent mention of these Feasts in the following Books of the Bible. As that made by Elka­nah, 1 Sam. I. 4. and by Samuel, when he entertained Saul, 1 Sam. IX. 13, 24. And when the Kingdom was renewed to Saul at Gilgal, there was a Publick Feast made on these Offerings with great rejoycing, 1 Sam. XI. 15. And the like was made for Jesse and his Sons, XVI. 3, 5. And by David when he enter­tained the People, 1 Chron. XVI. 3. and by Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings VIII. 65. And all the Children of Israel made such a Feast at their re­turn from Babylon, VIII Nehem. 19. There are many Examples also of the like Feasts among the Heathens; particularly in Homer, where Agamemnon (Iliad. I.) of­fered an Hecatomb, and made a Feast upon it. And Nestor (Odyss. III.) offered a Sacrifice of LXXXII. Oxen, and made the like Entertainment.

Ver. 20. Verse 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, that pertain unto the LORD.] By these last words it appears, that the whole Offering was the LORD's, whose Bounty en­tertained [Page 106]him and his Friends, to whom he gave the greatest part of it.

Having his uncleanness upon him, &c.] 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. &c.

And shall eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offer­ings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off, &c.] 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 [Page 107]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 spake 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 before-mentioned, Praecept. CXLIX.

Ver. 24. Verse 24 And the fat of the beast.] Of any of the fore-named Beasts, which alone were allowed in Sa­crifices.

That dieth of it self, and the fat of that which is torn with Beasts, may be used in any other use, &c.] 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 justifie 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, &c. 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 threatning 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 signifie, 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, &c.] The rea­son of it is given XVII. 10, 11. But the Jews here distinguish (particularly R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. 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 [Page 109]here meant, as Moses more fully explains it, in the place before-mentioned. The other, which remained in the several parts of the Beast, they lookt upon as belonging to the Flesh, and therefore might be eaten with it.

Ver. 28. Verse 28 And the LORD spake 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, &c. 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 compleatly 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 Aarons 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, bad 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, &c.] This is only a more particular declara­tion what belonged to the Priest; who was to have not only the Breast before-mentioned, 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 incouragement of that Priest, [Page 111]who on that day ministred 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, &c.] 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 burnt the fat.

Ver. 35. Verse 35 This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, &c.] In the Hebrew the words are, This is the anointing of Aaron, &c. That is, this they have in right of their Unction to the Priest's Office; which intitles them to all before­mentioned.

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 Priests 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] This Verse contains a Summary of what [Page 112]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, &c.

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, &c.] This doth not precisely signifie, that he commanded Aaron and his Sons (VI. 9, &c.) all these things, on the very same day, that he commanded the Children of Israel what Oblations to bring, (Chapt. I. 2, &c.) 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 spake 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, &c.

And a bullock for the sin-offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread.] See XXIX Exod. 1, 2, 3, &c. 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, &c.] All the Elders of the People, with the great Officers who were set over Thousands and Hundreds, &c. 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 [Page 114]from the next Chapter of this Book, (v. 1.) where it is said expresly, 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.

Ʋnto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.] That they might be Witnesses of what was done, and satisfie 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 numbring 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 [Page 115]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, &c.] Moses, by an extraordina­ry Commission from God, performed the Office of an High-Priest, on this day, and the six days following. And put Aaron in possession of this Office by cloathing him with the Garments here mentioned, (according to the orders which had been given XXIX Exod. 5, &c.) which was thought sufficient for the Consecration of an High-Priest, 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. High-Priest. And in Schemoth Rabba the Tradition is, that he continued High-Priest 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 breast-plate upon him: also he put in the breast-plate the Ʋrim 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 Ʋrim 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 Ʋrim 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, &c.] Ac­cording as God commanded him in XXVIII Exod. 36, 37, &c. 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, &c. 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, &c.] We do not find this expresly before directed: but the inten­tion of anointing the Altar being to make it most holy (because it was to sanctifie 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: [Page 117]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 sanctifie 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 fore-named Fort. Scacchus. But the Hebrew words will not warrant it; for they only signifie that they were anointed as the Altar was after its aspersion.

Ver. 12. Verse 12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aarons 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 sanctifie 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 sanctifie 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 [Page 118]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 XL^th 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, &c. and 17, &c.) And he is commanded in like manner to take the anoint­ing Oil, and anoint the Tabernacle and all therein, (v. 9, &c.) 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 Aarons sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, &c.] 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, &c.

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, &c.] 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, &c. 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 [Page 120]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 sanctifie 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 caul, &c.] See XXIX Exod. 13.

Ver. 17. Verse 17 But the bullock and his skin, his flesh and his dung, he burnt 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 VI^th 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 compleatly 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 High-Priest, 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 bare 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, [Page 121]as an excellent Person of our own speaks (Dr. Jack­son. Book IX. upon the Creed, cap. 26.) a better Sacri­fice made by a better High-Priest, 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, &c.] 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 ben 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 ate for whom it was offered; that it might appear, they were so far in the favour of God, [Page 122]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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 sanctifie them, as this is explained XXIX Exod. 33. See there.

Ver. 29. Verse 29 And Moses took the breast and waved it, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] For till then their Con­secration was not perfected (as the following words signifie) 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 signifie, the compleat Consecration of these Priests; according to the Rites of those times. In conformity to which, our great High-Priest, 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, &c. XXI Matth. 8, 9, &c.) and ha­ving [Page 124]purged it on the first or second of those days, from the prophaneness 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 it self; to puri­risie and sanctifie 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 compleated.

