Leviticus 11 commentary

These laws seem to have been intended, 1. As a test of the people's obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the Israelites distinct from other nations. Many also of these forbidden animals were objects of superstition and idolatry to the heathen. 3. The people were taught to make distinctions between the holy and unholy in their companions and intimate connexions. 4. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Those who would be kept from any sin, must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, or coming near it. The exceptions are very minute, and all were designed to call forth constant care and exactness in their obedience; and to teach us to obey. Whilst we enjoy our Christian liberty, and are free from such burdensome observances, we must be careful not to abuse our liberty. For the Lord hath redeemed and called his people, that they may be holy, even as he is holy. We must come out, and be separate from the world; we must leave the company of the ungodly, and all needless connexions with those who are dead in sin; we must be zealous of good works devoted followers of God, and companions of his people.

2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat. The holy fathers, before the birth of Moses, knew what animals were unclean; of which fact Noah afforded a manifest proof, when, by God’s command, he took into the ark seven pairs of the clean animals, and offered of them his sacrifice of thanksgiving to God. Certainly he could not have obeyed the command of God, unless he had either been taught by secret inspiration, or unless this tradition had descended to him from his forefathers. But there is nothing absurd in the notion that God, desiring to confirm the traditional distinction, appointed certain marks of difference whereby its observation might be more scrupulously attended to, and lest any transgression of it should creep in through ignorance. For God also consecrated the Sabbath to Himself from the creation of the world, and desired it to be observed by the people before the promulgation of the Law; and yet afterwards the peculiar holiness of the day was more distinctly expressed. Besides, the clean animals are here distinguished from the unclean, by name as well as by signs. The proper names, which are recited, are of little service to us now-a-days; because many species which are common in the East, are unknown elsewhere; and it was therefore easy for Jews “Rabins Juifs.” — Fr. who were born and had lived in distant countries, to fall into error about them; whilst, on the other hand, the more bold they are in their conjectures, the less are they to be trusted. As to many of them, I acknowledge that there is no ambiguity, especially as to the tame animals, or those that are to be found everywhere, or that have plain descriptions of them given in the Bible. A positive knowledge then is only to be sought from the signs which are here laid down; viz., that the animals which have cloven hoofs, and which ruminate, are clean: and that those are unclean in which either of these two things is wanting; that either sea or river fish, which have fins and scales, are clean. No such distinction as to birds is given, but only the unclean are named, which it was sinful to eat. Lastly, mention is made of reptiles. As to details, if there be anything worthy of observation, the place to consider them will be further on; let us now remember, in general, what I have before touched upon, viz., that whilst the Gentiles might eat every kind of food, many were forbidden to the Jews, in order that they might learn in their very food to cultivate purity; and this was the object of their separation from ordinary customs. Hence it arose that they use the word חלל, chalal חול is rendered by A.V. unholy, Leviticus 10:10; common, 1 Samuel 21:5; profane, Ezekiel 22:26, and Ezekiel 42:20, in which last instance common, or public, would have been more suitable. — W both for “to make common,” and to “contaminate;” and the word, חול, chol, signifies “polluted,” because it is opposed to anything holy or set apart. It is true, indeed, that the Gentiles, by natural instinct, have regarded with the utmost horror the eating of some of the animals which are here forbidden; still, God would surround His people with barriers, which must separate them from their neighbors.

Those who imagine that God here had regard to their health, as if discharging the office of a Physician, pervert by their vain speculation the whole force and utility of this law. I allow, indeed, that the meats which God permits to be eaten are wholesome, and best adapted for food; but, both from the preface, — in which God admonished them that holiness was to be cultivated by the people whom He had chosen, — as also from the (subsequent) abolition of this law, it is sufficiently plain that this distinction of meats was a part of that elementary instruction “Pedagogiae.” — Lat. “La doctrine puerile.” — Fr. under which God kept His ancient people.

"Let no man therefore judge you (says Paul) in meat or in drink, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17.)

