Exodus 22 commentary

The people of God should ever be ready to show mildness and mercy, according to the spirit of these laws. We must answer to God, not only for what we do maliciously, but for what we do heedlessly. Therefore, when we have done harm to our neighbour, we should make restitution, though not compelled by law. Let these scriptures lead our souls to remember, that if the grace of God has indeed appeared to us, then it has taught us, and enabled us so to conduct ourselves by its holy power, that denying ungodliness and wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Tit 2:12. And the grace of God teaches us, that as the Lord is our portion, there is enough in him to satisfy all the desires of our souls.

Thus far God has proclaimed Himself the avenger of iniquities, and, citing thieves before His tribunal, has threatened them with eternal death. Now follow the civil laws, the principle of which is not so exact and perfect; since in their enactment God has relaxed His just severity in consideration of the people’s hardness of heart.

What God formerly delivered to His people the heathen legislators afterwards borrowed. Draco, indeed, was more severe, but his extreme rigor became obsolete by the silent consent of the people of Athens; and the Decemvirs borrowed from Solon part of their law, which they published in the ten tables, although there were some variations in the distinction of the double or quadruple restitution, and in process of time other alterations were afterwards made. But if all things be duly considered, it will be found that both Solon and the Decemvirs have made a change for the worse, wherever they have varied from the law of God. First of all, no distinction The negative added from Fr. See A. Gell. 11:18. is here made, such as the Roman laws decree, between manifest thieves and those that are not manifest; for by them the thief not manifest is condemned to a double amend, and the manifest to quadruple; and he is called a manifest thief who is caught before he has carried what he has stolen to the place of its destination. I suppose that the awarders of the punishment had this point in view, that the wickedness of that person was the more egregious who was so greedily and anxiously set on his prey as not to be afraid of disgrace; and undoubtedly he who has no fear of shame is more audacious ill sin. But, on the contrary, God condemns to a double amend those upon whom the stolen goods were found; and to quadruple, those who had killed or sold it; and deservedly so, because greater obstinacy in crime betrays itself where the theft is turned to profit, nor is there any hope of repentance; and thus by this further process the crime of dishonesty is doubled. It might be that, immediately after the offense, the thief should be alarmed; but he who had dared to kill the stolen animal or to sell it, is altogether hardened in his sin. Besides, the more difficult its investigation is, the greater is the punishment which a misdemeanor deserves. Meanwhile, it is to be remembered, that the pecuniary fine imposed upon thieves did not free them from guilt; for, as Marcellus says, “Il est dit en la loy;” it is said in the law. — Fr. not even the president of a province can bring it to pass, that infamy should not pursue a man condemned of theft; and there was no need of establishing by law that in which all by nature are agreed. Thus, when God punished thieves by a fine, He left them still marked by infamy. I know not whether they This first opinion is “that (says Corn. a Lapide) of S. Thomas, 1:2. q. 105, art. 2. ad 9., after Strabo; God commands that a thief should restore five oxen for one, because the ox has five utilities; first, it is killed in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it ploughs; fourthly, it gives milk; fifthly, it supplies leather; — whilst a sheep only has four advantages; for, first, it is slain in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it gives milk; fourthly, it gives wool.” The second opinion is attributed to Junius by Willet, “oportet hunc furem audacem, et versutum esse.” assign the true cause why he who had stolen an ox is fined to a larger amount than he who had stolen a goat, or sheep, or other cattle, who say that the loss of the owner is taken into account to whom the labor of the ox is especially useful in agriculture; for what is said as to an ox I extend to cows and the whole herd. Those seem to come nearer to the truth who say the audacity of the thief is punished who, when he stole the larger animal, did not fear being observed by witnesses; yet it seems to me more likely that the different sentence depended on the price of the article; for assuredly it is more reasonable that he who has done the most harm should be exposed to the greater punishment.

2. If a thief be found breaking up. This clause is to be taken separately, and is inserted by way of parenthesis; for, after having decreed the punishment, God adds in connection, “he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he should be sold for his theft;” and this exception as to the thief in the night is introduced parenthetically. But although the details are not expressed with sufficient distinctness, still the intention of God is by no means ambiguous, viz., that if a thief should be killed in the dark, his slayer should be unpunished; for he can then hardly be distinguished from a robber, especially when he proceeds with violence; because he cannot enter another man’s house by night without either digging through a wall or breaking down a door. The Twelve Tables This provision of the Twelve Tables is thus given by A. Gell. 11. ult., “Si nox furtum faxit, sim (si eum) quis occisit, jure caesus esto: si luci furtum faxit, sim aliquis endo (in) ipso furto capsit, verberator, illique, cui furtum factum escit (erit) addicitor, sed non nisi is, qui interemturus erat, quiritaret,” i.e., shall have called out for assistance. differ slightly from this; for they permit the killing of a thief by night, and also by day if he should defend himself with a weapon. But, since God had sufficiently repressed by other laws murders and violent assaults, He is silent here respecting robbers who use the sword in their attempts at plunder. He therefore justly condemns to death those who have avenged by murder a theft in open day.

3. He should make full restitution. These words, as I have said, are connected with the first verse, since here the execution of the punishment is only enjoined; as if God forbade thieves to be spared, but that they should pay either twofold or quadruple, or even quintuple, according to the measure of their crime. But, if they were unable to pay, He commands them to be sold as slaves, which also was the custom at Rome. Whence the saying of Cato, “Sed enim M. Cato in oratione quam de praeda militibus dividenda scripsit, vehementibus et illustribus verbis de impunitate peculatus atque licentia conqueritus. Ea verba, quoniam nobis impense placuerunt, adscripsimus: Fures (inquit) privatorum furtorum in nervo atque in compedibus aetatem agunt: fures autem publici in auto atque in purpura.” — A. Gell. 11 ult. “that private thieves lived in bonds and fetters, but public ones in gold and purple.” And since this condition was a harsh one, a caution is expressly given, that they were not to be absolved on the score of their poverty. If any one should ask whether it was lawful for the owner of the thing stolen to recover double or quadruple its value, I answer, that what God awards, a man has the best of rights to; meanwhile, in equity men were bound to take care that they did not grow rich at the expense of others, but rather were they to apply whatever they gained to pious and holy uses.

Exodus 22

Exodus 22:5-15

5. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.

5. Si depasci fecerit quispiam agrum aut vitem, et immiserit jumentum suum ut depasceretur agrum alterius: bonum agri ejus et bonum vineae ejus restituet.

6. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

6. Quum egressus fuerit ignis, et invenerit spinas: absumptusque fuerit acervus, vel seges, vel ager, reddendo redder qui ignem accendit, rem combustam.

7. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

7. Quum dederit quispiam proximo suo argentum, vel vasa ad custodiendum, et furto ablatum fuerit e domo viri illius: si inventus fuerit fur, reddet duplum.

8. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods.

8. Si non inventus fuerit fur, tunc applicabitur dominus domus ad judices, annon miserit manum suam in substantiam proximi sui.

9. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.

9. Super omni causa praevaricationis, super bove, super asino, super pecude, super vestimento, super omni re amissa: quum dixerit quispiam hoc esse, usque ad judices veniet causa utriusque: et quem damnaverint judices, is reddat duplum proximo suo.

10. If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:

10. Si dederit quispiam proximo suo asinum, vel bovem, vel pecudem, aut quodcunque animal ad custodiendum, et mortuum fuerit, aut contractum, aut ab hostibus captum nemine vidente.

11. Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

11. Juramentum Jehovae erit inter utrumque, annon miserit manum suam in substantiam proximi sui, et juramentum suscipiet dominus ejus, et non reddet.

12. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.

12. Quod si furto ablatum fuerit ei, reddet domino ejus.

13. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

13. Si vero rapiendo raptum fuerit, adducet ei testem: raptum non reddet.

14. And if a man borrow ought of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it; he shall surely make it good.

14. Si commodato acceperit quispiam a proximo suo, et confractum fuerit aut mortuum domino ejus absente, reddendo reddet.

15. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

15. Si dominus ejus fuerit cum eo, non reddet: si conductum fuerit, veniens pro mercede sua.

5. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten. This kind of fraud is justly ranked among thefts; viz., if any man shall have put in his beast to feed in another’s field or vineyard. For if a person have made improper use of his servant to steal by him, he himself is deemed guilty of the offense, even although he may have touched nothing with his own hand; nor does he less do wrong who has given occasion of injury by means of a brute. Still, God restricts the punishment to a compensation of double the amount, because it cannot be certainly established that the master of the animal desired to effect the damage fraudulently and designedly; yet He requires the loss to be made up at the highest estimate of its value; C.’s view of these words seems to be adopted by none of the commentators. They understand them more simply, that the restitution was to be made in kind, and of the best of the aggressor’s produce. Whether we read with C. “bonum agri,” or with others “de bono,” or “de optimo,” as Dathe and A. V., does not appear to affect this sense. for thus I interpret “the goodness of his field and his vineyard,” that the place having been examined, a liberal restitution shall be awarded to its owner, according to the utmost it would have probably produced in its greatest state of fertility.

6. If fire break out and catch in thorns. This injury is somewhat different from the foregoing, for he who kindles the fire is commanded to make good the damage done by him, although there may have been no willful intention to do harm. For the incendiary who had maliciously destroyed either a cornfield or a vineyard was to be far more severely punished; here, however, mere carelessness is punished. Although no mention is made either of house or barn, still the law includes all similar cases requiring compensation from him who had kindled a fire even in an open field. But it seems that such a person would be blameless, because he could not. foresee that the fire would ignite the thorns; yet, in order that every one should take as much care of the property of another as of his own, God commands him to suffer the penalty of his heedless or stupid negligence.

7. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money. It is here determined under what circumstances an action for theft would lie in case of a deposit, viz., if an inanimate thing, as a garment or furniture, be given ill charge, and the person with whom it is deposited should allege that it is stolen, God commands that, if the thief be discovered, he should pay double; but, if not, that an oath should be required of the man who declares that the thing has been stolen from him. But, if it be an animal that was given in charge, a somewhat different provision is made, viz., that if it have been violently carried away, or torn by beasts, the person with whom it was deposited should be free; but if it had been stolen, that he should make restitution. In order to understand the principle of this law, we must observe that depositaries are not to be compelled to do more than faith. fully preserve the thing entrusted to them; just as a prudent and careful father of a family is attentive to the preservation of his property. When they have acquitted themselves diligently in this respect, it would be unjust to require more, of them; otherwise, when they undertake the burden of this gratuitous office, their generosity would be an injury to themselves. But, since it is not so easy to steal an animal from the stall, or from the hands of the shepherd, the negligence of the shepherd betrays itself in the loss of the beast, “Que la beste se soit esvanouye sans qu’il en ait rien sceu;” in that the beast has vanished without his knowing anything about it. — Fr. supposing no violence to have been used. Justice, then, is done in both cases, i e., that the depository shall not make good a vessel, or money, or a garment, because this would be in a manner to put him in the place of the thief; but that if the animal be stolen he shall pay its price, unless he can cleat’ himself of carelessness. If any should think that too great indulgence is shown to the depositary, when God would have the dispute terminated by his oath; the reply is easy, that we do not entrust anything to be kept by another, unless we are persuaded of his honesty. Whoever, then, has chosen a guardian for his property, has borne witness to his own prejudice that he is a good and trustworthy man; and consequently, it would be absurd that he should soon afterwards be involved in all accusation of theft without proof. Wherefore it was reasonable that God would have the owner of the lost goods acquiesce in the oath of him. whom he has considered to be his faithful friend. Besides, a man is altogether acquitted who clears himself by calling God to witness his innocence, unless any sinister suspicion is alleged against him, and provided he excuses himself on probable evidence.

9. For all manner of trespass. An action for theft is here permitted, but with a fine attached if any should rashly accuse his neighbor; for else it might be doubted when or for what reasons the restitution of double or quadruple was to be required. He therefore permits that if any one suspects another of theft, he should summon that person to plead his cause; and if he should prove his case, that he should recover double the thing lost; but if the judges should pronounce that he had brought his action groundlessly, that he, on the contrary, should pay the penalty of his false accusation. For such an action as this is not altogether a civil one, but carries with it the stain of infamy, and thus it would be unjust that a man should be injured by false suspicions whom the judges acquit of crime. The word used here for judges is אלהים, elohim, which properly means gods, as being of the plural number; it is, however often used for God. “Le Dieu vivant.” — Fr. It is transferred to judges for the purpose of dignifying their office; because in it they represent the person of God, in whose hand alone is all dominion and power. Therefore Christ says they were called gods, because to them “the word of God came,” (John 10:34,) i.e., that they should preside in His name, and be set over others, on which subject we treated under the Fifth Commandment.

10. If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass. Since in the passage from whence I have taken these four verses, mention is made of a deposit, and Moses is professedly providing against frauds, and robberies, and thefts, I have thought it well to place them under this head. It has indeed some relation to the Third Commandment, because it shows the lawful use of an oath, viz., that in matters of concealment men should have recourse to the witness of God, and that, by the interposition of His sacred name, an end should be put to their strife. But, while the authority attributed to oaths depends on the reverence due to God, at the same time faith and piety are enforced in them, For these latter words, which I hardly understand, the following are substituted in Fr., “Cela touche quant et quant a son service et religion.” so that all things should correspond. I have, however, considered the main point, i e., how controversies as to things concealed should be brought to an end for the advancement of peace and equity. He would therefore have the depositary acquitted, if he swears that the animal entrusted to him is lost (either by death or violence, Added from Fr. ) although lie should produce no witness of the matter, since it would be unjust that he should bear the blame, unless fraud, or some more palpable offense, have been committed by him. At the conclusion, then, it is said, “the owner of it shall accept” the oath, which is equivalent to saying, that lie shall be compelled to acquiesce, and shall give no more trouble about it. The expression, “an oath of the Lord shall be between them both,” is a remarkable one, whereby the obligation and sanctity of an oath are enforced, whilst Moses reminds us that God is the author of this sacred mode of attestation, and presides over it as its judge and avenger.

Moses now lays down the law as to a borrowed animal, if it die, or be mutilated, or injured. There is, however, a wide distinction between a thing borrowed and a thing deposited, for he who lends confers a favor; and therefore, when a man borrows a thing, he binds himself to restore it in safety, as far as in him lies. A distinction, however, is made, if the owner himself of the animal be an eye-witness of the death or fracture, he shall bear the loss; but if the animal should die or be injured in his absence, its value is awarded to him. His presence is tantamount to this, as if it were said, if he shall have seen with his own eyes that the injury did not occur by the fault of him to whom he lent it, then he shall give him no trouble about it. For instance, if you have lent me a horse, and take the journey with me, although anything untoward should happen — supposing you are assured that it did not occur by my temerity, or negligence, or bad management, I am free, and exempt from loss.

What is here laid down as to a borrowed animal must be applied also to all other things borrowed.

Leviticus 24

Leviticus 24:18, 21

18. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

18. Qui percusserit animam animalis, restituet illud: animam pro anima.

21. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it; and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

21. Qui percusserit animal, reddet illud.

Hence, also, it is manifest that, although God remits the judicial penalty, fornication is displeasing to Him. As to the spiritual judgment of the conscience, there were expiations to propitiate Him; He here only has consideration for young females, lest, being deceived, and having lost their virginity, they should become prostitutes; and thus the land should be defiled by whoredom. The remedy is, that lie who has corrupted girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give tie a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless. But, if the marriage should not please her father, the penalty imposed on her seducer is, that he should assign her a wedding portion.

Deuteronomy 24

Deuteronomy 24:5

5. When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business; but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

5. Quum quis acceperit uxorem novam, non egredietur ad bellum, neque injungetur ei munus: immunis erit in domo sua anno uno, et delectabit uxorem suam quam accepit.

18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. In these passages the punishment of those is appointed who should in any respect violate the worship of God. We have lately seen how severely God avenged apostasy from the faith; but now He touches upon certain particular points when religion is not professedly forsaken, but some corruption is introduced, whereby its purity is affected. The first passage denounces capital punishment upon witches; by which name Moses means enchantresses, or sorceresses, who devote themselves to magic arts, either to injure persons by their fascinations, or to seek revelations from the devil; such as she was whom Saul consulted, although she might be called by a different name It is said of the woman, (1 Samuel 18:7,) that “she had a familiar spirit,” (אוב See vol. 1, p. 428; the word here used is מכשפהfrom כשף, praestigiis uti. — Taylor’s Concordance. Since such illusions carry with them a wicked renunciation of God, no wonder that He would have them punished with death. But since this pestilent crime would be no more tolerable in a man than a woman, it has been probably supposed that the law was directed against women, because their sex is more disposed to superstition. Certainly the same enactment is made respecting males in Deuteronomy 18:1, See ante, vol. 1, p. 426, on Deuteronomy 18:10. only the punishment is not there denounced, but God merely prohibits any of the people from being an enchanter or a witch. Now it is clear that all the kinds which are there recited, are here included under one; so that God would condemn to capital punishment all augurs, and magicians, and consulters with familiar spirits, and necromancers and followers of magic arts, as well as enchanters. And this will appear more plainly from the second and third passages, in which God declares that He “will set. His face against all, that shall turn after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards,” so as to cut them off from His people; and then commands that they should be destroyed by stoning. Wherefore, since it is not just that men should escape with impunity, when the infirmity of women is not spared, nor that dissimilar sentences should be pronounced in similar cases, the same punishment which was decreed against witches and enchantresses, is now extended to either sex, and to all magical superstitions. In the words also “that turneth to go a whoring,” the atrocity of the crime is again expressed, the similitude being taken from immodest women, who seek with wandering glances for the indulgence of their lust. Moses, therefore, signifies that, as soon as we begin to cast our eyes this way and that, and do not keep them fixed on God alone so as to be content with Him, that sacred union “Le mariage spirituel."—Fr. is violated wherein He has bound us to Himself.