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 compleated. But the Sabbath of the LORD did never so exactly pass over any High-Priest in his Consecration, as it did over the High-Priest of the New Testament. For however it were of Aaron's, it was to our blessed Saviour (as the fore-named 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 enjoyned. Or rather, watch the Taber­nacle and his Vessels, &c. 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 [Page 125]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 High-Priest, was Con­secrated to his Eternal Priesthood, by fulfilling all the Will of God; and that in a far more Solemn and [Page 126]Publick 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 lingring 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 [Page 127]say a Calf was called Egel till his Horns budded; and then 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 High-Priest, 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 [Page 128]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 ingrave 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 High-Priest might have committed.

A Calf and a Lamb, both of the first year, &c.] 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, then 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 compleat 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 it self 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 High-Priest; 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 [Page 130]they were directed, viz. his Sin-offering first, to make his Burnt-offering accepted.

Make an atonement for thy self, 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 Priests 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 Basons, 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 dipt his finger in the blood.] The fore-finger 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 [Page 131]them strongly, nor perform any thing well if that be wanting.

And put it upon the horns of the Altar, &c.] See IV. 25.

Ver. 10. Verse 10 But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver.] See IV. 8, 9.

He burnt 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. justifie this Opinion; who though they here translate it, He offered it on the Altar; yet v. 13. where there is the same phrase, they expresly translate it, [...], he laid the Burnt-offering upon the Altar: and again, v. 17. in the same manner, [...], &c. 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 burnt 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 burnt 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, &c.] See I. 5.

Ver. 13, 14. Verse 13, 14. And they presented the burnt-offering un­to him, with the pieces thereof, &c.] 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 peoples sin-offering, &c.] 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, &c.

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, &c.] Which attended upon Burnt-offerings, XV Numb. 2, 3, 4, &c.

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, &c.] 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 joyn 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 [Page 134]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 above-named: which shows not only how laborious they have been to maintain in the Peoples 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 Shew-bread, 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 before-mentioned might be offered af­ter the Morning Sacrifice (v. 17.) which took up a great deal of time, before they were all compleated. 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 burnt 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 easie, 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 pub­lickly testified his approbation of all the fore-menti­oned 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 then 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 [Page 136]fire coming from Heaven, and consuming the Burnt­sacrifice, 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 indeavoured 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, &c. [Page 137]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, &c. 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 rose 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 Fewel, 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 [Page 138]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 rejoyce at this sight: For, as the Au­thor of the Book Cosri discourses (Pars 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, &c.’ 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 burnt continually on this Altar; and after this day was never extinguished till the Cap­tivity. Which seems to be the Original of that Ex­pression [Page 139]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 burnt 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 inabling 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 Vertues, 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 hapned 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 High-Priest 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, [Page 140]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 fetcht 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 [Page 141]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, &c.) 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 alledged; 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 entring 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 [Page 142]is called devouring or burning, here in this place. See Gamera Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 1.

And they died before the LORD.] Fell down dead in the House of God. Which may seem too great a Severity, till it be considered, how reasonable and necessary it was, to inflict a heavy Punishment upon the first Transgressors of a Law, concerning a Matter of great moment, to deter others from the like Offence. Many instances of which there are in Scripture: Some observed by St. Chrysostom upon VI Psal. 2. where he gives this account, why the Man who gathered a few sticks upon the Sabbath-day, was adjudged to be sto­ned, as Blasphemers were; because it was a very hei­nous thing, [...], &c. as soon as a Law was enacted immediately to break it: which made it necessary it should be thus se­verely punished, to strike such a Terror into others, that they might not dare to do the like. Which was the reason, he observes, of the sudden Death of Ana­nias and Sapphira, mentioned Acts V. Isidore of Pe­leusium hath made the same observation (Lib. I. Epist. 181). and goes so far back, as to our first Parents, who were dreadfully punished, for a seemingly small Offence, because they were the first Transgressors. The same others have observed, of the punishment of Cain, who committed the first Murder; of the filthiness of Sodom; of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf; the Co­vetousness and Sacriledge of Achan; the Disobedience of Saul, the first King of Israel; the sudden Death of Ʋzzah, who was the first that presumed to touch the Ark of God.

Ver. 3. Verse 3 And Moses said unto Aaron.] To satisfie him in the Justice and Wisdom of this dreadful stroke, at which he could not but be extreamly afflicted.

This is that the LORD spake, saying, I will be san­ctified in them that come nigh me.] To come nigh un­to God, is, in the holy Language, to perform the Office of a Priest, XIX Exod. 22. XVI Numb. 5. who having the honour of attending upon the Service of the Divine Majesty, were bound to approach into his Presence, with the greatest Reverence. We do not read indeed those very words, which Moses here re­cites, in the foregoing Books: But, as many things were spoken to them, which are not recorded, so the sense of these words are in the place forenamed, XIX Exod. 22. and the reason of them, in XXIX Exod. 43, 44. where the Tabernacle being said to be sanctified by the Divine Glory, and the Priests being sanctified to minister unto him therein (which was seven days a doing, as we read here VIII. 35.) they were plainly taught to draw nigh to God with a holy Fear, and to do nothing rashly, nor without order from him. For God being peculiarly known by the Name of the Holy One, i. e. who hath incomparable Perfections, such as no other Being hath; he justly required to be accord­ingly worshipped, sutable to his most surpassing Great­ness; by peculiar Rites of his own prescribing, in a different manner from all other Beings. It was, for instance, below his Emenency, or rather Supereminent Majesty, to have common Fire (such as they imploy­ed in their Kitchins) used for the burning Sacrifice up­on his Altar. And in like manner all other parts of his Service were, in reason, to be performed after such a fashion, as might signifie their sense of the pecu­liar Excellencies of the Divine Nature; who there­fore sent Fire from Heaven, as only fit to burn per­petually upon his Altar.