By which expressions he means, that what was spiritual had been shadowed forth in the external rite of abstaining from meats. To the same effect he elsewhere says, (Romans 14:14) that he knows and is persuaded, Vide C. in loco, (Calvin Society Translation,) and Owen’s note. C. evidently does not understand the words in the sense of our translation; “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,” — but rather as I have given them in the text, supposing the Apostle to speak of Christ, not as the author of his persuasion, but as the remover of the uncleanness referred to. The Fr. is “il sait, et est persuade qu’il n’y a rien impur a ceux, qui croyent en Jesus Christ; “he knows and is persuaded that there is nothing unclean to them that believe in Jesus Christ. that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is nothing unclean; viz., because Christ by his death has redeemed His people from slavish subjection. Hence it follows, that the prohibition of meats must be counted among the ceremonies, which were exercises in the worship of God. But here a question arises, how it is reconcilable that, even from the days of Noah, certain animals were unclean, and yet that all without exception were allowed to be eaten? I cannot agree with some in thinking that the distinction originally made by God grew obsolete by degrees; for God, in excepting the eating of blood only, makes a grant of whatsoever moves upon the earth as the food of the posterity of Noah. I therefore restrict to the sacrifices that uncleanness, with the knowledge of which the hearts of the Patriarchs were then inspired, nor do I doubt but that it was as lawful for Abraham, as well as for them, to eat swine’s flesh as the flesh of oxen. Afterwards, when God imposed the yoke of the Law to repress the licentiousness of the people, He somewhat curtailed this general permission, not because He repented of His liberality; but because it was useful to compel in this way to obedience these almost rude and uncivilized people. But, since before the Law the condition of the saints was the same as our own, it must be remembered, as I said before, that, agreeably to the dictates of nature, they spontaneously avoided certain foods, just as at present no one will hunt wolves or lions for food, nor desire to eat serpents and other venomous animals. But the object of this ordinance was different, viz., lest they who were God’s sacred and peculiar people, should freely and promiscuously communicate with the Gentiles.

3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof. Whilst I fear that but little confidence can be placed in the allegories, in which many have taken delight; so I do not find any fault with, nor even refuse that which has been handed down from the ancients, Fr. “les Docteurs anciens.” “Ungulam dividunt, qui secundum duo testamenta firmo se gradu innocentiae et justiciae statuunt. Judaei ruminant verba legis: sed ungulam non findunt, quia duo testamenta non recipiunt; nec in Patrem et Filium credunt: fidei gressum dividunt: heretici ungulam findunt, in Patrem et Filium credentes; seal doctrinam veritatis non ruminant.” — Glossa ordinaria, in loco viz., that by the cleaving of the hoof is signified prudence in distinguishing the mysteries of Scripture, and by the chewing of the cud serious meditation on its heavenly doctrines; although I cannot approve of the subtlety “Toutefois ils gastent tout a la fin par une subtilite frivole, etc;” nevertheless they spoil all by a frivolous subtlety. — Fr. which they add, viz., that those “rightly divide the word” who have known how to elicit mystical senses from its letter; because hence it has come to pass that they have allowed themselves in all sorts of imaginations. I therefore embrace the more simple notion, that they who only have a taste for the carnal sense, do not divide the hoof; for, as Paul says, only “he that is spiritual discerneth all things.” (1 Corinthians 2:15, margin.) The chewing of the cud ought to follow, duly to prepare and digest the spiritual food; for many gulp down Scripture without profit, because they neither sincerely desire to profit by it, nor seek to refresh their souls by it, as their nourishment; but satisfied with the empty delights of knowledge, make no efforts to conform their life to it. In the first clause, then, brutal stupidity is condemned; in the other, the ambition and levity of curious men. Addition in Fr. “qui ne prenent nulle refection de la doctrine de salut:” who receive no refreshment from the doctrine of salvation. God, indeed, set before Peter, in the vision, unclean animals as images and figures of the Gentiles, (Acts 10:12;) and therefore it is lawful, by probable analogy, to transfer to men what is said about the animals. But why God should have appointed the cloven hoof and rumination as signs, is no more clear to me than why He should have forbidden their eating swine’s flesh; unless, perchance, because the solid hoof is a sign of wildness; whilst the animals which do not ruminate feed for the most part on filth and excrement. We know that on this point there was much contention immediately after the promulgation of the Gospel, because some of the Jews, in their excessive devotion to the Law, and considering that the distinction of meats was not to be reckoned among the, ceremonial enactments, desired that the new Church should be bound by the same trammels as had been imposed upon the ancient people. At length, by the decree of the Apostles, permission was given to the Gentiles to eat all kinds of meat, except only blood and things strangled, and that only for a time, for the sake of avoiding offense, since the Jews would not otherwise have been propitiated. Now, after what God Himself had ordained respecting the distinction of meats had been abrogated, it was an act of diabolical audacity to oblige men’s consciences by human laws, and to prevent them from enjoying the liberty obtained by Christ.