Numbers 15

Numbers 15:30, 31

30. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

30. Anima quae fecerit in manu excelsa, tam civis quam peregrinus, ut Jehovam contumelia afficiat, ex-cidetur anima illa e medio populi sui.

31. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

31. Quia sermonem Jehovae contempsit, et praeceptum ejus irritum fecit: excidendo excidetur anima illa: iniquitas ejus in ea.

25. If thou lend money to any of my people Humanity ought to be very greatly regarded in the matter of loans, especially when a person, being reduced to extremities, implores a rich man’s compassion; for this is, in. point of fact, the genuine trial of our charity, when, in accordance with Christ’s precept, we lend to those of whom we expect no return. (Luke 6:35.) The question here is not as to usury, as some have falsely thought, See C. on Luke 6:35. Harmony of the Evang., vol. 1 p. 302. — (Calvin Soc. edit.,) together with the Editor’s note. as if he commanded us to lend gratuitously, and without any hope of gain; but, since in lending, private advantage is most generally sought, and therefore we neglect the poor; and only lend our money to the rich, from whom we expect some compensation, Christ reminds us that, if we seek to acquire the favor of the rich, we afford in this way no proof of our charity or mercy; and hence lie proposes another sort of liberality, which is plainly gratuitous, in giving assistance to the poor, not only because our loan is a perilous one, but because they cannot make a return in kind.

Before descending to speak of loans, God here adverts to poverty and distress, (Leviticus 25:35,) whereby men’s minds may be disposed to compassion. If any one be afflicted with poverty, he commands us to relieve his necessity. He makes use, however, of a metaphor, Margin. A. V., “If his hand faileth, then thou shalt strengthen him.” “When a man is so impoverished that he hath no means, they are commanded to strengthen him, as taking him by the hand; so the Lord is said to strengthen the right hand of Cyrus, when he assisted him against his enemies, Isaiah 45:11, etc.” — Willet, in loco. that he who is tottering should be strengthened, as if by catching hold of his hand. What follows about the stranger and sojourner extends and amplifies, in my opinion, the previous sentence; as if it were said that, since humanity is not to be denied even to strangers, much more is assistance to be given to their brethren. For, when it pleased God that strangers should be permitted to inhabit the land, they were to be kindly treated “Il a entendu qu’on les traittast humainement;” He implied that they should be treated with humanity. — Fr. according to the rights of hospitality; for to allow them to live is to make their condition just and tolerable. And thus God indirectly implies, that such unhappy persons are expelled and driven away, so as not to live, if they are oppressed by unjust burdens. This, then, is the sum of the first sentence, that the rich, who has the ability, should uplift the poor man who is failing, by his assistance, or should strengthen the tottering.

A precept is added as to lending without interest, which, although it is a political law, still depends on the rule of charity; inasmuch as it can scarcely happen but that the poor should be entirely drained by the exaction of interest, and that their blood should be almost sucked away. Nor had God any other object in view, except that mutual and brotherly affection should prevail amongst the Israelites. It is plain that this was a part of the Jewish polity, because it was lawful to lend at interest to the Gentiles, which distinction the spiritual law does not admit. The judicial law, however, which God prescribed to His ancient people, is only so far abrogated as that what charity dictates should remain, i.e., that our brethren, who need our assistance, are not to be treated harshly. Moreover, since the wall of partition, which formerly separated Jew and Gentile, is now broken down, our condition is now different; and consequently we must spare all without exception, both as regards taking interest, and any other mode of extortion; and equity is to be observed even towards strangers. “The household of faith.” indeed, holds the first rank, since Paul commands us specially to do good to them, (Galatians 6:10;) still the common society of the human race demands that we should not seek to grow rich by the loss of others.

As touching the political law, no wonder that God should have permitted His people to receive interest, from the Gentiles, since otherwise a just reciprocity would not have been preserved, without which one party must needs be injured. God commands His people not to practice usury, and still lays the Jews alone, and not foreign nations, under the obligation of this law. In order, therefore, that equality (ratio analogica) might be preserved, He accords “Il permet aux Juifs pareille liberte envers les nations estranges, que les Payens se donnoyent envers les Juifs; “He permits the Jews to have equal liberty with respect to foreign nations, with that which the heathen gave themselves with respect to the Jews. — Fr. the same liberty to His people which the Gentiles would assume for themselves; for this is the only intercourse that can be endured, when the condition of both parties is similar and equal. For when Plato Πολιτεία Γ. in fin. asserts that usurers are not to be tolerated in a well-ordered republic, lie does not go further than to enjoin, that its citizens should abstain from that base and. dishonest traffic between each other.

The question now is, whether usury is evil in itself; and surely that which heathens even have detested appears to be by no means lawful to the children of God. We know that the name of usurer has everywhere and always been infamous and detested. Thus Cato, “Furem dupli condenmari, foeneratorem quadrupli.” Cato de R. Rust. in procem. “Ex quo genere comparationis illud est Catonis senis; a quo quum quaereretur, quid maxime in re familiari expediret, respondit, Bene pascere. Quid secundum? Satis bene pascere. Quid tertium? Male pascere. Quid quartum? orare. Et, cum ille, qui quaesierat, dixisset, Quid foenerari? Tum Cato, Quid hominem, inquit, occidere?” Cic. de Off. 2:24. desiring to commend agriculture, says that thieves were formerly condemned to a fine of double, and usurers quadruple; from which he infers, that the latter were deemed the worst. And when asked what he thought of usury, he replied, “What do I think of killing a man?” whereby he wished to show, that it was as improper to make money by usury as to commit murder. This was the swing of one private individual, yet it is derived from the opinions of almost all nations and persons. And assuredly from this cause great tumults often arose at Rome, and fatal contentions were awakened between the common people and the rich; since it can hardly be but that usurers suck men’s blood like leeches. But if we come to an accurate decision as to the thing itself, our determination must be derived from nowhere else than the universal rule of justice, and especially from the declaration of Christ, on which hang the law and the prophets, — Do not unto others what ye would not have done to thyself. (Matthew 7:12.) For crafty men are for ever inventing some little subterfuge or other to deceive God. Thus, when all men detested the word foenus, another was substituted, which might avoid unpopularity under an honest pretext; for they called it usury, as being a compensation for the loss a man had incurred by losing the use of his money. But In Fr. the following sentence is here inserted: — “Ce titre la doncques a este favorable: comme en nostre langage Francois le mot d’Usure sera assez en horreur, mais les interests ont la vogue sous nulle difficulte ni scrupule:” This title then was an euphemism, as in our French language, the word Usury will be sufficiently dreaded, whilst Interest is current without difficulty or scruple. Say. Econ. Polit. B. 2 Ch. 8 Section 1., tells us that, “L’interet...s’appelait, auparavant usure, et c’etait le mot propre, puisque l’interet est un prix, un loyer qu’on paie pour avoir la jouissance d’une valeur. Mais ce mot est devenu odieux; il ne reveille plus que l’idee d’un interet illegal, exorbitant, et on lui en a substitue un autre plus honnete et moins expressif selon la coutume.” there is no description of foenus to which this specious name may not be extended; for whosoever has any ready money, and is about to lend it, he will allege that it would be profitable to himself if he were to purchase “Terre ou marchandise.” — Fr. something with it, and that at every moment opportunities of gain are presenting themselves. Thus there will be always ground for his seeking compensation, since no creditor could ever lend money without loss to himself. Thus usury, “Ainsi, combien que ce nom d’Usure ait este favorable de soy du commencement, en la fin il a este diffame;” Thus, although this word Usury was of no ill meaning in its origin, in the end it has been abused. — Fr. since the word is equivalent to foenus, is but a covering for an odious practice, as if such glosses would deliver us in God’s judgment, where nothing but absolute integrity can avail for our defense. There was almost a similar mode of subterfuge among the Israelites. The name נש5, neschec, which is derived from biting, sounded badly; since then no one chose to be likened to a hungry dog, who fed himself by biting others, some escape from the reproach was sought; and they called whatever gain they received beyond the capital, תרבית, therbith, as being an increase. But God, in order to prevent such deception, unites the two words, (Leviticus 25:36,) and condemns the increase as well as the biting. For, where He complains of their unjust modes of spoiling and thieving in Ezekiel, See C. on Ezekiel 18:5-9, where the subject is more fully discussed. C. Soc. Edit. vol. 2 p. 225, et seq. See also Mr. Myers’s Dissertation, ibid., p. 469. and uses both words as He does here by Moses, there is no doubt but that He designedly cuts off their empty excuses. (Ezekiel 18:13.) Lest any, therefore, should reply, that although he derived advantage from his money, he was not on that account guilty of usury, God at once removes this pretense, and condemns in general any addition to the principal. Assuredly both passages clearly show that those who invent new words in excuse of evil, do nothing but vainly trifle. I have, then, admonished men that the fact itself is simply to be considered, that all unjust gains are ever displeasing to God, whatever color we endeavor to give to it. But if we would form an equitable judgment, reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception. If the debtor have protracted the time by false pretences to the loss and inconvenience of his creditor, will it be consistent that he should reap advantage from his bad faith and broken promises? Certainly no one, I think, will deny that usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal, to compensate his loss. Addition in Fr., “Je say qu’on nomme cela Interest, mais ce m’est tout un:” I know that they call this interest, but this is all the same to me. If any rich and monied man, wishing to buy a piece of land, should borrow some part of the sum required of another, may not he who lends the money receive some part of the revenues of the farm until the principal shall be repaid? Many such cases daily occur in which, as far as equity is concerned, usury is no worse than purchase. Nor will that subtle argument Polit., lib. 1. cap. 10. “The enemies to interest in general, (says Blackstone,) make no distinction between that and usury, holding any m-crease of money to be indefensibly usurious. And this they ground, as well on the prohibition of it by the Law of Moses among the Jews, as also upon what is said to be laid down by Aristotle, that money is naturally barren, and to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion of the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purposes of exchange, and not of increase.” The hypothetical form in which he attributes this dictum to Aristotle, he explains in a note to be, because “this passage hath been suspected to be spurious.” — Comment, on the Laws of England, b. 2. ch. 30 sec. 454. of Aristotle avail, that usury is unnatural, because money is barren and does not beget money; for such a cheat as I have spoken of, might make much profit by trading with another man’s money, and the purchaser of the farm might in the meantime reap and gather his vintage. But those who think differently, may object, that we must abide by God’s judgment, when He generally prohibits all usury to His people. I reply, that the question is only as to the poor, and consequently, if we have to do with the rich, that usury is freely permitted; because the Lawgiver, in alluding to one thing, seems not to condemn another, concerning which He is silent. If again they object that usurers are absolutely condemned by David and Ezekiel, (Psalm 15:5; Ezekiel 18:13,) I think that their declarations ought to be judged of by the rule of charity; and therefore that only those unjust exactions are condemned whereby the creditor, losing’ sight of equity, burdens and oppresses his debtor. I should, indeed, be unwilling to take usury under my patronage, and I wish the name itself were banished from the world; but I do not dare to pronounce upon so important a point more than God’s words convey. It is abundantly clear that the ancient people were prohibited from usury, but we must needs confess that this was a part of their political constitution. Hence it follows, that usury is not now unlawful, except in so far as it contravenes equity and brotherly union. Let each one, then, place himself before God’s judgment-seat, and not do to his neighbor what he would not have done to himself, from whence a sure and infallible decision may be come to. To exercise the trade of usury, since heathen writers accounted it amongst disgraceful and base modes of gain, is much less tolerable among the children of God; but in what cases, and how far it may be lawful to receive usury upon loans, the law of equity will better prescribe than any lengthened discussions.

Let us now examine the words. In the first place, where we have translated the words, “Thou shalt not be to him as a usurer,” C. here uses the word foenerator; whereas his translation is, it will be seen, usurarius. there is some ambiguity in the Hebrew word נש5, nashac, for it is sometimes used generally for to lend, without any ill meaning; but here it is undoubtedly applied to a usurer, who bites the poor; as also in Psalm 109:11, “Let the usurer catch all that he hath.” A. V., “The extortioner.” The sum is, that the poor are to be liberally aided, and not to be oppressed by harsh exactions: and therefore immediately afterwards it is added, “neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” When again He repeats, “And if thy brother be waxen poor,” etc., we see that reference is everywhere made to the poor; because, although sometimes those who possess large properties are ruined by usury, (as Cicero says that certain luxurious and prodigal persons ill his days contended against usury with the fruits of their farms, because their creditors swallowed up the whole produce; “Neque id (quod stultissimum est) certare cum usuris fructibus praediorurn.” Cic. Or. in Cat. 2da. 8, i.e., says Facciolati in voce certo, “tot usuris se onerare, ut praediorum fructus exaequent: qua ratione fructus cum usuris committuntur, et certant, et plerumque superantur, quia usurae quotannis certae sunt, fructus autem incerti.” Fr., “Car combien que ceux qui possedent beaucoup soyent aucunefois epuisez, pource qu’ils ne sont que receveurs de ceux auxquels ils doyvent;” for, although those who possess much are often ruined, because they are only the receivers of their creditors, etc. ) still the poor alone, who had been compelled to borrow by want, and not by luxury, were worthy of compassion.

The third passage, however, admirably explains the meaning of God, since it extends usury to corn and wine, and all other articles. For many contracts were invented by artful men, whereby they pillaged the needy without ignominy or disgrace: and now-a-days no rapacity is more cruel than that which imposes a payment upon debtors, without any mention of usury; for instance, if a poor man should ask the loan of six measures of wheat, the creditor will require seven to be repaid; or if the same thing should happen as regards wine. This profit will not be called usury, because no money will pass; but God, indirectly casting ridicule upon their craftiness, shows that this plague of usury Foenebre malum.” — Lat. “Ceste vermine d’usure.” — Fr. extends itself to various things, and to almost all sorts of traffic; whence it clearly appears that nothing else is prescribed to the Israelites, but that they should humanely assist each other. But, since cupidity blinds men, and carries them, aside to dishonest dealings, God sets His blessing in opposition to all such iniquitous arts, whereby they hawk, as it were, for gain; and commands them to look for riches rather to Him the author of all good things, than to hunt for them by rapine and fraud.

Deuteronomy 22

Deuteronomy 22:1-3

1. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.

1. Non videbis bovem fratris tui aut pecudem errantes, et abscondes te ab eis: reducendo reduces ad fratrem tuum.

2. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not; then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.

2. Etiam si non fuerit frater tuus propinquus tibi, neque noveris eum, colliges tamen illos in domum tuam, et erunt tecum donec requirat frater tuus ut restituas ei.

3. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself.

3. Sic facies de asino ejus, sic facies de vestimento ejus, sic facies de omni re amissa fratris tui quae perierit ab ipso: si inveneris eam, non occultabis te.

Exodus 23

Exodus 23:4

4. If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

4. Si occurreris bovi inimici tui, et asino ejus erranti, reducendo reduces ad illum.

Exodus 22:28. Thou shalt not revile the gods. These four passages confirm what I have said, that in the: Fifth Commandment are comprised, by synecdoche all superiors in authority.: For it was not the design of God to add to the Two Tables, as if something better and more perfect had afterwards come into His mind; which it is sinful to suppose. He was therefore content with the rule once laid down, although He afterwards spoke in a more explanatory manner. But the precepts here given would be unconnected with the Law, if they were not an adjunct, and therefore a part, of the Fifth Commandment.

First of all, He commands that we should think and speak reverently of judges, and others, who exercise the office of magistrate: nor is it to be questioned, that, in the ordinary idiom of the Hebrew language, He repeats the same thing twice over; and consequently that the same persons are called “gods,” and “rulers of the people.” The name of God is, figuratively indeed, but most reasonably, applied to magistrates, upon whom, as the ministers of His authority, He has inscribed a mark of His glory. For, as we have seen that honor is due to fathers, because God has associated them with Himself in the possession of the name, so also here His own dignity is claimed for judges, in order that the people may reverence them, because they are God’s representatives, as His lieutenants, and vicars. And so Christ, the surest expositor, explains it, when He quotes the passage from Psalm 82:6, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High,” (John 10:34,) viz., “that they are called gods, unto whom the word of God came,” which is to be understood not of the general instruction addressed to all God’s children, but of the special command to rule.