And before all the people will I be glorified.] This may be thought to be but a solemn Repetition of what was spoken before; as the manner is in these Books, to de­liver the same thing twice in different words. Or the meaning is, if they who draw nigh to me, will not sanctifie me, I will vindicate my own honour, by such Punishments, as shall openly declare to all, that I am the Holy One. Thus God is said to be ho­noured upon Pharaoh, by drowning him in the Red­sea, XIV Exod. 4.

And Aaron held his peace.] Silently adored the Ju­stice of the Holy One; and did not complain of his Severity. For this doth not seem to be the effect meerly of great Grief, but of great Reverence to the Divine Majesty.

Ver. 4. Verse 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron.] It appears from VI Exod. 18. that Ʋzziel the Father of Mishael and Elzaphan (v. 22.) was the younger Brother of Amram the Father of Aaron, and consequently Aaron's Uncle.

And said unto them, Come near, and carry your bre­thren.] All near Kindred are called Brethren in Scrip­ture. And these Cosin Germans of theirs are appoint­ed to carry them out, because Aaron's other Sons were now attending upon God in their Ministration, upon the Day of their Consecration. But without this special order, these two Persons could not have been admitted to come near into the very Sanctuary, being not of the Family of Priests, though of Kin to him.

From before the Sanctuary.] See v. 2.

Out of the Camp.] For anciently they buried not in their Cities, but in the Fields adjacent to them, XXIII Gen. 9, 17. and so they did in after times, [Page 145]XXVII Matth. 7. and VIII Luke 27. where the Tombs are plainly intimated to be without the City.

Ver. 5. Verse 5 So they went near.] There being two Ac­cents upon the Hebrew word for draw near, the Cab­balists from thence observe (I know not upon what grounds) that these Men did not come into the very Sanctuary where the dead Bodies lay, but drew them out with long Poles, and those of Iron, being afraid of the Fire wherewith Nadab and Abihu had been kil­led: or rather, fearing to go into the Sanctuary, or too near it. See Hackspan's Cabala Judaica, n. 58.

And carried them out in their Coats, &c.] Their Linen Vestments wherein they ministred; which ha­ving touched dead Bodies, were no more fit to be used in the Divine Service.

As Moses had said.] As he had directed in his or­der which he gave them.

Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Elea­zar, and unto Ithamar his sons.] These two were all the Sons that Aaron had now remaining; from whom came two great Families of the Priests; which, in the days of David, we find very numerous, (though more of the House of Eleazar than of the other) when they were by him divided into XXIV Classes, and had their Courses of waiting appointed them, 1 Chron. XXIV. 4, &c.

Ʋncover not your heads.] The Hebrew Doctors in­terpret it quite contrary, Let not the head of your hair grow; so long, that is, as to cover their Faces; which was the custom of Mourners, 2 Sam. XV. 30. XIX. 4. and many other places. And thus Onkelos, and the Arabick Version set forth by Erpenius, and many of the Jewish Commentators, (such as R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra) who give the same account of XXI Lev. 10. where the same thing is required of the High-Priest. [Page 146]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 High-Priest; that this Law did not bind the Priests at all times, but only in their Course of Ministration: but the High-Priest (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. de Success. in Pon­tiff. cap. 6.

But the foundation of all this is not very strong; for it relies chiefly 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 signifie 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 joyned 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 [Page 147]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 befel them, XLIV Gen. 13. XI Judg. 35. But was thought so unseemly in a Priest, especially when he ministred, that the Jews say, they whose Garments were rent by accident, were as unca­pable of ministring, as they who rent them themselves in Mourning.

The reason of this Precept was (as R. Levi of Bar­celona well observes, Praecept. 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 baring 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 ministring 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, &c.) 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, Praecept. 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 [Page 149]the World more to be regarded, than God's Service. And therefore the punishment of Death is threatned (in the foregoing words) to those who were guilty of such an offence.

And they did according to the word of Moses.] Staid 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 spake unto Aaron, saying.] It may be thought, that the LORD was so pleased with his Obedience, that he himself now spake 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 Egg-shell and an half. If they exceeded this measure, then their Ministry, they say, was profaned, and they were lia­ble to death, by the hand of Heaven. See R. Levi of Barcelona, Praecept. CLVIII. who hath many Niceties [Page 150]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 Cabbalists 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 Stoick, 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, &c. 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, &c.] Which concern the Rites and Ceremonies of God's Worship.