Another question remains, how God should pronounce anything which He has created to be unclean; for, if an animal be rejected on account of its uncleanness, part of the reproach redounds to the Author Himself. Besides, this rejection seems also to be opposed to the first declaration of God, when, considering all things which He had made, He acknowledged them to be “very good.” The solution is, that no animal was ever unclean in itself; but that this merely refers to its use. Thus in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there was naturally neither fault nor harm, so that it should infect man by its pollution, yet he contracted death from it on account of God’s prohibition. Wherefore, also, in this passage, God does not condemn His work in the animals, but, as to their being eaten, He would have them accounted unclean, that the people may abominate that which is forbidden them. In a word, it is only transgression which defiles: for the animals have never changed their nature; but it was in God’s power to determine what He would have to be lawful or unlawful. Thus another objection is removed. Christ declares that

"not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ” (Matthew 10:11.)

If any one should thence infer that harmless animals are improperly condemned, we must reply that they are not accounted unclean in themselves, but that the prohibition had a different object. For that doctrine was always true, that

"the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,” (Romans 14:17;)

but, when God forbade the Israelites to eat this or that kind of food, they were admonished by this ceremonial precept how abominable is the inward corruption of the heart. But by such elementary teaching they were prepared and led onwards to spiritual doctrine, that they might know that nothing defiles a man except what comes out of his mouth. Now-a-days the condition of believers is different. for liberty is obtained for them, since Christ, having abrogated the Law, has nailed

"the handwriting of ordinances to his cross.” (Colossians 2:14.)

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of. He more clearly expresses what he had previously glanced at, viz., that an animal, although it may ruminate, shall not be clean unless it also cleaves the hoof; and, on the other hand, that the cloven hoof will not be sufficient unless combined with rumination. In these words Moses taught that partial and imperfect purity must not be obtruded upon God. If any choose to think that rumination is the symbol of internal purity, and the cloven hoof of external, his opinion will be a probable one. Since this distinction has occurred to my mind, although I have no taste for subtle speculations, I have thought it well to mention it, yet leaving it free for any one to accept it or not. Meanwhile we must hold it as certain, as I have lately said, that God demands perfect cleanliness, undefiled by any admixture. But the prohibition was most onerous to the Jews with respect to swine’s flesh, because it is very well adapted for food, not only as being a pleasant accompaniment of other meats, but because the working-classes are fed upon it at a smaller cost. In this point, therefore, the religion of the Jewish people was especially proved. For, when the soldiers of Antiochus desired to force the people to an entire renunciation of the Law, they only urged them to eat swine’s flesh There is allusion to this in 1 Macc. 1:47, and 62-63. “Howbeit, many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves, not to eat any unclean thing; wherefore they chose rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might not profane the holy covenant, so then they died." And hence the famous witticism of Augustus, “I would rather be Herod’s pig than his son;” Macrob., Saturnalia, 2 4. because, whilst he abstained from pork, he was the murderer of his children. But, in order that the Jews might observe this prohibition more strictly, the very touch was also forbidden them; so that it was not only wicked to taste swine’s flesh, but even to touch it with their hands after the animal was killed. The same rule did not apply to beef or mutton; for it is necessary to handle the meat which is appointed for our food.