It is a signal exaltation of magistrates, that God should not only count them in the place of parents, but present them to us dignified by His own name; whence also it clearly appears that they are not to be obeyed only from fear of punishment, “but also for conscience sake,” (Romans 13:5,) and to be reverently honored, lest God should be despised in them. If any should object, that it would be wrong to praise the vices of those whom we perceive to abuse their power; the answer is easy, that although judges are to be borne with even if they be not the best, “Encore qu’ils ne sont pas tels qu’ils devroyent;” even though they be not what they should. — Fr. still that the honor with which they are invested, is not a covering for vice. Nor does God command us to applaud their faults, but that the people should rather deplore them in silent sorrow, than raise disturbances in a licentious and seditious spirit, and so subvert political government.

Leviticus 19

Leviticus 19:32

32. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.

32. Ante canitiem assurge, et honora faciem senis, metueque Deum tuum: ego Jehova.

29. Thou shalt not delay. We may gather from this passage that the first-fruits were offered, to the end that the Israelites should devote themselves and their possessions to God; for Moses enjoins these two things in conjunction, that they should not delay to consecrate to God of the abundance of their fresh fruits, and their first-born. But we know that, in offering the first-born, the recollection of their deliverance was revived, by the acknowledgment of the preservation of their race, and of their cattle. And there was, moreover, added to the grace of their redemption, the continual supply of food to them from day to day. I do not assent to their opinion who restrict the word fullness Vide margin, — A. V. to wine, because it flows more abundantly from the press, and take the word tear Vide margin, — A. V. to mean oil, because it runs less freely; nor do I approve of their notion who apply fullness only to dry fruits. It seems to me more proper to take fullness as the generic term, whilst tear is taken to denote liquids, as if Moses commanded them not only to offer grapes, and olive-berries, but the very drops which were expressed from the fruit. The other passages confirm this command, that they should not defraud God of the first-fruits, and so bury the remembrance of their redemption, and profane themselves in their very eating and drinking, but rather by this portion of the fruits sanctify the food of the whole year. Nor is it causelessly that Moses so often inculcates a point by no means obscure, since all these admonitions were despised and neglected by the Jews, as soon as they had returned from the Babylonish captivity, as Malachi complains in his third chapter.

Another Supplement

as to the Purification of Women after their Confinement

(Heading from the French, “Autre dependence de purifier les femmes apres leur enfantement.”)

Leviticus 12

Leviticus 12:1-8

1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

1. Et loquutus est Jehova ad Mosen, dicendo:

2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man-child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

2. Loquere ad filios Israel, dicendo, Muller si misso semine conceperit, et pepererit masculum, immunda erit septem diebus: juxta dies separationis morbi sui immunda erit.

3. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

3. Porro die octavo circuncidetur caro praeputii ejus.

4. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days: she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

4. Et triginta tribus diebus sedebit in sanguine purificationis: nullam rem sacram tanget, et ad sanctuarium non veniet, donec completi fuerint dies purificationis suae.

5. But if she bear a maid-child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

5. Quod si foeminam pepererit, immunda erit duabus hebdomadibus, secundum separationem suam, et sexaginta sex diebus sedebit in sanguine purificationis suae.

6. And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

6. Postquam autem impleti fuetint dies purificationis suae pro filio vel pro filia, afferet agnum anniculum in holocaustum, et pullum columbae, aut turturem, in oblationem pro peccato, ad ostium tabernaculi conventionis ad sacerdotem.

7. Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

7. Et offeret ipsum coram Jehova: et expiabit earn, et mundabitur a vena sanguinis sui. Haec est lex parientis masculum vel foeminam.

8. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

8. Quod si non potuerit offerre agnum, tune accipiet duos turtures, aut duos pullos columbae, unum in holocaustum, et alterum ad oblationem pro peccato: expiabitque eam sacerdos, et mundabitur.

CHAPTER 22

Ex 22:1-31. Laws concerning Theft.

1-4. If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep--The law respects the theft of cattle which constituted the chief part of their property. The penalty for the theft of a sheep which was slain or sold, was fourfold; for an ox fivefold, because of its greater utility in labor; but, should the stolen animal have been recovered alive, a double compensation was all that was required, because it was presumable he (the thief) was not a practised adept in dishonesty. A robber breaking into a house at midnight might, in self-defense, be slain with impunity; but if he was slain after sunrise, it would be considered murder, for it was not thought likely an assault would then be made upon the lives of the occupants. In every case where a thief could not make restitution, he was sold as a slave for the usual term.

6. If fire break out, and catch in thorns--This refers to the common practice in the East of setting fire to the dry grass before the fall of the autumnal rains, which prevents the ravages of vermin, and is considered a good preparation of the ground for the next crop. The very parched state of the herbage and the long droughts of summer, make the kindling of a fire an operation often dangerous, and always requiring caution from its liability to spread rapidly.

stacks--or as it is rendered "shocks" (Jud 15:5; Job 5:26), means simply a bundle of loose sheaves.

26-27. If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, &c.--From the nature of the case, this is the description of a poor man. No Orientals undress, but, merely throwing off their turbans and some of their heavy outer garments, they sleep in the clothes which they wear during the day. The bed of the poor is usually nothing else than a mat; and, in winter, they cover themselves with a cloak--a practice which forms the ground or reason of the humane and merciful law respecting the pawned coat.

28. gods--a word which is several times in this chapter rendered "judges" or magistrates.

the ruler of thy people--and the chief magistrate who was also the high priest, at least in the time of Paul (Ac 23:1-5).

If a man shall steal - This chapter consists chiefly of judicial laws, as the preceding chapter does of political; and in it the same good sense, and well-marked attention to the welfare of the community and the moral improvement of each individual, are equally evident.

In our translation of this verse, by rendering different Hebrew words by the same term in English, we have greatly obscured the sense. I shall produce the verse with the original words which I think improperly translated, because one English term is used for two Hebrew words, which in this place certainly do not mean the same thing. If a man shall steal an ox (שור shor) or a sheep, (שה seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (בקר bakar) for an ox, (שור shor), and four sheep (צאן tson) for a sheep (שה seh). I think it must appear evident that the sacred writer did not intend that these words should be understood as above. A shor certainly is different from a bakar, and a seh from a tson. Where the difference in every case lies, wherever these words occur, it is difficult to say. The shor and the bakar are doubtless creatures of the beeve kind, and are used in different parts of the sacred writings to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer, and the calf. The seh and the tson are used to signify the ram, the wether, the ewe, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. And the latter word צאן tson seems frequently to signify the flock, composed of either of these lesser cattle, or both sorts conjoined.

As שור shor is used, Job 21:10, for a bull probably it may mean so here. If a man steal a Bull he shall give five Oxen for him, which we may presume was no more than his real value, as very few bulls could be kept in a country destitute of horses, where oxen were so necessary to till the ground. For though some have imagined that there were no castrated cattle among the Jews, yet this cannot be admitted on the above reason; for as they had no horses, and bulls would have been unmanageable and dangerous, they must have had oxen for the purposes of agriculture. Tson צאן is used for a flock either of sheep or goats, and seh שה for an individual of either species. For every seh, four, taken indifferently from the tson or flock must be given; i.e., a sheep stolen might be recompensed with four out of the flock, whether of sheep or goats: so that a goat might be compensated with four sheep, or a sheep with four goats.

If a thief be found - If a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed; but not if the sun had risen, for then he might be known and taken, and the restitution made which is mentioned in the succeeding verse. So by the law of England it is a burglary to break and enter a house by night; and "anciently the day was accounted to begin only from sunrising, and to end immediately upon sunset: but it is now generally agreed that if there be daylight enough begun or left, either by the light of the sun or twilight, whereby the countenance of a person may reasonably be discerned, it is no burglary; but that this does not extend to moonlight, for then many midnight burglaries would go unpunished. And besides, the malignity of the offense does not so properly arise, as Mr. Justice Blackstone observes, from its being done in the dark, as at the dead of night when all the creation except beasts of prey are at rest; when sleep has disarmed the owner, and rendered his castle defenceless." - East's Pleas of the Crown, vol. ii., p. 509.

He shall restore double - In no case of theft was the life of the offender taken away; the utmost that the law says on this point is, that, if when found breaking into a house, he should be smitten so as to die, no blood should be shed for him; Exo 22:2. If he had stolen and sold the property, then he was to restore four or fivefold, Exo 22:1; but if the animal was found alive in his possession, he was to restore double.

If fire break out - Mr. Harmer observes that it is a common custom in the east to set the dry herbage on fire before the autumnal rains, which fires, for want of care, often do great damage: and in countries where great drought prevails, and the herbage is generally parched, great caution was peculiarly necessary; and a law to guard against such evils, and to punish inattention and neglect, was highly expedient. See Harmer's Observat., vol. iii., p. 310, etc.

Deliver unto his neighbor - This is called pledging in the law of bailments; it is a deposit of goods by a debtor to his creditor, to be kept till the debt be discharged. Whatever goods were thus left in the hands of another person, that person, according to the Mosaic law, became responsible for them; if they were stolen, and the thief was found, he was to pay double; if he could not be found, the oath of the person who had them in keeping, made before the magistrates, that he knew nothing of them, was considered a full acquittance. Among the Romans, if goods were lost which a man had entrusted to his neighbor, the depositary was obliged to pay their full value. But if a man had been driven by necessity, as in case of fire, to lodge his goods with one of his neighbors, and the goods were lost, the depositary was obliged to pay double their value, because of his unfaithfulness in a case of such distress, where his dishonesty, connected with the destruction by the fire, had completed the ruin of the sufferer. To this case the following law is applicable: Cum quis fidem elegit, nec depositum redditur, contentus esse debet simplo: cum vero extante necessitate deponat, crescit perfidia crimen, etc. - Digest., lib. xvi., tit. 3, 1. 1.

Unto the judges - See Clarke's note on Exo 21:6.

Challengeth to be his - It was necessary that such a matter should come before the judges, because the person in whose possession the goods were found might have had them by a fair and honest purchase; and, by sifting the business, the thief might be found out, and if found, be obliged to pay double to his neighbor.

An oath of the Lord be between them - So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbor's goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses.

If it be torn in pieces - let him bring it for witness - Rather, Let him bring עד הטרפה ed hatterephah, a testimony or evidence of the torn thing, such as the horns, hoofs, etc. This is still a law in some countries among graziers: if a horse, cow, sheep, or goat, entrusted to them, be lost, and the keeper asserts it was devoured by dogs, etc., the law obliges him to produce the horns and hoofs, because on these the owner's mark is generally found. If these can be produced, the keeper is acquitted by the law. The ear is often the place marked, but this is not absolutely required, because a ravenous beast may eat the ear as well as any other part, but he cannot eat the horns or the hoofs. It seems however that in after times two of the legs and the ear were required as evidences to acquit the shepherd of all guilt. See Amo 3:12.

If a man entice a maid - This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take the advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented; and if they did not consent that their daughter should wed her seducer, in this case he was obliged to give her the full dowry which could have been demanded had she been still a virgin. According to the Targumist here, and to Deu 22:29, the dowry was fifty shekels of silver, which the seducer was to pay to her father, and he was obliged to take her to wife; nor had he authority, according to the Jewish canons, ever to put her away by a bill of divorce. This one consideration was a powerful curb on disorderly passions, and must tend greatly to render marriages respectable, and prevent all crimes of this nature.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - If there had been no witches, such a law as this had never been made. The existence of the law, given under the direction of the Spirit of God, proves the existence of the thing. It has been doubted whether מכשפה mecash-shephah, which we translate witch, really means a person who practiced divination or sorcery by spiritual or infernal agency. Whether the persons thus denominated only pretended to have an art which had no existence, or whether they really possessed the power commonly attributed to them, are questions which it would be improper to discuss at length in a work of this kind; but that witches, wizards, those who dealt with familiar spirits, etc., are represented in the sacred writings as actually possessing a power to evoke the dead, to perform, supernatural operations, and to discover hidden or secret things by spells, charms, incantations, etc., is evident to every unprejudiced reader of the Bible. Of Manasseh it is said: He caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times [ועונן, veonen, he used divination by clouds] and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, [וכשף vechishsheph], and dealt with a familiar spirit, [ועשה אוב veasah ob, performed a variety of operations by means of what was afterwards called the πνευμα πυθωνος, the spirit of Python], and with wizards, [ידעוני yiddeoni, the wise or knowing ones]; and he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord; 2Chr 33:6. It is very likely that the Hebrew כשף cashaph, and the Arabic cashafa, had originally the same meaning, to uncover, to remove a veil, to manifest, reveal, make bare or naked; and mecashefat is used to signify commerce with God. See Wilmet and Giggeius. The mecashshephah or witch, therefore, was probably a person who professed to reveal hidden mysteries, by commerce with God, or the invisible world.

From the severity of this law against witches, etc., we may see in what light these were viewed by Divine justice. They were seducers of the people from their allegiance to God, on whose judgment alone they should depend; and by impiously prying into futurity, assumed an attribute of God, the foretelling of future events, which implied in itself the grossest blasphemy, and tended to corrupt the minds of the people, by leading them away from God and the revelation he had made of himself. Many of the Israelites had, no doubt, learned these curious arts from their long residence with the Egyptians; and so much were the Israelites attached to them, that we find such arts in repute among them, and various practices of this kind prevailed through the whole of the Jewish history, notwithstanding the offense was capital, and in all cases punished with death.

Lieth with a beast - If this most abominable crime had not been common, it never would have been mentioned in a sacred code of laws. It is very likely that it was an Egyptian practice; and it is certain, from an account in Sonnini's Travels, that it is practiced in Egypt to the present day.

Utterly destroyed - The word חרם cherem denotes a thing utterly and finally separated from God and devoted to destruction, without the possibility of redemption.

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him - This was not only a very humane law, but it was also the offspring of a sound policy: "Do not vex a stranger; remember ye were strangers. Do not oppress a stranger; remember ye were oppressed. Therefore do unto all men as ye would they should do to you." It was the produce of a sound policy: "Let strangers be well treated among you, and many will come to take refuge among you, and thus the strength of your country will be increased. If refugees of this kind be treated well, they will become proselytes to your religion, and thus their souls may be saved." In every point of view, therefore, justice, humanity, sound policy, and religion, say. Neither vex nor oppress a stranger.

Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child - It is remarkable that offenses against this law are not left to the discretion of the judges to be punished; God reserves the punishment to himself, and by this he strongly shows his abhorrence of the crime. It is no common crime, and shall not be punished in a common way; the wrath of God shall wax hot against him who in any wise afflicts or wrongs a widow or a fatherless child: and we may rest assured that he who helps either does a service highly acceptable in the sight of God.

Neither shalt thou lay upon him usury - נשך neshech, from nashach, to bite, cut, or pierce with the teeth; biting usury. So the Latins call it usura vorax, devouring usury. "The increase of usury is called נשך neshech, because it resembles the biting of a serpent; for as this is so small as scarcely to be perceptible at first, but the venom soon spreads and diffuses itself till it reaches the vitals, so the increase of usury, which at first is not perceived nor felt, at length grows so much as by degrees to devour another's substance." - Leigh.

It is evident that what is here said must be understood of accumulated usury, or what we call compound interest only; and accordingly נשך neshech is mentioned with and distinguished from תרביה tarbith and מרביה marbith, interest or simple interest, Lev 25:36, Lev 25:37; Pro 28:8; Eze 18:8, Eze 18:13, Eze 18:17, and Exo 22:12 - Parkhurst.

Perhaps usury may be more properly defined unlawful interest, receiving more for the loan of money than it is really worth, and more than the law allows. It is a wise regulation in the laws of England, that if a man be convicted of usury - taking unlawful interest, the bond or security is rendered void, and he forfeits treble the sum borrowed. Against such an oppressive practice the wisdom of God saw it essentially necessary to make a law to prevent a people, who were naturally what our Lord calls the Pharisees, φιλαργυροι, lovers of money, (Luk 16:14), from oppressing each other; and who, notwithstanding the law in the text, practice usury in all places of their dispersion to the present day.