Ver. 12. Verse 12 And Moses spake 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, &c.] 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, [Page 152]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, &c.] 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 [Page 153]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 High-Priest, and for the whole Congregation, ordered to be, IV. 12, 21. that is, if their Blood was carried into the Holy Place, then nothing of them might be eaten, VI. 30. But otherwise, their Flesh was to be eaten in the Court of the Tabernacle, as is expresly 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 [Page 154]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 loth 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 learnt 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 Peoples Sins, and to make an Expiation carefully for them. And indeed, the very eating of the Peo­ples 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 re­joyce 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 Guilt 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 intirely; 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 ex­presly 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 burnt 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 [Page 156]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 enjoyned, that they should re­joyce in their Feasts, XII Deut. 7, &c. 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 [Page 157]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, XV^th 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 XVII^th Chapter, to speak of some forbidden Food; and Chap­ter XVIII^th 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 spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them.] The Consecration of Aaron being now compleatly finished, God spake 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 enquire 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 unwholsome 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 [Page 159]doth. For the Sum of a long and pious Dis­course, which he hath upon this Subject (Praecept. 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 Imploy­ments of the Soul. And therefore the Law, saith he, removes 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 extreamly corrupted, (as appears by the unusual Leprosie 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, &c.) 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; [Page 160]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, &c. 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, [...], &c. 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. IV. 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, &c.

Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven­footed.] There are some Creatures which Porphyry (in the Book fore-mentioned, 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, [Page 161]Deer, Sheep, Goats, &c. 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 joyned 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, &c.] 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, Praecept. 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 fore-mentioned Marks werewanting, such Creatures must not be eaten.

As the Camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, &c.] 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 thorow, 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, joyned 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 carelesly, without sufficient attention to it.

Ver. 5. Verse 5 And the Coney.] Much might be said to ju­stifie 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 signifie a Mountain Mouse; which, as Solo­mon saith, XXX Prov. 26. Make their holes in Rocks: which Rabbets 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, &c.] 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 runnet 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 cloven-footed, 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 compleatly, being clo­ven-footed, 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. de orig. & progressu Idol. c. 42. where he gives other reasons also for it. One of which, [Page 160] [...] [Page 161] [...] [Page 162] [...] [Page 163] [...] [Page 164] viz. that it was apt to breed the Leprosie, 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. IV. 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, &c. Insomuch that old Homer, relating how Eumaeus entertained Ʋlysses (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, &c. where he shows also out of Varro (Lib. II. de Re Rustica, cap. 4.) that the Gentiles [Page 165]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 learnt in all likelyhood 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, gives 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. Patav.

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 [Page 166]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 Leprosie. It being a Proverbial saying among them, which we read in the Treatise Kidduschin, That ten measures of Leprosie 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 lookt 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 Swines 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 learnt, 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 Bodies 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 Thred, where­with the Shoes were sewed, was pointed with Hogs 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 fore-mentioned 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 ate 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, Praecept. 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, &c. 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, Praecept. 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 Authors 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 lookt upon as Prophetical by the Egyptians, and other Nations; and these he prohibited to the Jews: Among which he expresly names the Eagle and the Hawk, Lib. IV. 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 acknowledgment 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 [Page 171]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 Bath­jaana, 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, &c. 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.) indeavours by a probable Argument to support our Translation. But it hath been the constant perswasion of the Jews, that God did not permit them to eat the Flesh of an Ostrich, which is no 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 signifie 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 Cuckow.] The LXX. St. Hierom, and some later Interpreters, translate the Hebrew word Sachaph by the Greek word [...], a Sea-gull. Which the same great Man, before-mentioned, 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. [Page 173] 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 joyned 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 natur'd Bird, that thence it had the name of Racham, and in Arabick of Rachama: and was made the Hiero­glyphick 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 depart from the Opinion of the later Hebrews, who take it, as we do, to signifie 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 [Page 174]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 fore-men­tioned 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 Lap-wing.] 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 Arabick 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 Ʋpupam: 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 begins 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 [...], &c. 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, II 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 [Page 175]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 fore­feet 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, &c.) or are Night-Birds, (as Owls, &c.) or haunt Lakes and Marshes, (as the Bittern, &c.) or are heavy, and not easily raised from the Earth, as the Ostrich; or live in Graves or in Dung, as the Ʋpupa, 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, &c.] In this Verse he excepts such flying In­sects, as besides their four feet, wherewith they go, have two legs or thighs which inable 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. IV. 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 before-men­tioned, 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 four-footed, 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 Grashopper 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 Grashopper 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 Arabick Tongue. In which Chahageba signifies to cover as with a Vail: And in such Troops these Locusts fly, that sometimes they seem to darken the Sun it self. 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 [Page 177]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. IV. de Orig. & Progr. Idol. c. 78. But no Body hath given such satisfaction in this matter, as the fore-named Ludolphus; who hath shown at large how many Nations live upon them, in his Commentary upon his Aethiopick 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 Hierusalem, 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 [Page 178]and flying things) doth not necessarily signifie 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.

Ʋntil 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 meer 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 perswaded 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 ought 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 likelyhood, 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 cloven-footed, &c.] 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, &c.) 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, &c.] 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, &c. whose fore-feet resemble hands: These might neither be eaten, nor their carcases touched, without incurring uncleanness till Sun-set.

Ver. 28. Verse 28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, &c.] 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 alledged a great many probable reasons that it sig­nifies a Mole. And one is, because it is joyned here [Page 180]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 signifie 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 indeavours at large to prove the truth of this Interpretation, Lib. IV. 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 Latines call Stellio, and in those Countries hath a shrill cry. See there cap. 2.