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters. Here, also, some who know little of religion, plausibly contend that God is acting the physician’s part, and distinguishing wholesome from unwholesome food. But although their opinion is sufficiently refuted by medical men themselves, yet, even if I should admit what they desire, they reason badly. For the purpose of God was other than to provide for the people’s health; and, because He had to do with a rude people, He chose common marks, being admonished by which they might gradually ascend to higher things. It would be useless to follow the allegories which Isychius has invented “Hesychius, observing that no proper names are given here or elsewhere in Scripture, as I have said, to fishes, interprets it of the Gentiles gathered into the Church, whose names she does not desire to be written on earth, but in another generation, and in heaven; that these are born again in the waters of baptism; that they have fins, in the meditation of the law, which corresponds with the sublime and heavenly life; and scales, which may be easily removed, as also they may easily lay aside their ignorance, even as scales are said to have fallen from the eyes of Paul when he was converted. He declares that the adulterer, the covetous man, the drunkard, and the calumniator, have not fins, since their life is sordid and unclean; and says that the worshipper of idols cannot be counted among those who have scales, since he seems to be possessed of a hard and shellfish-like, and incurable ignorance of divine things.” — Lorinus, in loco. and I would willingly bury in oblivion these triflings, except that many have such a leaning to subtleties, that sober views would scarcely please them, until the folly of these allegories shall have been convicted. I will say nothing of the scales and fins. If at first sight any should approve of what he says as to the names of the fish being omitted, because the Church seeks not. a name upon earth, and that the Church is signified by the fish, — let them consider whether it is consistent that the Church should only exist in the water; and, again, that the birds, which are nearer heaven, should be excluded from this honor; thirdly, that the clean animals should be rejected, as if they did not belong to the Church; lastly, that those who by their contagion pollute the Church should be counted amongst the elect, whose names are written in heaven; for certainly many of the fish are unclean. Those who will not acquiesce in these perspicuous reasons, I will allow to wander in their labyrinth. This simple view will satisfy the moderate and teachable, that the fish are not named, because the greater part of them were unknown to the Jews, whose country did not produce many of the river-fish, since it scarcely had any river besides the Jordan, whilst the sea-fish only visited the neighboring shores.

13. And these are they which ye shall have in abomination. The species of birds and reptiles which are forbidden, are such as common feeling almost naturally repudiates. And assuredly God dealt with great indulgence towards His people, so as not to weigh them down with too heavy burdens. But because man’s greediness sometimes delights in monstrous food, He desired even in minor matters to put the rein upon them, lest they should rush with heathen nations into intemperance, whereby they would be polluted. For there was danger lest, by devouring filthy animals, they should harden themselves to join in various other corruptions. Another law is added, that they should not only abstain from eating these unclean animals, but, if any such should be killed, that they should not defile themselves by touching its carcase; nay, that if any vessels should have come in contact with them, those made of earth should be broken, and others should be washed. It seems to be a trifling matter to enjoin, that if a mouse should have been drowned in a vessel of water, the vessel itself should be unclean; and the strictness appears excessive, that the Jews should be commanded, “De contraindre les poures gens;” to constrain the poor people. — Fr. if any such animal had fallen into a vessel of wine, and had died there, not only to pour away the wine, but also to destroy the vessel; and if it had been smothered in an oven, or had lain in the hearth, to break down both of them; as if spiritual infection reached even to things without life. But we must always consider the intention of God: from whence we shall learn that He was not so severe and exacting in unimportant things as to tie His people to the observation of (superfluous) This word is added from the Fr. matters; but that these were acts of discipline whereby He might accustom them to study purity, which is so generally neglected and omitted among men. Now-a-days, also, we are commanded by the mouth of Paul,

"whether we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all to the glory of God,” (1 Corinthians 10:31;)

but in this respect we differ from the ancient people, that, being delivered from childish rudiments, we are directed only to what is spiritual, viz., that meat and drink are supplied to us by God, that we may serve in purity the Author of our life. But it was necessary to stimulate the Jews in various ways that they might be more attentive to this object; whilst God commanded them to keep their houses free from all uncleanness, and to be diligent in watching over the purity of their water, and all their vessels; that He might constantly set before their eyes how diligently He would have them to labor after true cleanliness; as follows in the end of the chapter.