If thou - take thy neighbor's raiment to pledge - It seems strange that any pledge should be taken which must be so speedily restored; but it is very likely that the pledge was restored by night only, and that he who pledged it brought it back to his creditor next morning. The opinion of the rabbins is, that whatever a man needed for the support of life, he had the use of it when absolutely necessary, though it was pledged. Thus he had the use of his working tools by day, but he brought them to his creditor in the evening. His hyke, which serves an Arab as a plaid does a Highlander, (See Clarke's note on Exo 12:34), was probably the raiment here referred to: it is a sort of coarse blanket, about six yards long, and five or six feet broad, which an Arab always carries with him, and on which he sleeps at night, it being his only substitute for a bed. As the fashions in the east scarcely ever change, it is very likely that the raiment of the Israelites was precisely the same with that of the modern Arabs, who live in the very same desert in which the Hebrews were when this law was given. How necessary it was to restore the hyke to a poor man before the going down of the sun, that he might have something to repose on, will appear evident from the above considerations. At the same time, the returning it daily to the creditor was a continual acknowledgment of the debt, and served instead of a written acknowledgment or bond; as we may rest assured that writing, if practiced at all before the giving of the law, was not common: but it is most likely that it did not exist.

Thou shalt not revile the gods - Most commentators believe that the word gods here means magistrates. The original is אלהים Elohim, and should be understood of the true God only: Thou shalt not blaspheme or make light of [תקלל tekallel] God, the fountain of justice and power, nor curse the ruler of thy people, who derives his authority from God. We shall ever find that he who despises a good civil government, and is disaffected to that under which he lives, is one who has little fear of God before his eyes. The spirit of disaffection and sedition is ever opposed to the religion of the Bible. When those who have been pious get under the spirit of misrule, they infallibly get shorn of their spiritual strength, and become like salt that has lost its savor. He who can indulge himself in speaking evil of the civil ruler, will soon learn to blaspheme God. The highest authority says, Fear God: honor the king.

The first of thy ripe fruits - This offering was a public acknowledgment of the bounty and goodness of God, who had given them their proper seed time, the first and the latter rain, and the appointed weeks of harvest.

From the practice of the people of God the heathens borrowed a similar one, founded on the same reason. The following passage from Censorinus, De Die Natali, is beautiful, and worthy of the deepest attention: -

Illi enim (majores nostri) qui alimenta, patriam, lucem, se denique ipsos deorum dono habebant, ex omnibus aliquid diis sacrabant, magis adeo, ut se gratos approbarent, quam quod deos arbitrarentur hoc indigere. Itaque cum perceperant fruges, antequam vescerentur, Diis libare instituerunt: et cum agros atque urbes, deorum munera, possiderent, partem quandam templis sacellisque, ubi eos colerent, dicavere. "Our ancestors, who held their food, their country, the light, and all that they possessed, from the bounty of the gods, consecrated to them a part of all their property, rather as a token of their gratitude, than from a conviction that the gods needed any thing. Therefore as soon as the harvest was got in, before they had tasted of the fruits, they appointed libations to be made to the gods. And as they held their fields and cities as gifts from their gods, they consecrated a certain part for temples and shrines, where they might worship them."

Pliny is express on the same point, who attests that the Romans never tasted either their new corn or wine, till the priests had offered the First-Fruits to the gods. Acts ne degustabant quidem, novas fruges aut vina, antequam sacerdotes Primitias Libassent. Hist. Nat., lib. xviii., c. 2.

Horace bears the same testimony, and shows that his countrymen offered, not only their first-fruits, but the choicest of all their fruits, to the Lares or household gods; and he shows also the wickedness of those who sent these as presents to the rich, before the gods had been thus honored: -

Dulcia poma,

Et quoscumque feret cultus tibi fundus honores,

Ante Larem gustet venerabilior Lare dives.

Sat., lib. ii., s. v., ver. 12. "What your garden yields,

The choicest honors of your cultured fields,

To him be sacrificed, and let him taste,

Before your gods, the vegetable feast."

Dunkin.

And to the same purpose Tibullus, in one of the most beautiful of his elegies: -

Et quodcumque mihi pomum novus educat annus,

Libatum agricolae ponitur ante deo.

Flava Ceres, tibi sit nostro de rure corona

Spicea, quae templi pendeat ante fores.

Eleg., lib. i., eleg. i. ver. 13. "My grateful fruits, the earliest of the year,

Before the rural god shall daily wait.

From Ceres' gifts I'll cull each browner ear,

And hang a wheaten wreath before her gate."

Grainger.

The same subject he touches again in the fifth elegy of the same book, where he specifies the different offerings made for the produce of the fields, of the flocks, and of the vine, ver. 27: -

Illa deo sciet agricolae pro vitibus uvam,

Pro segete spicas, pro grege ferre dapem. "With pious care will load each rural shrine,

For ripen'd crops a golden sheaf assign,

Cates for my fold, rich clusters for my wine.

Id. - See Calmet.

These quotations will naturally recall to our memory the offerings of Cain and Abel, mentioned Gen 4:3, Gen 4:4.

The rejoicings at our harvest-home are distorted remains of that gratitude which our ancestors, with all the primitive inhabitants of the earth, expressed to God with appropriate signs and ceremonies. Is it not possible to restore, in some goodly form, a custom so pure, so edifying, and so becoming? There is a laudable custom, observed by some pious people, of dedicating a new house to God by prayer, etc., which cannot be too highly commended.

Seven days it shall be with his dam - For the mother's health it was necessary that the young one should suck so long; and prior to this time the process of nutrition in a young animal can scarcely be considered as completely formed. Among the Romans lambs were not considered as pure or clean before the eighth day; nor calves before the thirtieth: Pecoris faetus die octavo purus est, bovis trigesimo - Plin. Hist. Nat., lib. viii.

Neither shall ye eat - flesh - torn of beasts in the field - This has been supposed to be an ordinance against eating flesh cut off the animal while alive, and so the Syriac seems to have understood it. If we can credit Mr. Bruce, this is a frequent custom in Abyssinia; but human nature revolts from it. The reason of the prohibition against eating the flesh of animals that had been torn, or as we term it worried in the field, appears to have been simply this: That the people might not eat the blood, which in this case must be coagulated in the flesh; and the blood, being the life of the beast, and emblematical of the blood of the covenant, was ever to be held sacred, and was prohibited from the days of Noah. See Clarke's note on Gen 9:4.

In the conclusion of this chapter we see the grand reason of all the ordinances and laws which it contains. No command was issued merely from the sovereignty of God. He gave them to the people as restraints on disorderly passions, and incentives to holiness; and hence he says, Ye shall be holy men unto me. Mere outward services could neither please him nor profit them; for from the very beginning of the world the end of the commandment was love out of a pure heart and good conscience, and faith unfeigned, 1Tim 1:5. And without these accompaniments no set of religious duties, however punctually performed, could be pleasing in the sight of that God who seeks truth in the inward parts, and in whose eyes the faith that worketh by love is alone valuable. A holy heart and a holy, useful life God invariably requires in all his worshippers. Reader, how standest thou in his sight?

Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep - More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If we were not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money. Thus with us in some cases, felons are transported to the Plantations, where only, Englishmen know what slavery is. But let it be observed, the sentence is not slavery, but banishment: nor can any Englishman be sold, unless he first indent himself to the captain that carries him over.

If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head. But if it were in the day - time that the thief was killed, he that killed him was accountable for it, unless it were in the necessary defence of his own life.

For he should make full restitution - This the law determined: not that he should die.

In his hand alive - Not killed, nor sold, as Ex 22:1, so that the owner recover it with less charge and trouble.

He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field, must make restitution of the best of his own. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule, that restitution must always be made of the best; and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbour, or do him any damage.

He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessary to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

If a man deliver goods, suppose to a carrier to be conveyed, or to a warehouse - keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed upon a valuable consideration, and a special confidence reposed in the person they are lodged with; in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to his trust must be compelled to make satisfaction.

If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbour, if the owner were with it, or were to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befel the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of it: but if the owner were so kind to the borrower as to lend it him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. Learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent to us; it is not only unjust but base and disingenuous, we should much rather chuse to lose ourselves, than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us.

If the father refused, he shall pay money - This shews how ill a thing it is, and by no means to be allowed, that children should marry without their parents consent: even here where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong, and a recompence to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father's power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.

Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine providence, wages war with God's government, puts his work into the devil's hand expecting him to do good and evil. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating or employing any evil spirit to any intent whatever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. This was the case in former times. But we are wiser than our fore - fathers. We believe, no witch ever did live! At least, not for these thousand years.

A stranger must not be abused, not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, nor any advantage taken of his ignorance or necessity, no, nor must he be taunted, or upbraided with his being a stranger; for all these were vexations. For ye were strangers in Egypt - And knew what it was to be vexed and oppressed there. Those that have themselves been in poverty and distress, if Providence enrich and enlarge them, ought to shew a particular tenderness towards those that are now in such circumstances as they were in formerly, now doing to them as they then wished to be done by.

Ye shall not afflict the widow or fatherless child - That is, ye shall comfort and assist them, and be ready upon all occasions to shew them kindness. In making just demands from them, their condition must be considered who have lost those that should protect them: they are supposed to be unversed in business, destitute of advice, timorous, and of a tender spirit; and therefore must be treated with kindness and compassion, and no advantage taken against them, nor any hardship put upon them, which a husband or a father would have sheltered them from.

If thou lend - They must not receive use for money from any that borrowed for necessity. And such provision the law made for the preserving estates to their families by the year of Jubilee, that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity; therefore it was generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger they were allowed to lend upon usury. This law therefore in the strictness of it seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state; but in the equity of it, it obligeth us to shew mercy to those we have advantage against, and to be content to share with those we lend to in loss as well as profit, if Providence cross them: and upon this condition it seems as lawful to receive interest for my money, which another takes pains with, and improves, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pains with, and improves, for his own use. They must not take a poor man's bed - clothes in pawn; but if they did, must restore them by bed - time.

Thou shalt not revile the gods - That is, the judges and magistrates. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obligeth us to honour, and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people, no, not though he was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts 23:5.

The first - born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me - And much more reason have we to give ourselves and all we have to God, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The first ripe of their corn they must not delay to offer; there is danger if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time.

Ye shall be holy unto me - And one mark of that honourable distinction is appointed in their diet, which was, that they should not eat any flesh that was torn of beasts - Both because the blood was not duly taken out of it, and because the clean beast was ceremonially defiled, by the touch of the unclean.

1 IF a man shall steal an oxe, or a sheep , and kill it, or sell it , he shall restore five oxen for an oxe, and four sheep for a sheep .

Or, an ass, which is added ver. 4. and consequently any other living creature, to be valued according to its worth and use to man, proportionably to the rule here laid down. Onely these are instanced in, for their usefulness in the service both of God and of men.

Which was an aggravation of the crime, and a token of greater boldness, resolvedness, and expertness in the trade of thieving, than was in him who kept it at home, ver. 4.

Quest. 1. Why so much, seeing the stealer of other things was tyed to restore but double? Ans. 1. For terrour, because these beasts being kept in the fields might more easily be stoln. 2. Because the loss of these was greater than of other things: for they did not onely lose what the cattle might be sold for, but all the service, increase, and other benefits, which a man might receive from them. Quest. 2. Why more for oxen, than for sheep? Ans. 1. Because it argued greater boldness and customariness in the thief to steal that which might more easily be discovered. 2. Because besides the intrinsecal worth of the oxe, the labour of the oxe was very considerable to his owner, Prov. 14. 4. and therefore the loss greater.

Marginal references: Or, goat.; 2 Sam. 12. 6. Luk. 19. 8. See Prov. 6. 31.

2 If a thief be found breaking up , and be smitten that he die, there shall no bloud be shed for him .

To wit, an house, which the Chaldee here addes, and by night, as appears from the next verse.

(i. e.) For the thief, though he be killed by a man in his own defence. Because in that case, the thief might be presumed to have a worse design, and the owner of the house could neither expect or have the help of others to secure him from the intended violence, nor guide his blows with that discretion and moderation, which in the day-time he might use.

3 If the Sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him : for he should make full restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

He that kills him shalt be put to death, because he punished him more than his crime deserved, and might have been otherwise either secured or righted, and in that case, it is probable the thief designed not murder, but theft onely. But if it were evident, that the house-breaker designed murder, he might doubtless kill him in his own defence.

Either so long till his service was worth the thing stollen, or rather for the ordinary time of six years, because this was not a simple thief, but an house-breaker, which was much worse. Quest. How can he be sold, who is supposed to be killed? Ans. The Hebrew word may be better rendred, should be sold, as the foregoing word, of the same future time, is rendred, should make restitution, to wit, if he were not killed; and therefore the killer of him being sufficiently secured against this injury was more culpable in killing him without necessity.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive , whether it be oxe, or ass, or sheep, he shall restore double .

Not killed, nor sold, as ver. 1.

Not more, 1. because in that case it was presumed, either that he intended to restore it, or at lest that he was but raw and unexercised in the trade of stealing, and so should be more gently punished: 2. because the right owner recovered his goods with less charge and trouble. or 3. because it was but a single crime, whereas the other ver. 1. was an aggravated and complicated crime, where one sin and injury was added to another. Obj. It is said, he shall restore seven-sold▪ Prov. 6. 31. Ans. 1. Seven-sold is put for abundantly, as that word is oft used as Gen. 4. 24. Ps. 12. 6 & 79. 12. and a learned man observes it is never used for that definite number. Ans. 2. This seven-sold or seven-times may relate not to the proportion of his restitution, but to the number of his Thefts, or rather of his detections, and the sence is this, Though he be found guilty of theft seven times, all his punishment is, that he shall restore, as the law prescribes. Whereas adultery, of which he there speaks in the following verses, is a crime of that nature, that if a man be once found guilty of it, restitution cannot be made nor will it serve his turn, but he falls into all the mischiefs there reckoned up.

5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another mans field: of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make restitution.

Or, Orchard, or other things of like nature, which is generally to be observed in Laws.

6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire , shall surely make restitution .

Whether wilfully for such a purpose, or carelesly in such a time or place as was dangerous.

Which if he were not able to do, it is probable he was to be sold for it, as in like cases was provided.

7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stollen out of the mans house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

Heb. Vessels, garments, utensils, or any kind of houshold stuffe.

8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the Judges to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbours goods .

That they may examine all circumstances, and use all means to find out the truth, by offering him his Oath, or otherwise.

Either to take and reserve them for his own use, or to dispose of them to another for his own advantage.

9 For all manner of trespass , whether it be for oxe, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his : the cause of both parties shall come unto the Judges, and whom the Judges shall condemn , he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

To wit, about matters deposited upon trust, and lost, of which alone this place speaks.

Or, when or concerning which he shall say, this is it, viz, the thing that I have lost: Or rather, this is he, to whom I committed it, and whom I suspect and charge as guilty.

Whether the person with whom the things were deposited, if they judged him guilty of Theft, or the depositor, if he were convicted of a false-accusation.

10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an oxe, or a sheep, or any beast to keep , and it dye, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it;

As his servant, not freely, but for wages.

11 Then shall an Oath of the LORD be between them both , that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbours goods: and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

So called here as also 1 Kings 1. 43. because it is taken by his authority and appointment, and for his honour, and in his name alone, God being made both witness and judge and avenger thereby.

(i. e.) Shall [illegible: 1+ letters]nd the difference between them both the one shall give his Oath, and the other shall accept of it: Or be taken by them both, by the one that he did deliver them to him upon agreement and for hire, by the other, that he put not his hand to them.

12 And if it be stollen from him , he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.

Heb. from with him, which is an emphatical expression, and notes that this was taken away, either 1. From those things which were with him, or which were his, i. e. from the midst of his own goods, which supposeth fraud in him: Or 2. From under his eye, when he either did know of it, or with common care and diligence might have been known and prevented, and this argues gross neglect in him. And this is one reason, why this man is bound to make restitution, when the other ver, 7. is not; another reason of the difference is, because those things verse 7. were onely or principally dead things and such things as required no great care, or, if they did, for in that case also were included, Oxen▪ Asses, &c. v. 9. yet he with whom they were left received no recompence for them and therefore was not obliged to any singular care about them; but here the things were such as needed great care and diligence, which also this man was obliged to perform by the hire which he received upon that account, which was Iacobs case, Gen. 31. 39.

13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness , and he shall not make good that which was torn.

It (i. e.) Some part of the torn Creature, which the wild Beast haply had lest, Amos 3. 11, 12. Quest. What if the whole creature were carried away, as a sheep or Lamb is sometimes by the wolf! Answ. 1. I suppose this was not frequent, and that those ravenous creatures did speedily fall to their meal, and that something was left, not far from the place, which the Shepherd might easily procure. 2. The words may be otherwise rendred, he shall bring a witness, as the Chaldee and Samar. render it, or a Testimony (i. e.) Some evidence whereby the judge might be satisfied, as for instance, that some Wolf or Lion, &c. was seen in those parts, &c. or some witness of his diligence and faithfulness in all other things, which therefore might well be presumed in this.

14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good .

(i. e.) Any living thing, which may be hurt or die, as it follows.