And the Cameleon.] 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 incounters 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 [Page 181]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 lyes 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 guess what sort, by the original of the word, it pro­bably signifies the Cameleon, 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 [Page 182]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 then 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 indeavours 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, &c. you may touch, and not be polluted. Thus R. Levi Bar­celonita, Praecept. 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, &c. were unclean to be touched, only when they were dead.

Ʋntil 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 meerly 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 [Page 183]defiled other things (Vessels, and Raiment, &c.) as well as Men, Praecept. 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, &c. 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. [Page 184]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, &c.] 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.] Rendred 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 pub­lick 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 it self, 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, &c.] 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 threatned, XV Numb. 30.

Ver. 41. Verse 41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.] Except those before-mentioned v. 21, &c.

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, &c.] 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, &c.) 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, [Page 187] 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. IV. c. 6. p. 1. And so the English call the Centa­pees before-mentioned, 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 meerly of creep­ing things, but of such as creep upon the Earth; doth not intend 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 your selves abominable by any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make your selves 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, &c. 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 sanctifie your selves.] By this sepa­rate sort of Diet, and other fore-mentioned 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 before-mentioned. 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 your selves 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 signifie 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 meerly 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 [Page 189]greatest benefit, (the very foundation of the rest) there could not be a higher aggravation of Guilt, 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 Beings.

Ver. 46. Verse 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, &c.] 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, &c. then of Fishes, v. 9, &c. then of Birds, v. 13, &c. and lastly of creeping things, v. 20, &c. Some of all which kinds he forbad them to eat, for such reasons as I have already mentioned: unto which this may be added, that by not allowing them an intire 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. [Page 190]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 spake 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 Leprosie (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 belong'd 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 man-child.] 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 [Page 191]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.

Where Scaliger observes that the Greeks were wont to purifie their Children on the fifth day; but the Latines 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 Mothers 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 Zabij, an ancient sort of Idolaters in those Eastern parts, had a great number of tedious and tiresom 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 fore-named 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 [Page 193]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, Praecept. 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. Hippocrates 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 Conrad. 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 her self 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 publick Pray­ers, and take care of their Instruction, lest they be­come like the Horse, and the Mule, that have no Ʋnder­standing.

And a young Pigeon, or a turtle Dove for a sin-offer­ing.] To compleat 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. [Page 195]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.

Ʋnto 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 bound 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 Mothers Puri­fication, presented unto the LORD. That indeed had respect to the Law about the First-born: but a very ancient MS. and the Syriac, and Origen, taking this for the day of their Purification, and not meerly of hers ( [...]) it plainly shows the Child could not be admitted into the Divine Presence, no more than the Mother, till the days above-mentioned were accomplished.

Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if she be not able to bring a Lamb, then she shall bring two Turtles, and two young Pigeons, &c.] 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 II 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 [Page 197]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. Maxime, 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 spake 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 Leprosie; 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 shewed it self.

A rising, a scab, or a bright spot.] The Leprosie ap­peared in one of these three forms; either as a tumor 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 Leprosie.] There were some Swellings, and Scabs, and Spots, which were not the Leprosie, but only like it. And therefore Moses here teaches the Priests how to discern between a true Leprosie, and the resem­blance [Page 198]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 Leprosie.] 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 hide 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 irruptions in the Skin: which have as many various names, as there are Risings, or Breakings out, or Spots there; and are commonly all comprehended under the name of Le­prosie, as P. Cunaeus observes, L. II. de Republ. Judaeo­rum, cap. ult. But Moses here distinguishes them, and seems to instruct the Israelites, that the Leprosie 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 (Praecept. 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 Leprosie, 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 [Page 199]Leper: whom therefore they lookt upon as smitten by God; and thence called the Disease the Plague, or stroke, of Leprosie, and sometimes simply the Plague or Stroke, v. 3, 5, 17, 22. of this Chapter. For they could not understand how such a Pestilent Disease, as infe­cted not meerly Mens bodies, but the very Walls of their Houses and Garments, should proceed meerly 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 Leprosie 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 Leprosie. 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, [Page 200]but not give the Judgment. 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 Leprosie, XXIV. 8.

And when the hair in the plague is turned white, &c.] He begins with the last of the three Indications of a Leprosie, 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, then it was to be judged a true Leprosie. R. Levi Barcelon. expresses it thus; when there was one or more places so white, that their whiteness was like that of an Egg-shell, or more glossy, then it is the Leprosie.

And the Priest shall look upon him.] Having made this inspection, and found it to be the Leprosie.

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 Proselites 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 fore-named R. Levi explains this passage thus; If it were not a perfect white, but something duskish, below the whiteness of an Egg-shell, he was to look upon it as that which might prove a lesser sort of foulness in the Blood and Skin, short of the Leprosie; 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 judgment 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 Judg­ment 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 it self 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 lookt 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 Judgment.

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 Leprosie: 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 Leprosie, 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 Leprosie was a Scab, (v. 2.) which seems to have been of two kinds: One of which Moses joyns 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 prophane as carelesly to neglect it, by not going to the Priest, and showing him his case, his punishment was to have his Leprosie 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 Leprosie.

Ver. 9. Verse 9 When the plague of leprosie is in a man.] That is, when there is a suspicion of the first sort of Lepro­sie 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 Leprosie.

Quick raw flesh in the rising.] Quick or living Flesh (as the Hebrew word is) signifies soun 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 leprosie 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 Leprosie, or no.

For he is unclean.] It was apparent from the To­kens, which were already very visible.