43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable. He does not invite them to take care of their health, nor warn them of the danger of contracting’ diseases, but bids them beware of defiling themselves. And a clearer explanation is subjoined, “For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves; for I am holy.” Lest they should imagine that the main part of religion was contained in external ceremonies, they were to consider the nature of God; for, inasmuch as He is a Spirit, He would be worshipped only spiritually. Thus holiness is only connected instrumentally with the distinction of meats; since their abstinence had no other object than that they should consecrate themselves to God. Therefore the superstition of the Jews was inexcusable, when they satisfied themselves with trifling observances; “Quand ils se sont arrestez a l’observation une et simple de choses frivoles; comme si quelqu’un apprenoit 1’ a, b, c, et qu’il ne luy chalust puis apres d’accoupler les lettres pour lire;” when they stopped at the bare and simple observation of frivolous things; as if one should learn the a, b, c, and cared not afterwards to join the letters together so as to read.—Fr. as if one should learn the letters of the alphabet without applying them to their use, and reading what is written. From their example we perceive how eagerly men lay hold of everything they can to sustain them in their hypocrisy, for they not only wrested to their earthly notions the things which were profitable in the pursuit of true integrity of heart; but, not content, with this, they heaped to themselves many supererogatory rites; Addition in Fr., “Comme si la religion eust este enclose en choses de neant;” as if religion had been comprised in things of nought. hence the water of expiation, or lustration always in use, even when they were unconscious of any pollution: hence their anxious labor in washing cups and platters, that it might readily appear how constantly the perversity of man abuses what God has appointed for the best of reasons.

Another Supplement touching Things Accidentally Unclean Heading added from Fr., “Autre dependence des choses impures par accident."

Deuteronomy 14

Deuteronomy 14:21

21. Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.

21. Non comedetis ullum cadaver: peregrino qui est intra portas tuas dabis illud, et comedet illud, aut vendes alienigenae: populus enim sanctus es Jehovae Deo tuo.

Exodus 22

Exodus 22:31

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.

31. Viri sancti eritis mihi: carnem in agro raptam non comedetis, cani projicietis eam.

Leviticus 17

Leviticus 17:15, 16

15. And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.

15. Onmis anima quae comederit cadaver, aut raptum, tam de indigenis quam de peregrinis, lavabit vestimenta sua, ubi laverit se aqua: eritque immundus usque ad vesperam, deinde mundus erit.

16. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.

16. Quod si non laverit vestes, et carnem non laverit, portabit iniquitatem suam.

CHAPTER 11

Le 11:1-47. Beasts That May and May Not Be Eaten.

1-2. the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron--These laws, being addressed to both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in Israel, may serve to indicate the twofold view that is to be taken of them. Undoubtedly the first and strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general intercourse with the world--to prevent them acquiring familiarity with the inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their idolatries or be contaminated with their vices: in short, to keep them a distinct and peculiar people. To this purpose, no difference of creed, no system of polity, no diversity of language or manner, was so subservient as a distinction of meats founded on religion; and hence the Jews, who were taught by education to abhor many articles of food freely partaken of by other people, never, even during periods of great degeneracy, could amalgamate with the nations among which they were dispersed. But although this was the principal foundation of these laws, dietetic reasons also had weight; for there is no doubt that the flesh of many of the animals here ranked as unclean, is everywhere, but especially in warm climates, less wholesome and adapted for food than those which were allowed to be eaten. These laws, therefore, being subservient to sanitary as well as religious ends, were addressed both to Moses and Aaron.