This may seem hard, but all things considered, is reasonable; because in doubtful cases, wherein it is not evident whether the borrower was faulty or not, as it is here, it ought to be interpreted in favour of the lender, rather than of the borrower, partly to oblige the borrower to the greater fidelity and care in such things, which being not his own men are commonly more careless about; partly because the benefit being wholly the borrowers, the loss also in all reason ought to be his, and the lender ought not to suffe[illegible: 1+ letters] [illegible: 1 word] kindness, lest he should be discouraged from such [illegible: 1 word] the future.

15 But if the owner thereof be with it , he shall not make it good : if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire .

In which case, the Law reasonably presumes, both that the borrower would not abuse it in the [illegible: 1+ letters]ight of its owner, and that the lender might and would take due care about it.

Except there be some manifest fault in the [illegible: 1 word] ▪ as if he should kill or wound the beast in the leaders presence: [illegible: 1 word] exception is easily to be understood from divers other Laws of God.

(i. e.) The benefit was the lenders, and not the borrowers, and therefore the former reason ceaseth, and whether the master were present or absent, he that receives the gain or hire shall bear the loss, except when it came through the borrowers gross and willful default.

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed , and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

By perswasions, promise of Marriage, allurements, or rewards.

But if she were betrothed, it was punished with death, Deut. 22. 23.

Marginal references: Deut. [illegible: 1 word]

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of Virgins .

Which shews the necessity of Parents consent in Marriage.

(i. e.) In such proportion as the Virgins quality requires, for there was no certain and equal dowry appointed for all Women. See 1 Sam. 18. 25. Quest. Why is there no punishment for the Woman? Answ. 1. She had no distinct estate, being yet in her Fathers house. 2. The loss of her Virginity was a sufficient punishment, especially in Israel, where it was a great reproach and prejudice. 3. She was not so culpable as the man, both because she was of the weaker sex, and because she was drawn to the sin by the mans perswasion.

Marginal references: Heb. [illegible: 1 word]

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

(i. e.) Any person that is in league with the Devil, and by his help either doth any mischief, or discover and practises things above the reach of other men or women▪ [illegible: 1+ letters]f which see Exod. 7. 11. Levit. 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10. 1 Sam. 28. 9. The word is of the feminine gender, partly because Women are most prone to these Devilish arts, and most frequently guilty of them; and partly to intimate that no pity should be shewed to such offenders, though they were of the weaker sex.

Marginal references: Lev. 19. [illegible: 1 word] 31.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any God save unto the LORD onely he shall be utterly destroyed .

Or otherwise worshippeth, as appears from Deut. 17. 2, 3, 4, 5. and many other places. One act of worship put for all by a very familiar Synecdoche.

Heb. anathematized, i. e. esteemed execrable, and as such destroyed without mercy. See Deut. 13. 15. &c. and 18. 20.

Marginal references: Deut. 13. [illegible: 1 word] 14, 15. 1 Mac. 2. [illegible: 1 word]

25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury .

(i. e.) Any Israelite: for it was permitted to take usury of the Gentiles, Deut. 23. 20.

This seems to be added not by way of apposition, as if Gods people and the poor were all one, because such are commonly poor, but by way of restriction; for God had promised greatly to bless and enrich the generality of his people, if they by their wickedness did not hinder it, and that there should be few poor among them, yet some such there should be for the tryal and exercise of their charity. See Lev. 19. 10. Deut. 15. 4, 7, 11.

The Hebrew word signifies biting: so usury is called not by way of distinction as if moderate usury were allowed in this case, which is manifestly false, because the borrower is here supposed to be poor, to whom not the use onely, but oft-times even the principal, is to be remitted, Luk. 6. 34, 35. but by way of explication, because all usury is of a biting or eating nature, which commonly consumes the person that pays it.

Marginal references: Lev. 25. 37. Deut. 23. 19. Psal. 15. 5. Neh. 5. 7. Ezek. 18. 8, 17.

26 If thou at all take thy neighbours raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the Sun goeth down .

To wit, that is poor, as appears by comparing this with the next verse, where he is supposed to have but one garment, and with Deut. 24. 12, 13.

Because he speaks of such raiment or covering, wherein he used to sleep, ver. 27. But you are not to think that the creditour would every morning take and every night redeliver his pledge; and therefore this is rather a prohibition to take any such thing for a pledge as a man hath great and daily need of by this argument that if he did take it he could not keep it. Compare Deut. 24. 6.

Marginal references: Job 24. 3, 9. Prov. 20. 16. and 22. 27. Amos 2. 8.

28 Thou shalt not revile the gods , nor curse the ruler of thy people .

Not Gods falsly so called, as some would have it, as appears by 1 King. 18. 27. Ier. 10. 11. but Magistrates and governours, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, as it is evident both from Act. 23. 3, 4, 5. and from the following words which explain the former, according to the common use of Scripture, and from the title of Gods commonly given to such, as Exod. 7. 1. Psal. 82. 6. Ioh. 10. 34, 35.

Compare Eccl. 10. 20. Iude ver. 8.

Marginal references: Or, judges.

29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits ; and of thy liquors: the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me .

Beyond the times appointed, lest this delay grow to a total neglect. And delay may here be put for neglect, as that word is used, Deut. 7. 10. and 23. 21. Hab. 2. 3. which may seem to be favoured by the following clause, which commands the giving or offering of the first-born without any mention of the hastning or delaying of it.

Heb. thy fulness; and whereas this word is sometimes applied to seed or corn, as Numb. 18. 27. and sometimes to the vintage, as Deut. 22. 9. the circumstances must determine, as it doth in like cases, how it must be taken; which here seem to restrain it to dry fruits, as corn, &c. because it is opposed to liquors; and so all sorts of fruits are comprehended here. Unless you will make this an usual figure called Hendyadis, as judgment and justice, Deut. 16. 18. is put for judgment of Iustice, or just judgment, so here thy fulness and liquors, for the fulness of thy liquors; and so this may be one kind mentioned for all the rest, than which nothing more frequent.

Not in kind, but by a price of redemption to be paid to me in their stead.

Marginal references: Heb. thy fulness.; Heb. tear.; chap. 13. 2, 12. and 34. 19. Deut. 15. 19.

30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam, on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

(i. e.) Ye shall offer their first-born.

Not sooner, because it was till then tender and imperfect and therefore not fit to be offered to God: but it was not [illegible: 1+ letters]yed to that day, for it might be offered afterwards, as appears from Lev. 22. 27. eve[illegible: 1+ letters] till it was a year old.

31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of Beasts in the field: ye shall cast it to the dogs.

(i. e.) Separated from all filthiness both moral and ceremonial.

Partly because the blood was not taken out of i[illegible: 1+ letters], partly because the clean beast was ceremonially defiled by the touch of the unclean, and partly to beget in them a detestation of cruelty, even in the beasts, and much more in men.

With regard to cattle-stealing, the law makes a distinction between what had been killed or sold, and what was still alive and in the thief’s hand (or possession). In the latter case, the thief was to restore piece for piece twofold (Exo 22:4); in the former, he was to restore an ox fivefold and a small animal (a sheep or a goat) fourfold (Exo 22:1). The difference between the compensation for an ox and a small animal is to be accounted for from the comparative worth of the cattle to the possessor, which determined the magnitude of the theft and the amount of the compensation. But the other distinctions of twofold, fourfold, and fivefold restitution cannot be accounted for, either by supposing “that the animal slain or sold was lost to its master, and might have been of peculiar value to him” (Knobel), for such a consideration of personal feelings would have been quite foreign to the law-not to mention the fact that an animal that had been sold might be recovered by purchase; or from the fact that “the thief in this case had carried his crime still further” (Baumgarten), for the main thing was still the theft, not the consumption or sale of the animal stolen. The reason can only have lain in the educational purpose of the law: viz., in the intention to lead the thief to repent of his crime, to acknowledge his guilt, and to restore what he had stolen. Now, as long as he still retained the stolen animal in his own possession, having neither consumed nor parted with it, this was always in his power; but the possibility was gone as soon as it had either been consumed or sold (see by Archäologie, §154, Note 3).Calvin gives the same explanation: Major in scelere obstinatio se prodit, ubi res furtiva in quaestum conversa est, nec spes est ulla resipiscentiae, atque ita continuo progressu duplicatur malae fidei crimen. Fieri potest ut fur statim post delictum contremiscat: qui vero animal occidere ausus est, aut vendere, prorsus in maleficio obduruit.

Exo 22:2-4

Into the midst of the laws relating to theft, we have one introduced here, prescribing what was to be done with the thief. “If the thief be found breaking in (i.e., by night according to Exo 22:3), and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood to him (the person smiting him); if the sun has risen upon him (the thief breaking in), there is blood to him:” i.e., in the latter case the person killing him drew upon himself blood-guiltiness (דּמים lit., drops of blood, blood shed), in the former case he did not. “The reason for this disparity between a thief by night and one in the day is, that the power and intention of a nightly thief are uncertain, and whether he may not have come for the purpose of committing murder; and that by night, if thieves are resisted, they often proceed to murder in their rage; and also that they can neither be recognised, nor resisted and apprehended with safety” (Calovius). In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exo 22:1 and Exo 22:4. But if he had not sufficient to make retribution, he was to be sold “for his stolen,” i.e., for the value of what he had stolen, that he might earn by his labour the compensation to be paid.

Exo 22:5-6 Injury done to another man’s field or corn was also to be made good by compensation for the injury done. If any one should consume a field or a vineyard, and let loose his beast, so that it fed in another man’s field, he was to give the best of his field and vineyard as restitution. These words do not refer to wilful injury, for שׁלּח does not mean to drive in, but simply to let loose, set at liberty; they refer to injury done from carelessness, when any one neglected to take proper care of a beast that was feeding in his field, and it strayed in consequence, and began grazing in another man's. Hence simple compensation was all that was demanded; though this was to be made “from the best of his field,” i.e., quicquid optimum habebit in agro vel vinea (Jerome).The lxx have expanded this law by interpolating ἀποτίσει ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ γέννημα αὐτοῦ ἐὰν δὲ πάντα τὸν ἀγρὸν καταβοσκήσῃ before מיטב. And the Samaritan does the same. But this expansion is proved to be an arbitrary interpolation, by the simple fact that πάντα τὸν ἀγρόν forms no logical antithesis to ἀγρὸν ἕτερον.

Exo 22:7-9

In cases of dishonesty, or the loss of property entrusted, the following was to be the recognised right: If money or articles (כּלים, not merely tools and furniture, but clothes and ornaments, cf. Deu 22:5; Isa 61:10) given to a neighbour to keep should be stolen out of his house, the thief was to restore double if he could be found; but if he could not be discovered, the master of the house was to go before the judicial court (האלהים אל, see Exo 21:6; אל נקרב to draw near to), to see “whether he has not stretched out his hand to his neighbour’s goods.” מלאכה: lit., employment, then something earned by employment, a possession. Before the judicial court he was to cleanse himself of the suspicion of having fraudulently appropriated what had been entrusted to him; and in most cases this could probably be only done by an oath of purification. The Sept. and Vulg. both point to this by interpolating καὶ ὀμεῖται, et jurabit (“and he shall swear”), though we are not warranted in supplying ויּשּׁבע in consequence. For, apart from the fact that אם־לא is not to be regarded as a particle of adjuration here, as Rosenmüller supposes, since this particle signifies “truly” when employed in an oath, and therefore would make the declaration affirmative, whereas the oath was unquestionably to be taken as a release from the suspicion of fraudulent appropriation, and in case of confession an oath was not requisite at all; - apart from all this, if the lawgiver had intended to prescribe an oath for such a case, he would have introduced it here, just as he has done in Exo 22:11. If the man could free himself before the court from the suspicion of unfaithfulness, he would of course not have to make compensation for what was lost, but the owner would have to bear the damage. This legal process is still further extended in Exo 22:9 : על־כּל־דּבר־פּשׁע, “upon every matter of trespass” (by which we are to understand, according to the context, unfaithfulness with regard to, or unjust appropriation of, the property of another man, not only when it had been entrusted, but also if it had been found), “for ox, for ass, etc., or for any manner of lost thing, of which one says that it is this (“this,” viz., the matter of trespass), the cause of both (the parties contending about the right of possession) shall come to the judicial court; and he whom the court (Elohim) shall pronounce guilty (of unjust appropriation) shall give double compensation to his neighbour: only double as in Exo 22:4 and Exo 22:7, not four or fivefold as in Exo 22:1, because the object in dispute had not been consumed.

Exo 22:10-13

If an animal entrusted to a neighbour to take care of had either died or hurt itself (נשׁבּר, broken a limb), or been driven away by robbers when out at grass (1Ch 5:21; 2Ch 14:14, cf. Job 1:15, Job 1:17), without any one (else) seeing it, an oath was to be taken before Jehovah between both (the owner and the keeper of it), “whether he had not stretched out his hand to his neighbour’s property,” i.e., either killed, or mutilated, or disposed of the animal. This case differs from the previous one, not only in the fact that the animal had either become useless to the owner or was altogether lost, but also in the fact that the keeper, if his statement were true, had not been at all to blame in the matter. The only way in which this could be decided, if there was ראה אין, i.e., no other eye-witness present than the keeper himself at the time when the fact occurred, was by the keeper taking an oath before Jehovah, that is to say, before the judicial court. And if he took the oath, the master (owner) of it (the animal that had perished, or been lost or injured) was to accept (sc., the oath), and he (the accused) was not to make reparation. “But if it had been stolen מעמּו from with him (i.e., from his house or stable), he was to make it good,” because he might have prevented this with proper care (cf. Gen 31:39). On the other hand, if it had been torn in pieces (viz., by a beast of prey, while it was out at grass), he was not to make any compensation, but only to furnish a proof that he had not been wanting in proper care. עד יבאהוּ “let him bring it as a witness,” viz., the animal that had been torn in pieces, or a portion of it, from which it might be seen that he had chased the wild beast to recover its prey (cf. 1Sa 17:34-35; Amo 3:12).

Exo 22:14-15

If any one borrowed an animal of his neighbour (to use it for some kind of work), and it got injured and died, he was to make compensation to the owner, unless the latter were present at the time; but not if he were. “For either he would see that it could not have been averted by any human care; or if it could, seeing that he, the owner himself, was present, and did not avert it, it would only be right that he should suffer the consequence of his own neglect to afford assistance” (Calovius). The words which follow, וגו שׂכיר אם, cannot have any other meaning than this, “if it was hired, it has come upon his hire,” i.e., he has to bear the injury or loss for the money which he got for letting out the animal. The suggestion which Knobel makes with a “perhaps,” that שׂכיר refers to a hired labourer, to whom the word is applied in other places, and that the meaning is this, “if it is a labourer for hire, he goes into his hire, - i.e., if the hirer is a daily labourer who has nothing with which to make compensation, he is to enter into the service of the person who let him the animal, for a sufficiently long time to make up for the loss,” - is not only opposed to the grammar (the perfect בּא for which יבא should be used), but is also at variance with the context, “not make it good.”

Exo 22:16-17

The seduction of a girl, who belonged to her father as long as she was not betrothed (cf. Exo 21:7), was also to be regarded as an attack upon the family possession. Whoever persuaded a girl to let him lie with her, was to obtain her for a wife by the payment of a dowry (מהר see Gen 34:12); and if her father refused to give her to him, he was to weigh (pay) money equivalent to the dowry of maidens, i.e., to pay the father just as much for the disgrace brought upon him by the seduction of his daughter, as maidens would receive for a dowry upon their marriage. The seduction of a girl who was betrothed, was punished much more severely (see Deu 22:23-24).

Exo 22:18-19

The laws which follow, from Exo 22:18 onwards, differ both in form and subject-matter from the determinations of right which we have been studying hitherto: in form, through the omission of the כּי with which the others were almost invariably introduced; in subject-matter, inasmuch as they make demands upon Israel on the ground of its election to be the holy nation of Jehovah, which go beyond the sphere of natural right, not only prohibiting every inversion of the natural order of things, but requiring the manifestation of love to the infirm and needy out of regard to Jehovah. The transition from the former series to the present one is made by the command in Exo 22:18, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;” witchcraft being, on the one hand, “the vilest way of injuring a neighbour in his property, or even in his body and life” (Ranke), whilst, on the other hand, employment of powers of darkness for the purpose of injuring a neighbour was a practical denial of the divine vocation of Israel, as well as of Jehovah the Holy One of Israel. The witch is mentioned instead of the wizard, “not because witchcraft was not to be punished in the case of men, but because the female sex was more addicted to this crime” (Calovius). תחיּה לא (shalt not suffer to live) is chosen instead of the ordinary יוּמת מות (shall surely die), which is used in Lev 20:27 of wizards also, not “because the lawgiver intended that the Hebrew witch should be put to death in any case, and the foreigner only if she would not go when she was banished” (Knobel), but because every Hebrew witch was not to be put to death, but regard was to be had to the fact that witchcraft is often nothing but jugglery, and only those witches were to be put to death who would not give up their witchcraft when it was forbidden. Witchcraft is followed in Exo 22:19 by the unnatural crime of lying with a beast; and this is also threatened with the punishment of death (see Lev 18:23, and Lev 20:15-16).