Ver. 12. Verse 12 And if a leprosie break out abroad in the skin.] He calls that a Leprosie, which was not truly so, but was by some thought to be so, because it had a likeness to it.

And the leprosie 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 lookt upon as the Plague of Leprosie; 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 Measels 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 fore-mentioned Spots, it was an evident to­ken that it was a settled Leprosie: Nature being not able to throw out the ill Humor 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 [Page 205]before-named, he shall make no further Examination, but declare him to be unclean.

For the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosie.] 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 Le­prosie was suspected to be.

And behold, if the plague be turned into white, &c.] If upon due consideration, his Body appear alike white every where, and no Spots to be seen in the Flesh, the Priest was to delare him to have no Leprosie 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 Leprosie, as arose out of Ulcers, which had been healed: and after­ward there was a new eruption which might prove a Leprosie.

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 Leprosie mentioned v. 2.

And somewhat reddish.] This is a mark not hither­to mentioned: which some render exceeding shineing; or an inflamation 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 ought to be translated exceeding glistering. 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 Kings V. 27. See v. 49. of this Chapter.

And it be shewed to the Priest.] That he might pass his Judgment upon it, whether it were the Leprosie, or no.

Ver. 20. Verse 20 And if when the Priest seeth it, behold, it being in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white, &c.] 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 leprosie 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 before-named.

But be somewhat dark, &c.] Though it had not eaten into the Flesh, (which was a certain sign of a Leprosie) 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, then 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 Leprosie.

Ver. 23. Verse 23 But if the bright spot stay in its place, and spread not, &c.] 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 inflamation 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, &c.) he speaks of Ulcers which arose of themselves from bad Humors 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 Leprosie broken out in that burnt place, which other­wise would have lookt black.

Ver. 25. Verse 25 If the hair in the bright spot be turned white, &c.] See v. 20.

Ver. 26. Verse 26 But if the Priest look upon it, and behold, there be no white hair, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 tumor made by fire, or a hot iron, &c. which burnt the part. A meer inflamation (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 preferrable 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, &c.] 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, &c.] This was some indication that it was not a Leprosie; 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 Leprosie.

And behold, if the scall spread not.] For this was the nature of the Disease, which Pliny describes in the place above-mentioned, that it spread it self 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 Leprosie. 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 shaven, but the scall shall he not shave, &c.] For sureness sake, the Head and Beard were to be shaven (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 shaven; because the Priest was to ob­serve, of what colour the Hair in it was. So R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. 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 compleated.

The Priest shall look on the scall, and behold, if it be not spread, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] If after this, the Scall stopt 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 Leprosie. 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 Leprosie, 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, &c.] 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 Leprosie: if they were perfectly clear, and bright, then 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, &c.] The design of these two Verses is, to instruct the Priest, that the meer [Page 211]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 Leprosie.

Ver. 42, 43. Verse 42, 43. And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore, &c.] 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 fore-named Per­sons.

His plague is in his head.] The Leprosie 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 fore-named sort, of Leprosies.

His clothes shall be rent.] 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. II 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 Leprosie; 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 leprosie is in.] This is a matter which we do not now under­stand; that a Leprosie 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 Leprosie in an House (XIV. 34.) which he doth not mention here, because they had no Houses in the Wilderness, but dwelt in Tents covered with Skins, and such like things: in which, as well as in Garments, he supposes the Le­prosie 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, Syri 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 above­mentioned, 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 [Page 214]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 mens 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 intirely 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 Camels hair (which they called the Wooll 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, &c.] There seems to be great reason in what Maimonides saith, in his Treatise of the Leprosie, 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 Palm-tree. 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 Leprosie; if it were not so broad, it was accounted clean.

It is a plague of leprosie, &c.] It was justly to be suspected; and therefore was to be brought to the Priest, for his judgment 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, &c.] If upon his inspection, he found the fore-named to­kens, he was to do with it, as he did with Persons who were under a suspicion of a Leprosie.

Ver. 51. Verse 51 If the plague be spread in the garment, &c.] There were three certain marks (as Maimonides notes) of the Leprosie in a Garment; the extream greeness or redness of the Spots in it; and the spreading of them after they were first discovered.

The plague is a fretting leprosie.] 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 Arabick Tongue, he thinks it may be [Page 216]best translated an exasperated, or irritated Leprosie: That is, very sharp and pricking (which sutes well with our Translation) eating into the Garment or Skin, till it was consumed. Abarbanel translates it painful: because this sort of Leprosie 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, &c.] It seems this Leprosie 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, &c.] If the Spot was at a stay, and did not proceed further, then 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 vitious 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 Le­prosie [Page 217]was wont to eat off the nap of the Cloth, and make it thread-bare.

Ver. 56. Verse 56 And if the Priest look, and behold, the plague be somewhat dark, after the washing of it, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 Leprosie (as it here follows) in the Garment or Skin, which would proceed till it was in­tirely infected with it.

Thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is, with fire.] Therefore, the Leprosie 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, &c.] Whatsoever, after washing, had no appearance of such Spots as are be­fore-mentioned (v. 49, &c.) 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 leprosie in a garment of wollen or linen, &c.] 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 [Page 218]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 here 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 Lepro­sie, in this Chapter, to the various degrees of Pollu­tions that are in mens 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 spake unto Moses, say­ing.] All that is said before, concern­ing the Rules whereby they were to discern the Le­prosie, 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 Instructer 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 leprosie 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 Le­prosie.

Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then shall the Priest command to take for him, &c.] 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 sate 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 [Page 220] 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 hysop.] 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 guess at the reason, and imagines that these four things, the living Birds, the Cedar, the Scarlet, and the Hysop, signified the Leper to be cured of the four Evils under which he had laboured; in his Flesh, his Humors, his Colour, and Smell, which were represented by the four things before-mentioned; and were now all become sound and good. For the living Birds, he thinks, were a sign that his dead-flesh was restored to vigor and life again. And the Cedar-wood, which is not easily cor­rupted, denoted the Putrefaction was cured which the Leprosie had made in the Humors of his Body. The Scarlet thread or wooll, was an indication of his good Complexion restored to him: for this is a bright [Page 221]and grateful colour, as the Leprosie was livid and loathsom; signifying (saith he) his Blood was puri­fied, which made a lively colour return into his Coun­tenance. And lastly, the Hysop, 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 perswaded, by a great many prolix, laborious, and publick Ceremonies used for Mens Pu­rification from it, that they were fit for their Society again.

I omit the moral Reasons which are given by R. Le­vi Barcelonita, Praecept. CLXXIII. for the use of the fore-mentioned 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 [Page 222]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, &c.] 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 Hysop, of a handful long, and as much Scarlet-wooll as weighed a Shekel; he then dipt the Birds Tail and Wings, with the Hysop 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 Leprosie.] 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 loose, 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 lye 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, &c.] 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 Leprosie 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 eye-brows.

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 killing 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 intirely.

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 compleat 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 vertue, 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, &c.] 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 [Page 226]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 fore-named Treatise, to the Door of the Court where the leprous Man stood; who stretcht 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 before-men­tioned, [Page 227] 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, &c. 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 stretcht 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 publickly 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 [Page 228]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 Leprosie 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, &c. 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, &c.] The fore-finger 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 dipt his finger in the Oil, and directed it towards the most holy place, where God dwelt: 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, &c.] 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 Priests hand, he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed.] Which one thing, if it were omit­ted, [Page 229]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 before-mentioned, 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 prophaneness 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 Le­prosie was inflicted as a Punishment for some Sin, which by this Sacrifice was taken away. But the word make atonement doth not always signifie the ta­king away Sin; but sometimes meerly 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 [Page 230]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 signifie, 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 burnt 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 com­pleated; 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 burdensom 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, &c.

He shall take.] After he had undergone all the Purgations before-mentioned, 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 fore-named 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 look'd 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, &c.] See v. 10, 11, &c. 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] See v. 17.

Ʋpon 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 fore-named Treatise, concerning those that wanted Expiation, sect. 5. But that which he there adds is very unreasonable; That if a Man wanted [Page 234]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 Priests hand, he shall put upon the head of him that is to be clean­sed, &c.] 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 indeavour to bring the best that his Estate could reach.

The one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, &c.] See v. 19, 20.

Ver. 32. Verse 32 This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosie.] Who was shut out of the Camp, because of the Leprosie, 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 before-mentioned (v. 10, &c.) for their reception into the Congregation again, when they are found to be free from their Leprosie.

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 [Page 235]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 spake 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 Leprosie 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 Leprosie did not infect their Habitations, till they came into the Land of Ca­naan. When some of the Rabins say (as R. Levi Bar­celonita observes, Praecept. 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 Leprosie was a Divine Stroke in this Country, and no where else; because it was a holy Land, bestowed upon the Israelites by God, who dwelt 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 Leprosie upon a House, &c.] 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 [Page 236]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 (Pars II. sect. 58.) God inflicted this Plague of Leprosie upon Houses and Garments, as a punishment for lesser Sins: and when Men continued still to multiply Transgressions, then 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 repented of his Sin. But if he persisted in his re­bellious Courses, it proceeded to his Houshold-stuff: 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 Mens 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 it self, whose Vines and Fig-trees God smote, and then their Cattle, before he killed their First-born. In the same manner the Plague of Leprosie, 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 Mens 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 before-mentioned. And Abar­banel [Page 237]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 dwelt 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 fore-named 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 Privi­ledges of the holy City, That it was not defiled with the Plague of Leprosie. 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, &c.] 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 Houshold-stuff; 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 Judgment, all things in the House were accounted clean: as till a Man was pronounced by him to have a Leprosie, 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 Leprosie 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 strakes 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 Leprosie, which began to corrode and eat into it. This seems to be the import of the Hebrew word Schickharuroth, which signifies some­thing that lyes 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 Leprosie 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 Le­prosie 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 Judgment, whether it was the Leprosie 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 Le­prosie, 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 Leprosie: 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, &c.] 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. [Page 240]For which end, these Scrapings 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 plaister the house.] Command them to lay fresh Plaister all over the Walls, where they were scraped.

Ver. 43. Verse 43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, &c. after he hath taken away the stones, &c.] If after all the fore-mentioned care (of putting in new Stones, scraping, and new plaistering 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 leprosie.] Of the same nature with that in a Garment, which could not be stopt. See XIII. 51.

It is unclean.] Uncapable to be cleansed from the Leprosie, 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 hearkned to the Stones that cried out of the Wall, (as Abarbanel speaks) saying, Repent and amend, &c. (which was the meaning of this Plague) the Infection would have spread no further. See v. 34. The same Author [Page 241]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 it self, 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, &c. before all was pulled down) as a representation of God's proceedings 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 scrapings of the House, men­tioned v. 40, 41. were thrown. Which may well be lookt 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, &c.] 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 entred 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 lye there.