3-7. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud--Ruminating animals by the peculiar structure of their stomachs digest their food more fully than others. It is found that in the act of chewing the cud, a large portion of the poisonous properties of noxious plants eaten by them, passes off by the salivary glands. This power of secreting the poisonous effects of vegetables, is said to be particularly remarkable in cows and goats, whose mouths are often sore, and sometimes bleed, in consequence. Their flesh is therefore in a better state for food, as it contains more of the nutritious juices, is more easily digested in the human stomach, and is consequently more easily assimilated. Animals which do not chew the cud, convert their food less perfectly; their flesh is therefore unwholesome, from the gross animal juices with which they abound, and is apt to produce scorbutic and scrofulous disorders. But the animals that may be eaten are those which "part the hoof as well as chew the cud," and this is another means of freeing the flesh of the animal from noxious substances. "In the case of animals with parted hoofs, when feeding in unfavorable situations a prodigious amount of foetid matter is discharged, and passes off between the toes; while animals with undivided hoofs, feeding on the same ground, become severely affected in the legs, from the poisonous plants among the pasture" [Whitlaw, Code of Health]. All experience attests this, and accordingly the use of ruminating animals (that is, those which both chew the cud and part the hoof) has always obtained in most countries though it was observed most carefully by the people who were favored with the promulgation of God's law.

9. These shall ye eat ... whatsoever hath fins and scales--"The fins and scales are the means by which the excrescences of fish are carried off, the same as in animals by perspiration. I have never known an instance of disease produced by eating such fish; but those that have no fins and scales cause, in hot climates, the most malignant disorders when eaten; in many cases they prove a mortal poison" [Whitlaw].

12. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales, &c.--Under this classification frogs, eels, shellfish of all descriptions, were included as unclean; "many of the latter (shellfish) enjoy a reputation they do not deserve, and have, when plentifully partaken of, produced effects which have led to a suspicion of their containing something of a poisonous nature."

13-19. these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls--All birds of prey are particularly ranked in the class unclean; all those which feed on flesh and carrion. No less than twenty species of birds, all probably then known, are mentioned under this category, and the inference follows that all which are not mentioned were allowed; that is, fowls which subsist on vegetable substances. From our imperfect knowledge of the natural history of Palestine, Arabia, and the contiguous countries at that time, it is not easy to determine exactly what some of the prohibited birds were; although they must have been all well known among the people to whom these laws were given.

the ossifrage--Hebrew, "bone-breaker," rendered in the Septuagint "griffon," supposed to be the Gypoetos barbatus, the Lammer Geyer of the Swiss--a bird of the eagle or vulture species, inhabiting the highest mountain ranges in Western Asia as well as Europe. It pursues as its prey the chamois, ibex, or marmot, among rugged cliffs, till it drives them over a precipice--thus obtaining the name of "bone-breaker."

the ospray--the black eagle, among the smallest, but swiftest and strongest of its kind.

20. All fowls that creep, &c.--By "fowls" here are to be understood all creatures with wings and "going upon all fours," not a restriction to animals which have exactly four feet, because many "creeping things" have more than that number. The prohibition is regarded generally as extending to insects, reptiles, and worms.

21-22. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet--Nothing short of a scientific description could convey more accurately the nature "of the locust after its kind." They were allowed as lawful food to the Israelites, and they are eaten by the Arabs, who fry them in olive oil. When sprinkled with salt, dried, smoked, and fried, they are said to taste not unlike red herrings.

26. every beast ... not cloven-footed--The prohibited animals under this description include not only the beasts which have a single hoof, as horses and asses, but those also which divided the foot into paws, as lions, tigers, &c.

29. the weasel--rather, the mole.

the mouse--From its diminutive size it is placed among the reptiles instead of the quadrupeds.

the tortoise--a lizard, resembling very nearly in shape, and in the hard pointed scales of the tail, the shaketail.

30. the ferret--the Hebrew word is thought by some to signify the newt or chameleon, by others the frog.

the chameleon--called by the Arabs the warral, a green lizard.

the snail--a lizard which lives in the sand, and is called by the Arabs chulca, of an azure color.

the mole--Another species of lizard is meant, probably the chameleon.