Exo 22:20

Whoever offered sacrifice to strange gods instead of to Jehovah alone, was liable to death. יחרם he shall be banned, put under the ban (cherem), i.e., put to death, and by death devoted to the Lord, to whom he would not devote himself in life (cf. Lev 27:29, and my Archäologie, §70).

Exo 22:21-24

The Israelites were not to offer sacrifice to foreign deities; but a foreigner himself they were not only to tolerate, but were not to vex or oppress him, bearing in mind that they also had been foreigners in Egypt (cf. Exo 23:9, and Lev 19:33-34). - Whilst the foreigner, as having no rights, is thus commended to the kindness of the people through their remembrance of what they themselves had experienced in Egypt, those members of the nation itself who were most in need of protection (viz., widows and orphans) are secured from humiliation by an assurance of the special care and watchfulness of Jehovah, under which such forsaken ones stand, inasmuch as Jehovah Himself would take their troubles upon Himself, and punish their oppressors with just retribution. ענּה to humiliate, includes not only unjust oppression, but every kind of cold and contemptuous treatment. The suffix in אתו (Exo 22:23) refers to both אלמנה and יתום, according to the rule that when there are two or more subjects of different genders, the masculine is employed (Ges. §148, 2). The כּי before אם expresses a strong assurance: “yea, if he cries to Me, I will hearken to him” (see Ewald, §330 b). “Killing with the sword” points to wars, in which men and fathers of families perish, and their wives and children are made widows and orphans.

Exo 22:25-27

If a man should lend to one of the poor of his own people, he was not to oppress him by demanding interest; and if he gave his upper garment as a pledge, he was to give it him back towards sunset, because it was his only covering; as the poorer classes in the East use the upper garment, consisting of a large square piece of cloth, to sleep in. “It is his clothing for his skin:” i.e., it serves for a covering to his body. “Wherein shall he lie?” i.e., in what shall be wrap himself to sleep? (cf. Deu 24:6, Deu 24:10-13). - With Exo 22:28. God directs Himself at once to the hearts of the Israelites, and attacks the sins of selfishness and covetousness, against which the precepts in Exo 22:21-27 were directed in their deepest root, for the purpose of opposing all inward resistance to the promotion of His commands.

Exo 22:28

“Thou shalt not despise God, and the prince among thy people thou shalt not curse.” Elohim does not mean either the gods of other nations, as Josephus, Philo, and others, in their dead and work-holy monotheism, have rendered the word; or the rulers, as Onkelos and others suppose; but simply God, deity in general, whose majesty was despised in every break of the commandments of Jehovah, and who was to be honoured in the persons of the rulers (cf. Pro 24:21; 1Pe 2:17). Contempt of God consists not only in blasphemies of Jehovah openly expressed, which were to be punished with death (Lev 24:11.), but in disregard of His threats with reference to the oppression of the poorer members of His people (Exo 22:22-27), and in withholding from them what they ought to receive (Exo 22:29-31). Understood in this way, the command is closely connected not only with what precedes, but also with what follows. The prince (נשׂיא, lit., the elevated one) is mentioned by the side of God, because in his exalted position he has to administer the law of God among His people, and to put a stop to what is wrong.

Exo 22:29-30

“Thy fulness and thy flowing thou shalt not delay (to Me).” מלאה fulness, signifies the produce of corn (Deu 22:9); and דּמע (lit., tear, flowing, liquor stillans), which only occurs here, is a poetical epithet for the produce of the press, both wine and oil (cf. δάκρυον τῶν δένδρων, lxx; arborum lacrimae, Plin. 11:6). The meaning is correctly given by the lxx: ἀπαρχὰς ἅλωνος καὶ ληνοῦ σοῦ. That the command not to delay and not to withhold the fulness, etc., relates to the offering of the first-fruits of the field and vineyard, as is more fully defined in Exo 23:19 and Deu 26:2-11, is evident from what follows, in which the law given at the Exodus from Egypt, with reference to the sanctification of the first-born of man and beast (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12), is repeated and incorporated in the rights of Israel, inasmuch as the adoption of the first-born on the part of Jehovah was a perpetual guarantee to the whole nation of the right of covenant fellowship. (On the rule laid down in Exo 22:30, see Lev 22:27.)

Exo 22:31

As the whole nation sanctified itself to the Lord in the sanctification of the first-born, the Israelites were to show themselves to be holy men unto the Lord by not eating “flesh torn to pieces in the field,” i.e., the flesh of an animal that had been torn to pieces by a wild beast in the field. Such flesh they were to throw to the dogs, because eating it would defile (cf. Lev 17:15).

Judicial Laws. (b. c. 1491.)

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. 5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. 6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

Here are the laws,

I. Concerning theft, which are these:—1. If a man steal any cattle (in which the wealth of those times chiefly consisted), and they be found in his custody, he must restore double, v. 4. Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Lev. vi. 4, 5. 2. If he had killed or sold the sheep or ox he had stolen, and thereby persisted in his crime, he must restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep (v. 1), more for an ox than for a sheep because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. This law teaches us that fraud and injustice, so far from enriching men, will impoverish them: if we unjustly get and keep that which is another's, it will not only waste itself, but it will consume that which is our own. 3. If he was not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave, v. 3. The court of judgment was to do it, and it is probable that the person robbed had the money. Thus with us, in some cases, felons are transported into plantations where alone Englishmen know what slavery is. 4. If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing of it, his blood was upon his own head, and should not be required at the hand of him that shed it, v. 2. As he that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (v. 3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves.

II. Concerning trespass, v. 5. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field must make restitution of the best of his own. Our law makes a much greater difference between this and other thefts than the law of Moses did. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule that restitution must always be made of the best, and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbours or do them any damage. We should be more careful not to do wrong than not to suffer wrong, because to suffer wrong is only an affliction, but to do wrong is a sin, and sin is always worse than affliction.

III. Concerning damage done by fire, v. 6. He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessory to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. Men of hot and eager spirits should take heed, lest, while they pretend only to pluck up the tares, they root out the wheat also. If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. We must take heed of beginning strife; for, though it seem but little, we know not how great a matter it may kindle, the blame of which we must bear, if, with the madman, we cast fire-brands, arrows, and death, and pretend we mean no harm. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable, not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. 10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: 11 Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. 12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn. 14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. 15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

These laws are,

I. Concerning trusts, v. 7-13. If a man deliver goods, suppose to a carrier to be conveyed, or to a warehouse-keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed, upon a valuable consideration, and if a special confidence be reposed in the person they are lodged with, in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to this trust must be compelled to make satisfaction. The trustee must aver his innocence upon oath before the judges, if the case was such as afforded no other proof, and they were to determine the matter according as it appeared. This teaches us, 1. That we ought to be very careful of every thing we are entrusted with, as careful of it, though it be another's, as if it were our own. It is unjust and base, and that which all the world cries shame on, to betray a trust. 2. That there is such a general failing of truth and justice upon earth as gives too much occasion to suspect men's honesty whenever it is their interest to be dishonest. 3. That an oath for confirmation is an end of strife, Heb. vi. 16. It is called an oath for the Lord (v. 11), because to him the appeal is made, not only as to a witness of truth, but as to an avenger of wrong and falsehood. Those that had offered injury to their neighbour by doing any unjust thing, yet, it might be hoped, had not so far debauched their consciences as to profane an oath of the Lord, and call the God of truth to be witness to a lie: perjury is a sin which natural conscience startles at as much as any other. The religion of an oath is very ancient, and a plain indication of the universal belief of a God, and a providence, and a judgment to come. 4. That magistracy is an ordinance of God, designed, among other intentions, to assist men both in discovering rights disputed and recovering rights denied; and great respect ought to be paid to the determination of the judges. 5. That there is no reason why a man should suffer for that which he could not help: masters should consider this, in dealing with their servants, and not rebuke that as a fault which was a mischance, and which they themselves, had they been in their servants' places, could not have prevented.

II. Concerning loans, v. 14, 15. If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbour, if the owner was with it, or was to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befel the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of: but if the owner was so kind to the borrower as to lend it to him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. Let us learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent us; it is not only unjust, but base and disingenuous, inasmuch as it is rendering evil for good; we should much rather choose to lose ourselves than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us. Alas, master! for it was borrowed, 2 Kings vi. 5.

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. 18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. 20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. 21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Here is, I. A law that he who debauched a young woman should be obliged to marry her, v. 16, 17. If she was betrothed to another, it was death to debauch her (Deut. xxii. 23, 24); but the law here mentioned respects her as single. But, if the father refused her to him, he was to give satisfaction in money for the injury and disgrace he had done her. This law puts an honour upon marriage and shows likewise how improper a thing it is that children should marry without their parents' consent: even here, where the divine law appointed the marriage, both as a punishment to him that had done wrong and a recompence to her that had suffered wrong, yet there was an express reservation for the father's power; if he denied his consent, it must be no marriage.

II. A law which makes witchcraft a capital crime, v. 18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by divine Providence above any people under the sun. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded here.

III. Unnatural abominations are here made capital; such beasts in the shape of men as are guilty of them are unfit to live (v. 19): Whosoever lies with a beast shall die.

IV. Idolatry is also made capital, v. 20. God having declared himself jealous in this matter, the civil powers must be jealous in it too, and utterly destroy those persons, families, and places of Israel, that worshipped any god, save the Lord: this law might have prevented the woeful apostasies of the Jewish nation in after times, if those that should have executed it had not been ringleaders in the breach of it.

V. A caution against oppression. Because those who were empowered to punish other crimes were themselves most in danger of this, God takes the punishing of it into his own hands.

1. Strangers must not be abused (v. 21), not wronged in judgment by the magistrates, not imposed upon in contracts, nor must any advantage be taken of their ignorance or necessity; no, nor must they be taunted, trampled upon, treated with contempt, or upbraided with being strangers; for all these were vexations, and would discourage strangers from coming to live among them, or would strengthen their prejudices against their religion, to which, by all kind and gentle methods, they should endeavour to proselyte them. The reason given why they should be kind to strangers is, "You were strangers in Egypt, and knew what it was to be vexed and oppressed there," Note, (1.) Humanity is one of the laws of religion, and obliges us particularly to be tender of those that lie most under disadvantages and discouragements, and to extend our compassionate concern to strangers, and those to whom we are not under the obligations of alliance or acquaintance. Those that are strangers to us are known to God, and he preserves them, Ps. cxlvi. 9. (2.) Those that profess religion should study to oblige strangers, that they may thereby recommend religion to their good opinion, and take heed of doing any thing that may tempt them to think ill of it or its professors, 1 Pet. ii. 12. (3.) Those that have themselves been in poverty and distress, if Providence enrich and enlarge them, ought to show a particular tenderness towards those that are now in such circumstances as they were in formerly, doing now by them as they then wished to be done by.

2. Widows and fatherless must not be abused (v. 22): You shall not afflict them, that is, "You shall comfort and assist them, and be ready upon all occasions to show them kindness." In making just demands from them, their condition must be considered, who have lost those that should deal for them, and protect them; they are supposed to be unversed in business, destitute of advice, timorous, and of a tender spirit, and therefore must be treated with kindness and compassion; no advantage must be taken against them, nor any hardship put upon them, from which a husband or a father would have sheltered them. For, (1.) God takes particular cognizance of their case, v. 23. Having no one else to complain and appeal to, they will cry unto God, and he will be sure to hear them; for his law and his providence are guardians to the widows and fatherless, and if men do not pity them, and will not hear them, he will. Note, It is a great comfort to those who are injured and oppressed by men that they have a God to go to who will do more than give them the hearing; and it ought to be a terror to those who are oppressive that they have the cry of the poor against them, which God will hear. Nay, (2.) He will severely reckon with those that do oppress them. Though they escape punishments from men, God's righteous judgments will pursue and overtake them, v. 24. Men that have a sense of justice and honour will espouse the injured cause of the weak and helpless; and shall not the righteous God do it? Observe the equity of the sentence here passed upon those that oppress the widows and fatherless: their wives shall become widows, and their children fatherless; and the Lord is known by these judgments, which he sometimes executes still.

25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. 26 If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: 27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. 29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. 31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

Here is, I. A law against extortion in lending. 1. They must not receive use for money from any that borrowed for necessity (v. 25), as in that case, Neh. v. 5, 7. And such provision the law made for the preservation of estates to their families by the year of jubilee that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity, and therefore it is generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger, whom yet they might not oppress, they were allowed to lend upon usury: this law, therefore, in the strictness of it, seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state; but, in the equity of it, it obliges us to show mercy to those of whom we might take advantage, and to be content to share, in loss as well as profit, with those we lend to, if Providence cross them; and, upon this condition, it seems as lawful to receive interest for my money, which another takes pains with and improves, but runs the hazard of, in trade, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pains with and improves, but runs the hazard of, in husbandry. 2. They must not take a poor man's bed-clothes in pawn; but, if they did, must restore them by bed-time, v. 26, 27. Those who lie soft and warm themselves should consider the hard and cold lodgings of many poor people, and not do any thing to make bad worse, or to add affliction to the afflicted.

II. A law against the contempt of authority (v. 28): Thou shalt not revile the gods, that is, the judges and magistrates, for their executing these laws; they must do their duty, whoever suffer by it. Magistrates ought not to fear the reproach of men, nor their revilings, but to despise them as long as they keep a good conscience; but those that do revile them for their being a terror to evil works and workers reflect upon God himself, and will have a great deal to answer for another day. We find those under a black character, and a heavy doom, that despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, Jude 8. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obliges us to honour and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people; no, not though the ruler was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts xxiii. 5; see Eccl. x. 20.

III. A law concerning the offering of their first-fruits to God, v. 29, 30. It was appointed before (ch. xiii), and it is here repeated: The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me; and much more reason have we to give ourselves, and all we have, to God, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The first ripe of their corn they must not delay to offer. There is danger, if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity, in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time. Let not young people delay to offer to God the first-fruits of their time and strength, lest their delays come, at last, to be denials, through the deceitfulness of sin, and the more convenient season they promise themselves never arrive. Yet it is provided that the firstlings of their cattle should not be dedicated to God till they were past seven days old, for then they began to be good for something. Note, God is the first and best, and therefore must have the first and best.

IV. A distinction put between the Jews and all other people: You shall be holy men unto me; and one mark of that honourable distinction is appointed in their diet, which was, that they should not eat any flesh that was torn of beasts (v. 31), not only because it was unwholesome, but because it was paltry, and base, and covetous, and a thing below those who were holy men unto God, to eat the leavings of the beasts of prey. We that are sanctified to God must not be curious in our diet; but we must be conscientious, not feeding ourselves without fear, but eating and drinking by rule, the rule of sobriety, to the glory of God.

CHAP. XXII.

WHen a man shall steale an oxe, or a sheepe, and kill it, or sell it, hee shall pay five oxen for an oxe, and foure sheepe for a sheep. If a theefe be found in the digging thorow, and hee bee smitten and die, no bloods (shall be shed) for him. If the Sunne bee risen upon him, bloods (shall be shed) for him: paying he shall pay; if hee have not, then hee shall be sold for his theft. If the theft by finding be found in his hand, whether oxe, or asse, or sheepe, alive, hee shall pay double. When a man shall cause a field or vineyard to bee fed upon, and shall se[illegible: 1 span] in his beast, and shall feed in anothers field; of the best of his owne field, and the best of his vineyard shall he pay. When fire shall goe forth, and finde thornes, and a stacke of corne, or the standing corne, or a field bee consumed; he that kindled the fire shall paying pay. When a man shall give unto his neighbour money or stuffe to keep, and it be stollen out of the mans house, if the theefe be found, he shall pay double. If the theefe bee not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the gods, if he have not put forth his hand unto his neighbours goods. For every matter of trespasse, for oxe, for asse, for sheepe, for raiment, for every losse, which he shall say, that this is he; the matter of them both shall come unto the gods: whom the gods shall condemne, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. When a man shall give unto his neighbour, asse, or oxe, or sheepe, or any beast to keepe, and it die, or be broken, or driven away, none seeing it: An oath of Iehovah shall be betweene them both, if he have not put forth his hand unto his neighbours goods: and the owner of it shall accept it, and he shall not pay. And if it be stollen by stealth from him, hee shall pay unto the owner thereof. If it bee torne in pieces, let him bring it for witnesse: that which is torne, he shall not pay. And when a man shall borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be broken, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, paying he shall pay. If the owner thereof be with it, hee shall not pay: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire. And when a man shall entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, endowing he shall endow her to himselfe to wife. If her father refusing shall refuse to give her unto him, hee shall weigh the money, according to the dowrie of virgins. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast, hee shall bee put to die the death. Hee that sacrificeth to the gods, shall be utterly destroied, except unto Iehovah, even to him onely. And a stranger thou shalt not vexe, neither shalt thou oppresse him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherlesse childe. If afflicting thou shalt afflict him, surely if crying he shall cry unto me, hearing I will heare his cry. And my anger shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword: and your wives shall be widowes, and your sons fatherlesse. If thou lend money to my people, to the poore man with thee, thou shalt not be to him as an exacting cred[illegible: 1 span]: ye shall not lay upon him biting usurie. If for a pledge thou take to pledge thy neighbours raiment, thou shalt returne it unto him before the Sunne goeth down. For that is his covering, that only; that is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleepe? And it shall be, when he crieth unto me, then I will heare, for I am gracious. Thou shalt not revile the gods, & the ruler of thy people thou shalt not curse. Thy full-ripe fruit and thy liquor thou shalt not delay: the first-borne of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. So shalt thou doe with thine oxe, and with thy sheep: seven daies it shall be with his mother; in the eighth day thou shalt give it unto me. And ye shall be unto mee men of holinesse: and ye shall not eat flesh torn in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogge.