Ver. 48. Verse 48 If the plague hath not spread in the house, after it was plaistered, then the Priest shall ponounce the house clean.] Just as it was in the Leprosie in Mens 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 hysop.] 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 hysop, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 lepro­sie, and scall.] The Rule whereby to judge and to cleanse all Leprosies in the Bodies of Men; and that Leprosie 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 Leprosie of a garment, and of an house, and for a rising, &c.] The foregoing Verse, and these two, are a recapitulation of the Laws delivered in the XIII^th Chapter, and in this.

Ver. 57. Verse 57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean.] To guide the Priest in judgment, when to pronounce a Man, a Garment, or an House infected with the Leprosie; or when to declare them free from it.

This is the Law of Leprosie.] Here is a Conclusion of what belongs to this Matter. Which prophane 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 spake 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 meerly 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 lyeth that bath the issue, is unclean: and every thing whereon he sitteth, &c.] 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 Inflamations and Ulcers in the neighbouring parts, from which the filthy Humor 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 bad 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 a­again 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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, &c.] Either the Saddle, or any thing else that was under him when he rode.

And he that beareth any of those things, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 washt 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 [Page 248]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, &c.] That it might not be imployed 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 enjoyned, 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 stopt: 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. River-water 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; [Page 250](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 mans 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 Urin; and call going to Stool, Ʋnco­vering 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, &c.] 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, &c.] 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 signifie, [...], 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 Zabij accounted a Man polluted if he did but speak with a menstruous Woman, or if the [Page 252]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 Domestick 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 fore-named; 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 oftner hap­ned, 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, &c.] The very same sort of Uncleanness was contracted in this Case, as in the foregoing v. 4, &c. 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, &c.] This and the two following Verses, contain the very same Prohibitions in this Case, which were given in the o­ther. See v. 5, 6, &c.

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; [...], &c. 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, &c.] 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 [Page 255]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, &c.] Like the Bed and the Seat of her mentioned v. 20.

Ver. 27. Verse 27 And whosoever toucheth these things shall be unclean, &c.] As in the case fore-mentioned v. 21.

Ver. 28. Verse 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue.] Cured of her Disease.

Then shall she number to her self 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, &c.] 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 burdensom 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, &c.] 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 fore-named 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 fore-mentioned 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 dwelt. 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, &c. 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, &c.] 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, &c.

CHAP. XVI.

Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake 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 Vail, 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 [Page 257]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 oftner 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 burnt Incense. If he went in a fifth time, he died for his presumption, as they say; particularly R. Levi Barcel. Praecept. 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, [...], &c. It is opened once every year. See Dr. Owtram's 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 Mercy­seat. 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 out-side of the Tabernacle; and within a Glory or great Splendor only unclouded. And there­fore most, I think, understand this of the Smoak of the Incense, that the High-Priest burnt when he en­tred 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 High-Priest entred, 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 be­fore-mentioned (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 wrapt 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 [Page 259]be rendred, 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 Peoples appearing before him: and this sense the 13th Verse seems to inforce, as Campegius Vi­tringa hath observed, Lib. I. Observ. 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 dwelt 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 High-Priest 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 Quire of Priests, &c. Lib. III. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 7. Something like this was the Triumph wherein our [Page 260]blessed High-Priest 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 High-Priest (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, &c.] There were eight Garments-belonging to the Attire of the High-Priest: 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 High-Priest 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, &c. 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 [Page 261]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 High-Priest 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 Priests 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 High-Priest washt his hands and his feet in the Brasen Laver; on this day, if we may be­lieve the Jews, he washt them in a Vessel of Gold, as the same Braunius observes out of Massechet Joma, c. 4. There are those who fancy the High-Priest went into the most holy place, with the Ephod and Breast-plate, whereon were the Names of the Children of Israel: but that is quite contrary to what Moses here delivers, who mentions no 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. de Succession. in Pon­tific. Hebraeor. cap. 7. p. 250.

Yet the Roman Church hath grounded a solemn Practise upon the fore-mentioned 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 [Page 262]they come to the Sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) then 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 High-Priest 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, &c.] 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 High-Priest might appear splendid, in the simplest Habit wherein he mi­nistred. 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, &c.) because such very sumptuous Appa­rel, it must be acknowledged, was not so sutable to the Service of the day. On which the High-Priest (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 ministred 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 [Page 263]Sacrifice, &c. 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 Fathers 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 it self 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 joyned 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 [Page 264] ‘ [...], 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 passible Nature of his Flesh: and that which was let go, might show the impassible 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, &c.

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, &c.] All the Sin-offerings which were made for the Congregation, were presented either by the High-Priest, 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 sanctifie my self: that is, offer my self 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 san­ctifie my self, by [...], I offer thee a Sacri­fice; or consecrate and devote my self 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 [Page 266]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 Heresie 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 High-Priest 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 Ʋrn 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, &c.) 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 [Page 267]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 XVII^th 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 Practi­ses, 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:

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; [Page 268]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 prophane, 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 Arabick; 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 loose: 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 Arabick Tongue. This Goat being sent away into remote places, there to re­main separate from the Flock to which he belong'd; [Page 269]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 killing 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 ver­tue 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, [Page 270]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, intire 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 meerly 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, &c.] 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.