Annotations. A Sheepe] or a lambe; a young sheepe, or young goat: for the Hebrew word comprehendeth both, Exod. 12. 3. Deut. 14. 4. five oxen] or, five of the herd, for an oxe; and foure of the flocke for a sheepe: the Hebrew differeth in word, but the Greeke version keepeth the same words here, that were before. This Law was, if the oxe were killed or sold: but if it were found in his hand alive, hee paid but two for one, v. 4. neither was it for any other theft, than of the oxe and sheepe: for all other, the theefe paid but the double: as the Hebrew canons plainely expresse, Maimony, treat. of Theft, chap. 1. Sect. 6. But these, b[illegible: 1 letter]cause of the profit, use, and service which the owners might have of them, (and in particular, for sacrifices to God, which might not be with any other beasts) were to be paid five and fourefold: And as the theft was bolder, and the losse greater of an oxe, than of a sheepe; so the punishment was more. Vers. 2. in the digging through] that is, digging (or breaking) through an house; as, Matthew 24. 43. or, in the hole digged; and so entring by the breach. By this the Hebrewes understand all other indirect waies, by which the theefe may enter, but this is specified, because it is the way of most theeves, to enter by digging through in the night. Maimony, treat. of Theft, chap. 9. sect. 8. no bloods for him] that is, none shall be put to death for killing that theefe. Or it may bee read thus, no bloods (shall be) to him, meaning to the killer of the theefe, he shall not have murder imputed to him, so the phrase is used in Numbers 35. 27. The Hebrew Doctors explaine it thus; If the master of the house, or any other man kill him, they are guiltlesse: yea it is free for any to kill him, either on the working day, or on the Sabbath day, with any death that they can put him to, &c. And wherefore doth the Law permit this? Because it is the manner of such, that if the masier of the house should withstand, and hinder them, they will kill him. And it is found, that hee which comes into his neighbours house to steale, is as hee that pursueth his neighbour to kill him. Such a one therefore may be killed, be he great or small, man or woman. Maimony, treat. of Theft, chap. 9. Sect. 7. 9. Vers. 3. risen upon him] if it be cleere day when the theefe breaketh in, who so killeth him, his blood shall bee shed therefore. For the Sun, the Chaldee paraphrast translateth, the eye of witnesses. But Maimony (in the foresaid place, Sect. 10.) giveth this sense; If the matter be cleere to the master of the house, that this theefe will not kill him, and that he commeth not but to steale goods, it is unlawfull to kill him: and if he kill him, he is a man slayer, as it is written, IF THE SVN BE RISEN VPON HIM; if the thing be cleere as the Sunne unto thee, that he is at peace with thee, thou shalt not kill him, he] the theefe, shall surely pay: therefore kill him not. But the Greeke version referreth it to the slayer, that he shall pay, that is, be put to death for him. he shall be sold] for a servant by the Magistrate: see Exodus 21. 2. &c. And in the Iewish canons it is explained thus: If hee have nothing, neither moveable goods nor unmoveable, the Iudges doe sell him, and give his price for the dammage. And they sell him not but to an Israelite, or proselyte. Hee is not to be sold publikely, &c. as slaves are sold, (as it is written, Leviticus 25. 42. They shall not be sold with the sale of a bond-man,) but privately, and by way of honour, Maimony, treat. of Theft, c. 3. S. 11. and treat. of Servants, chap. 1. Sect. 3. 5. for his thefe] for the principall, ot thing stollen: and no theefe is sold, save for the principal: but the double, or paying of foure or five for one, he [illegible: 1 letter]s not to be sold for them; but they are at a debt upon him; till he be rich. If the principall which is stollen, bee worth 100. Crownes, and the theest be worth but 50. he is to bee sold, and the rest of the principall, with the dumble, remaine upon him for a debt, untill hee goe out (offer[illegible: 1 span]) in the seventh yeere, and when he is able, he [illegible: 1 span]st pay it. If the theefe be worth 100. Crownes and [illegible: 1 word] he may not be sold; as it is written, FOR HIS THEFT; so that his whole price must be spent in his theft Maim. treat. of Theft, chap. 3. Sect. 12. 14. Vers. 4. finding be found] that is, be certainly and wholy found: the Greeke translateth, bee taken and found. whether, Oxe, &c.] Hebr. from oxe unto asse, unto lambe. hee shall pay double;] that is, shall restore that which was stollen, and another as good. Here the Hebrew Doctors have their exceptions, for women, children, and servants. If a mans wife (steale) and she hath not to pay, the double shall lie upon her as a debt, till shee be divorced, or her husband dye, then the Iudges shall exact it of her. A childe that stealeth, is free from paying the double, &c. and if the thing be lost, he is not bound to pay the principall, no not after he is growne in age. A servant that stealeth is free from paying the double, his master is free also: for no man is bound to pay his servants dammages, &c. but when the servant hath his freedome, hee is bound to pay the double. It is meet that the Iudges beat the children for stealing, that they grow not into a custome of it; and so for other dammages that they doe: likewise they are to beat servants throughly for stealing, &c. Maimony, treat. of Theft, chap. 1. Sect. 7. 8. &c. Vers. 5. or vineyard] and so by proportion any other thing; as garden, or the like. Vers. 6. finde] that is, catch hold on thornes; or on any other fewell, as straw, ferne, &c. So in the examples following, two or three things are named in stead of all other. And not such things onely, but if the fire breake forth and hurt a man, hee that kindled it, must pay for his hurt, and for his resting from his labour, and for his healing, and for his paine, and for his dishonour; (the five things forementioned on Exod. 21. 19.) even as if he had hurt him with his hand: as Maimony sheweth in treat of Dammages, chap. 14. Sect. 15. that kindled] or, that set on fire the fire: that burned the burning. The Hebrew Doctors explaine this Law thus: One brings fire, and another after brings wood; he that brings the wood, is bound to pay. One brings wood, and then another brings fire; now he that brings the fire is bound to pay. If one come and make the flame, then he is bound to pay, &c. Maimony, treat. of Dammages, chap. 14. Sect. 7. paying pay] that is, surely and fully pay, for the dammage. If in the stacke (or floore) of corne, there be laid up such instruments as husbandmen are wont to use, and lay up about the threshing or treading out of the corne, they also must be all paid for. But if there be garments, plate, glasses, or the like, laid up there; he is not bound to pay for such things. Hee that causeth his neighbours house to be burned, is to pay for all that is within the same; for it is the manner of men, to lay up their goods, vessels, &c. within their houses, Maimony, ibid. Sect. 8. Vers. 7. money or stuffe] Hebr. silver or vessels, (instruments:) or any beast, as the 9. verse after sheweth. to keep] of trust; and for no reward, but of friendship. Vers. 8. the gods] that is, as the Chaldee expresseth, the Iudges: see Exod. 21. 6. The Greeke here translateth, before God. if he have] understand, to see if hee have not; meaning that the Iudges may finde it out by oath; as is expressed in vers. 11. So the Greeke translateth, and hee shall sweare, that in very deed he hath not dealt evill. The putting forth the hand unto the thing, the Hebrew Doctors understand, not onely for stealth or conveying away, but also for the use or service of the thing; which when the keeper doth, if it be afterward stollen, lost, or any way miscarry, the keeper is to pay for it. R. Ios. Karro in Chosen hamishphat, treat. Pikkadon, c. 2. S. 1. goods] Heb. worke, that is, any thing gotten wherein ones worke or labour is imployed; as in Gen. 33. 14. The Greeke translateth it, the thing committed unto him, (which word Paul useth in 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 14.) also the Chaldee saith, that which his neighbour delivered him. So after in verse 11. Vers. 9. matter of trespasse] or, word of trespasse] that is, any injury spoken or complained of: which may be other waies than by putting to his hand fore-mentioned: as, if hee kept it not in a meet place, &c. The Hebrew canons say, Some things are usually kept in out-houses or yards, as timber, stones, &c. some in houses, as garments, &c. some lockt up in coffers, as money, jewels, &c. If a keeper leave a thing committed unto him, in a place unmeet, though it bee stollen, lost, burnt, or the like; hee is to pay for it. Also, when he that committed to his neighbour any thing to keepe, demandeth the thing againe; if the keeper of it say, I know not where I laid it, give mee respite till I seeke and finde it, and I will restore it unto you; loe this man is a trespasser, and is bound to make satisfaction out of hand. These and other like, are matters of trespasse, as Maimony sheweth in treat. of Borrowing, and committing a thing to keepe, chap. 4. losse, that is, lost thing. which he] that is, which the plaintiffe shall charge, or challenge. is he] is the man that had it: or, this is it, the thing which I challenge. the gods] the Iudges, as the Chaldee translateth. But the Greeke saith, the judgement of them both shall come before God, and hee that is taken by God, shall pay. condemne] Heb. make (or pronounce) wicked: which in such cases, usually signifieth to condemne as guiltie: as on the contrary, to make just (or justifie,) is to acquit or absolve in judgement, Deuteronomie 25. 1. Proverb. 17. 15. The Hebrewes expound it thus: A theefe against whom two sufficient witnesses doe testifie that he stole, is bound to pay the double. A theefe that confesseth of himselfe that he stole, must pay the principall, but is free from the double: so it is said, whom the gods shall condemne, hee shall pay the double, not he that condemnes himselfe, Maimony, treat. of Theft, chap. 1. Sect. 4. 5. Vers. 10. to keepe] not for nothing, as in the former case, verse 7. but for hire, as Iakob had Labans flocke to keepe, Gen. 30. 31.—36. and 31. 39. The Hebrew Doctors say, There are foure keepers spoken of in the Law, and three lawes are for them. The fourtkeepers are, he that keepeth for nothing, and hee that borroweth, and he that taketh wages (for keeping) and he that hireth a thing. The three [illegible: 1 word] for them are these: Hee that keepeth for nought, if the thing be stollen from him, or lost, or die, &c. must be sworne that hee hath kept it as the manner of keepers is to doe, so hee is free, Exodus 22. 7 8. The borrower payeth for all, whether the thing borrowed be lost, or stollen, or die, &c. Exodus 22. 14. The receiver of wages, and the hirer, there is one law for them both: that if the thing be lost or stollen they pay for it. Exodus 22. 12. if it die, or by any the like violence be for done; they must be sworne that so it was, and they are free, Exod. 22. 10, 11. Maimony, in Misneh, treat. of Hired things, chap. 1. Sect. 1. 2. broken] hurt, or maimed, &c. under these things specified all other violent accidents are implied; as losse by shipwracke, and the like. Vers. 11. oath of Iehovah] that is, whereby the Lord is taken to witnesse: because there was no man that saw and could testifie, verse 10. If there be witnesses, hee is not to pay, not to sweare: as Maimony sheweth in the foresaid treat. c. 3. S. 1. accept it] the Chaldee saith, shall take the oath, that is, accept of it, and so end the controversie, as Heb. 6. 16. hee] that is, the keeper shall not pay for it. Also the Hebrew Doctors say, If the keeper deliver (the goods) to a second keeper, and there be witnesses that the second kept them as the manner of keepers is to doe, and that some such violent accident did befall, the first keeper was free. But if there be not witnesses, the first keeper is bound to pay the owner, and goe to law him-selfe with the second keeper: yea though the first were a keeper for nothing. Maimony, treat. of Hired things, chap. 1. Sect. 4. Vers. 13. torne in peeces] Hebr. tearing torne: to wit, by wilde beasts, as the Greeke version manifesteth. bring it] that which is torne, or the remnants of it, as in Amos 3. 12. is mentioned a legge, or an eare, or the like. So the Ierusalemy Thargum saith, let him bring of the members of it, for a witnesse that it is killed. not pay] understanding, if the keeper doe his best to rescue it: and so it be not lost but by violence. Touching this, the Rabbines say, A shepheard when wolves come and take a prey from him, if there be but one wolfe, it is not (counted) violence; if there be two wolves, that is violence. If two dogges come, it is not violence, if moe, then it is. A lion, a beare, a leopard, a serpent, &c. every of these is (counted) violence; but if hee lead the flocke to the place where wilde beasts or robbers haunt, it is not violence, but he is bound to pay. A shepheard that hath meanes to rescue the prey by other shepheards, and by slaves; if he call not the other shepheards, nor bring staves to rescue with, hee is bound to pay, whether hee keepe for nothing, or for wages, save that he which keeketh for no hire calleth shepheards, and bringeth staves without hire; if he finde none such he is discharged. But he that keepeth for hire is bound to hire shepheards and staves to the worth of the beast, and rescue the same, and receives the hire againe of the householder. If hee doe not thus, and may hire, but doe not, hee dealeth unfaithfully, and is guilty. Maimony, treatise of Hired things, chapter 3. Section 4. 6. Vers. 14. borrow] Hebr. aske, and consequently, receive a thing lent. This law concerneth all moveable goods, beasts, houshould stuffe, and the like or die] or perish any other way; therefore the Greeke addeth, or bee driven away: as was in verse 10. The Hebrewes explaine this law thus: He that borroweth of his neighbour stuffe, or beast, or any like moveable goods, and it be lost, or stollen though with great violence, as if the beast be hurt, or taken away by force, or die, he is bound to pay all, Exodus 22. 14. To wit, if such violent accident doe befall it, and not in the time of the worke. But if he borrow a beast to plough with, and it die whiles he is ploughing, then hee is free. But if it die before he plougheth with it, or after; or if he ride upon it, or tread out corne with it, and it die in the time whiles he is riding on it, &c. hee is bound to pay for it, and so in all like cases. As, hee that borroweth a beast, to goe to such a place, and it die under him in the journey: or borroweth an axe to cut wood, and it breaketh in, and by the cutting thereof; now the borrower is free. Maimony, treat of Borrowing, and Committing a thing to keepe, chap. 1. Sect. 1. 2. paying] that is, he shall surely and fully pay. The manner whereof was this; they weighted what it was worth when it was well and whole, and what it was worth when it was broken; and the broken thing was restored, and what was lesse, he payed; and so the beasts carkasse was restored, and what it came short was made good. Maimony ibidem, chapter 1. Section 3. Vnto these they adde other cautions; as, Hee that borrowes a beast, is bound to give him food, all the while he hath borrowed him, If his flesh be abated, hee must pay for so much as he is lesse in worth. But if his flesh be abated by reason of the worke, he is free; and must take his oath, that he is waxed leane by working. Hee that borroweth ought absolutely, the lender may make him restore it at any time when he will: if he borrowed it for a certaine time, the lender cannot make him restore it, till the end of that time; and though the borrower die, yet his heires may use the borrowed thing, till the time be at an end. He that borroweth a thing to doe a certaine worke with, the lender cannot make him deliver it out of his hand, til the work be finished. Maimony ib. c. 1. S. 4. 5 6. Vers. 15. be with it] This the Hebrewes understand, of his being with it, in the time when it is borrowed, not in the time when it is used: for they say; Wee have beene taught, that whereas it is said, if the owner thereofbe with it, the meaning is, if he be with it in the time of borrowing it, &c. and there is no need that he be with it in the time when it is broken, or dieth. If he be not wth it in the time whē it is borrowed, though he be with it in the time when it is broken, or dieth, (the borrower) is bound to pay for it. Ra[illegible: 1 letter]bam (or Maimony) in his comment on Thalmud Bab. in Baba metsignah, chap. 8. it came] the Gr. translateth, it shall be to him (or his) for his hire. And so though the thing miscarry, he paieth but the hire onely. Vers. 16. entice] or perswade, so that she consent unto the encicer. And herein this differeth from the Law in Deuteronomie 22. 28. 29. which was for such as consented not. The Hebrewes say; Shee that is lien with in the field, it is certainely presumed that she was forced; unlesse witnesse testifie that [illegible: 6 words] with in the citie it is presumed [illegible: 1 word] she was[illegible: 1 word] because shee[illegible: 1 word]; unlesse witnesse▪ [illegible: 1 word] that [illegible: 3 words]; [illegible: 1 word] that the man dr[illegible: 1 letter]w a [illegible: 1 word] and saith [illegible: 2 words], if thou crie out I will kill her, Maimony in Nagharah be[illegible: 1 span], chap. 1. Sect. [illegible: 2 letters] not betrothed] for to lie with a betrothed maid was death Deut. 22. 24. 25. Vers. 17. weigh] that [illegible: 1 word] pay money. The summe is shewed in Deuteronomie 22. 29. to be fiftie shekels of silver. The Hebrew Doctors say, this mulct was, not onely if her father refused, but if the maid also, or if the inticer himselfe would not marie her, they compelled him not, but hee gave the mulct, and went his way. If he maried her, then he paid not this mulct, but gave her a writing, as other maids had. Maimony in Nagyarah chap. 1. Sect. 3. Vers. 18. a witch] or, sorceresse, whereof see the notes on Exodus 7. 11. He speaketh of the woman, because witchcraft is most in use among that kind: but implieth also the man-witch, or sorcerer (who is likewise named in Deuteronomie 18. 10.) Therefore the Greeke translateth it here plurally, Witches. The Hebrewes observe, Whosoever is guilty of death, the Iudges that doe not put him to death, they breake an affirmative precept, but transgresse not against a prohibitive saving of the Witch; for if they put not him to death, they transgresse a prohibition; as it is said, Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live, Maimony, in Sanhedrin, chap. 14. Sect. 3. Vers. 19. put to dye] Gr. ye shall kill him with death. Elsewhere it is commanded, that the beast bee killed also, Leviticus 20. 15. 16. for this sinne is Confusion, Lev. [illegible: 1 letter]8. 23. Vers. 20. sacrificeth to the gods] that is, as the Chaldee expounds it, to the idols of the peoples; and Moses explaineth it, either the Sunne, or the Moone, or any of the host of heaven, &c. Deut. 17. 2. 3. And by sacrifice, he implieth also worship and service, as is expressed in Deuteronomie 17. 3. utterly destroyed] or, anathematized, that is, destroyed as execrable and cursed; be put to death without mercie, as the Hebrew Cherem implieth, and Paul useth such a phrase in Hebrewes 10. 28. The Greeke here translateth it, destroied, the Chaldee by Onkelos, saith, killed; and the Thargum called Ionathans, addeth shall bee killed with the sword, and his goods consumed: which interpretation he gathereth from the Law in Deuteronomie 13. 15. 16. 17. where the word Cherem is also used. But others gather from Deut. 17. 2. 5. that hee was to be stoned, which is most agreeable. Howbeit this is to be understood of a witting and willing idolater, according to Numb. 25. 27. 30. and so the Hebrew canons say: Whosoever serveth idols willingly and presumptuously, he is guilty of cutting off, (to wit by the hand of God) and if there be witnesses that have seene him, he is stoned to death; and if he have served them ignorantly, he is to bring the [illegible: 1 word] offring appointed therefore, Maimony, treat. of Idolatry, c. 2. S. 1. except [illegible: 1 word] understand, except he sacrifice unto Iehovah. Vers. 21. vex] or, make a spoile and prey, Coppresse [illegible: 2 words] and violence; a word usually applied to the rich [illegible: 1 word] mightie, that vexe and spoil[illegible: 1 letter] the poore, fatherlesse, and stranger: whom God loveth, and commandeth us to love, even as our selves, Deut. 10. 18. 19. Levit. 29. 33. 34. Zach. 7. 10. Ier. 22. 3. Ezek. 46. 18. In particular this word is used for vexing or oppressing in buying and selling, Leviticus 25. 14. 17. The Hebrew Doctors expound this here to meane vexing of the stranger with words of reproach; and the oppressing next spoken of, to be meant of his goods or riches. Maimony in treat. of Merchandise, chap. 14. Sect. 15. Of this oppressing, see the notes on Levit. 25. Vers. 23. afflicting afflict,] that is, in any measure, or any manner of way afflict. It seemeth also to bee an imperfect speech, implying, I will afflict thee. See the like in Luke 13. 9. surely if] or and if: so the Greeke translateth it here and in 1 Sam. 2. 21. Also the Hebrew Ci, Surely (or For) and Vau, And, are put one for another, 2 Sam. 22. 28. with Psal. 18. 28. Esa. 39. 1. with 2 King 20. 12. Vers. 25. money] Hebr. silver: by it is meant also gold, or brasse, or meat, or rayment, or any other thing, as is explained, Levit. 25. 36. 37. Deut. 23. 19. And we are elsewhere commanded to lend, Deut. 15. 7. 8. Luke 6. 35. my people,] this putteth a difference betweene Gods people, and strangers infidels, unto whom they might lend upon usury, Deut 23. 20. as an exacting creditor:] as a lender that is urgent to have his owne againe; or to have a pawne for the same: so the word is sundry times used in this sense, 2 King. 4. 1. Psalme 109. 11. Nehem. 5. 7. 10. 11. Deut. 24. 10. so the law elsewhere forbiddeth exacting of debts upon our poore brethren, Deut. 15. 2. 3. and so the Greeke here translateth, thou shalt not be urgent upon him, Also the Hebrew Doctors gather from hence thus; who so exacteth (payment) of a poore man, and knoweth that he hath not ought to pay him with, hee transgresseth against this prohibition, Thou shalt not be to him as an exacting creditor. Maimony, treat of the Lender and borrower, chap. 1. Sect. 2. biting-usurie;] usury is called biting, for that it biteth and consumeth a man and his substance: and is therfore here and elsewhere absolutely forbidden Gods people, Deuteronomie 23. 19. Levit. 25. 35. 36 Proverbs 28. 8. Ezek. 18. 8. Of this the Iewes have these canons set downe by Maimony, in his fore-named treatise, chapter 4. 5. and 6. Usurie and increase are both one thing, Leviticus 25. 37. Deuteronomie 23. 19. And why is the name of it called [Neshek] biting usurie? because it [Noshek] biteth; for it nippeth thy neighbour, and eateth his flesh. As it is unlawfull to lend, so it is unlawfull to borrow upon usurie; for it is written (in Deuteronomie 23. 19.) Thou shalt not cause to bite, (that is, to lend upon biting usurie:) by tradition we have beene taught that this is an admonition to the borrower, &c. Likewise it is unlawfull to have ought to doe betweene the borrower and the lender upon usurie: and whosoever is either suretie or scribe, or witnesse betweene them, he transgresseth against this prohibition. Yee shall not lay upon him biting usurie, (Ex. 22. 25.) this is an admonition to the witnesses also, and to the surety; & to the scribe. He that lends upon usury transgresseth against six prohibitions. Thou shalt not be to him as an exacting creditor, Ex. 22. 25. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usurie, Leviticus 25. 37. Thou shalt not give him thy victuals for increase, Leviticus 25. 37. Thou shalt not take usurie of him or increase, Leviticus 25. 36. Yee shall not lay usurie upon him, Exodus 22. 25. and, Thou shalt not put a stumbling blocke before the blinde, Levit. 19. 14. And the borrower transgresseth against two; Thou shalt not cause to lend upon biting usurie, Deut. 23. 19. and, Thou shalt not lay a stumbling blocke before the blinde, Levit. 19. 14. The suretie, witnesses, and such like transgresse against this; Yee shall not lay usurie upon him. Whosoever borroweth or lendeth upon usurie, are like unto them that deny the name of the God of Israel, and deny the comming out of Egypt; as it is written, Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usurie, &c. I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, &c. Levit. 25. 37. 38. It is unlawfull to take usurie before or after. As one intending to borrow of a man sends him a gift, to the end that he may lend unto him: this is usurie afore hand. Or he hath borrowed of a man, and paid him againe, and sends him a gift for his money which he had of him for nought: this is after usurie. Whose borroweth of his neighbour, and was not wont in former time to salute him first; it is unlawfull for him to salute him first, (& I need not say, to praise him;) for it is written, Vsurie of any Word (or Thing) Deut. 23. 19. though they be but words, they are unlawfull. Likewise, it is unlawfull for the borrower to learne his lender to reade, &c. all the while his money is in his hand, if he were not wont to doe it before; as it is said, Vsurie of any thing. It is unlawfull to let out money to hire, as they doe other things, &c. Hee that lendeth to his neighbour, and conditioneth with him to dwell in his courtyard for nought untill hee pay him what hee hath borrowed; or that hireth a thing of him for lesse then it is worth till he pay him, &c. this is usurie. He that lends unto his neighbour may not retaine his servant to doe worke for him, although the servant sit still and hath nothing to doe. The Iudges are to see the usurie which the lender hath received to be restored backe unto the borrower. A bill for usurie; the principall may bee required by it, but not the interest, &c. Vers. 26. neighbours raiment] if hee be a Poore man, as the next verse manifesteth, and as is expressed in Deuter. 24. 12. 13. Neither may a pledge thus be taken of poore or rich, but by authority of the Magistrate, as the Hebrew Doctors teach: Maimony in treat. of Lender and Borrower, chap. 3. Sect. 4. See more for this point in the annotations upon Deuteronomie 24. raiment] which he either weareth by day, or lieth in by night; and so by proportion all other things whereof hee hath present use, as tooles & instruments to worke with, and such like, But things necessarie for to feed the life, as the mill-stone which grindeth corne, or any the like, may not be taken to pawne, Deuteronomie 24. 6. before the Sunne] or untill the Sunne goeth in, that is, setteth, or goeth downe, meaning, by day. In Deuteronomie 24. 13. it is said, when the Sunne goeth downe. Hereupon the Hebrew canons say, When one takes a pledge of his neighbour, if he be a poore man, and his pledge be a thing that hee hath need of, it is commanded that hee restore the pledge at the time when he needeth it: hee is to restore him his bedding at night, that hee may sleepe on it; and his working tooles by day, that he may doe his worke with them. If he doe not restore the instrument of the day by day, and the instrument of the night at night, he transgresseth against this prohibition, Thou shalt not sleepe with his pledge, Deut. 24. 12. this is meant of his night covering. And of things which hee doth his worke with by day, or cloatheth himselfe with, he saith, Before the Sunne goeth downe thou shalt returne it him; teaching to restore it all the day. Maimony, in the foresaid place, chap. 3. Sect. 5. The Hebrew word ad, (untill) is in Greeke translated, before, and a like signification it had in Gen 48. 5. Vers. 27. his skinne] the Greeke translateth it, his shame. when he crieth] or, that hee will cry unto me, and I will heare. The Greeke translateth, if therefore he cry. Vers. 28. revile] curse, banne, or blaspheme, (which word the holy Ghost useth in this case, 2 Pet. 2. 10.) that is, speake evill and dishonourably. See Gen. 12. 3. gods] that is, as the Chaldee translateth, Iudges: as Exod. 21. 6. the ruler of] Heb. ruler in; but it meaneth of thy people, as it is translated in Acts 23. 5. where it is applied to the high priest: but generally it is any prince or ruler, Numbers 7. 2. 3. 10. The Iew Doctors explaine it thus: Whosoeuer revileth a Iudge among the Iudges of Israel, transgresseth this Law, Thou shalt not revile the gods. And so if he revile the Ruler, either the chiefe of the great Synedrion, or the King, hee transgresseth this Law, Thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people. Maimony, in Sanhedrin, chap. 26. Sect. 1. And Solomon saith, Revile (or Curse) not the King, no not in thy thought, Eccles. 10. 20. curse] that is, speake evill, as is explained, Acts 23. 5. Vers. 29. Thy full-ripe fruit] to wit, the first-fruits thereof, as is explained, Exod. 23. 19. so the Chaldee translateth, Thy first fruits; and the Greeke, The first fruits of thy floore. The Hebrew signifieth, fulnesse, or collection: meaning fruits when they are full or ripe and gathered. So in Numbers 18. 27. and Deuteronomie 22. 9. Of this the Hebrew canons say, They bring no first fruits but of seven things, viz. of wheat, and of barley, and of grapes, and of figges, and of pomgranats, and of olives, and of dates. And if one bring other besides these seven kindes, they are not sanctified. They bring no first fruits of liquors, save of olives and of grapes: if a man bring other liquors, they are not received of him. There is no measure of first-fruits set by the Law: but by the Doctors a man must separate one of sixtie. Maimony, in treat. of First-fruits, chap. 2. Sect. 2. 4. 17. This measure is to be understood of the least quantitie which men might bring, as the greatest was the fortieth part: and men might bring what they would, betweene fortie and sixtie for their first-fruits; wherupon they elsewhere say; What measure did the wise men set? A good eye (that is, a bountifull person,) one of fortie; and the meant eye, one of fiftie; the evill eye, one of sixtie: and none might give lesse, then one of sixty. Maimony, in Trumoth, chap. 3. Sect. 2. liquor] Hebr. teare; that is, the first-fruits of wine and oyle, which when they are pressed, droppe as teares: so the Greeke translateth it, the first-fruits of thy wine-presse. Of the manner of bringing these first fruits, see more in the annotations on Deut. 26. not delay] or, not faile, to bring and offer the same; see Deuter. 26. 1. 2. &c. Delaying, is often used for deferring a thing to the last, and so consequently, for failing and not doing it, Deuteronomie 7. 10. and 23. 21. Habakkuk 2. 3. though it also may imply a deferring longer than the due time. By this oblation of the first fruits they acknowledged their thankfulnesse to God, whose [illegible: 1 letter]enants they were in the land, Deuteronomie 26. 9. 10. Leviticus 25. 23. and the whole increase was hereby sanctified unto them, Rom. 11. 16. Also the first fruits figured Gods Church, separated and sanctified unto him, from the rest of the world, Ier. 2. 3. Iames 1. 18. Rev. 14. 4. give unto me] by redeeming it for five shekels of silver, & giving them to the Lords priest; Num. 18. 15. 16. Ex. 13. 13 Vers. 30. and with thy sheepe] under which name, the goat also is comprehended, for the Hebrew implieth both, Levit. 1. 10. The Greeke here addeth the word And, understood in the Hebrew; which sometime the holy▪ Text supplieth; as, by each man, by all thy people, 1 King. 8. 38. that is, and by all thy people, 2 Chronicles, 6. 29. So, fight not with small, with great, 2 Chro. 18. 30. that is, with small or with great, 1 King. 22. 31. the eighth day] and from that day forward, it was acceptable, both for first fruits, & for other sacrifices, Levit. 22. 27. And before the eighth day, the Hebr. Doctors say, it was not lawfull to kill and eat any young beast, no not for common food. Maimony, treat. of Forbidden Meats, chap. 4. Sect. 4. The reason hereof was, that in this time, the Sabbath day passed over it, for there is no seven without a Sabbath, saith R. Menachem upon this place. See the notes on Gen. 17. 12. Vers. 31. men of holinesse] or as the Greeke and Chaldee translate, holy men: that is, separated from other men, as by inward vertue, so by outward abstinence from uncleane meats; (of which some here follow) So Deuteronomie 14. 21. Levit. 11. 44. 45. not eat] This was a legall rite and figure of sanctification: and if any had unawares eaten of flesh torne, he was to wash his clothes, and bathe him-selfe in water, and be uncleane untill the evening, otherwise he should beare his iniquity, Levit. 17. 15. 16. torne in the field] that is, torne by wilde beasts in the field, as the Gr. and Chaldee versions doe explaine. The like is for beasts that dye alone, Levit. 17. 15. Of this the Hebrewes say; The torne thing spoken of in the Law, is that which is torne by the wilde beasts of the wood, as Lion, Leopard, and the like. And so the fowle which is torne by ravenous fowles, as Eagle or the like. Though it be a torne thing which is not dead, it is forbidden: as if a Wolfe take a Kid by the leg, and some m[illegible: 1 letter]n followeth him, and takes it out of his mouth; it is forbidden (to be eaten) because it is torne. Although he first slay it before it dieth, yet it is forbidden as a torne thing, because it cannot live after that wound upon it. The Law forbiddeth that which is inclining to die, by reaso[illegible: 1 letter] of any hurt, though it bee not yet dead; and it is [illegible: 1 word] thing. Neither putteth it any difference, whe [illegible: 1 span] torne by beast or it fall from the top of an house, and [illegible: 1 span] be broken; or it bee shot through the heart with an arrow, or any the like, when it is i[illegible: 1 letter]clining to die, it is as a torne thing; whether the occasion be by the hand of flesh and blood, or by the hand of (God of) heaven. Likewise hee that cutteth flesh off from any living cleane beast: that is torne flesh, and who so eateth of it is beaten, as for eating torne flesh. Maimony, in Forbidden meats, chap. 4. Sect. 6. &c.