31-35. whosoever doth touch them, when ... dead, shall be unclean until the even--These regulations must have often caused annoyance by suddenly requiring the exclusion of people from society, as well as the ordinances of religion. Nevertheless they were extremely useful and salutary, especially as enforcing attention to cleanliness. This is a matter of essential importance in the East, where venomous reptiles often creep into houses and are found lurking in boxes, vessels, or holes in the wall; and the carcass of one of them, or a dead mouse, mole, lizard, or other unclean animal, might be inadvertently touched by the hand, or fall on clothes, skin bottles, or any article of common domestic use. By connecting, therefore, the touch of such creatures with ceremonial defilement, which required immediately to be removed, an effectual means was taken to prevent the bad effects of venom and all unclean or noxious matter.

47. make a difference between the unclean and the clean--that is, between animals used and not used for food. It is probable that the laws contained in this chapter were not entirely new, but only gave the sanction of divine enactment to ancient usages. Some of the prohibited animals have, on physiological grounds, been everywhere rejected by the general sense or experience of mankind; while others may have been declared unclean from their unwholesomeness in warm countries or from some reasons, which are now imperfectly known, connected with contemporary idolatry.

And the Lord spake unto Moses - In the preceding chapter the priests are expressly forbidden to drink wine; and the reason for this law is given also, that they might be able at all times to distinguish between clean and unclean, and be qualified to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken, Lev 10:10, Lev 10:11; for as inebriation unfits a person for the regular performance of every function of life, it must be especially sinful in those who minister in holy things, and to whom the teaching of the ignorant, and the cure of souls in general, are entrusted. Scheuchzer has remarked that no Christian state has made any civil law against drunkenness, (he must only mean the German states, for we have several acts of parliament against it in England), and that it is only punished by contempt. "Custom," says he, "that tyrant of the human race, not only permits it, but in some sort authorizes the practice, insomuch that we see priests and ministers of the Church ascend the pulpit in a state of intoxication, judges seat themselves upon the benches, physicians attend their patients, and others attempt to perform the different avocations of life, in the same disgraceful state." - Physic. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 64. This is a horrible picture of German manners; and while we deplore the extensive ravages made by this vice, and the disgrace with which its votaries are overwhelmed, we have reason to thank God that it very rarely has ever appeared in the pulpit, and perhaps was never once seen upon the bench, in our own country. Having delivered the law against drinking wine, Moses proceeds to deliver a series of ordinances, all well calculated to prevent the Israelites from mixing with the surrounding nations, and consequently from being contaminated by their idolatry. In Leviticus 11 he treats of unclean Meats. In Lev 12:1-8, 13, 14, and 15, he treats of unclean Persons, Garments, and Dwellings. In Leviticus 16 he treats of the uncleanness of the Priests and the People, and prescribes the proper expiations and sacrifices for both. In Leviticus 17 he continues the subject, and gives particular directions concerning the mode of offering, etc. In Leviticus 18 he treats of unclean matrimonial connections. In Leviticus 19 he repeats sundry laws relative to these subjects, and introduces some new ones. In Leviticus 20 he mentions certain uncleannesses practiced among the idolatrous nations, and prohibits them on pain of death. In Leviticus 21 he treats of the mourning, marriages, and personal defects of the priests, which rendered them unclean. And in Leviticus 22 he speaks of unclean sacrifices, or such as should not be offered to the Lord. After this, to the close of the book, many important and excellent political and domestic regulations are enjoined, the whole forming an eccleslastico-political system superior to any thing the world ever saw. Bishop Wilson very properly observes that, "by these laws of clean and unclean animals, etc., God did keep this people separated from the idolatrous world: and this is a standing proof, even to the present day, of the Divine authority of these Scriptures; for no power or art of man could have obliged so great and turbulent a nation to submit to such troublesome precepts as the Jews always have submitted to, had they not been fully convinced, from the very first, that the command was from God, and that it was to be obeyed at the peril of their souls."

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed - These two words mean the same thing - a divided hoof, such as that of the ox, where the hoof is divided into two toes, and each toe is cased with horn.

Cheweth the cud - Ruminates; casts up the grass, etc., which had been taken into the stomach for the purpose of mastication. Animals which chew the cud, or ruminate, are provided with two, three or four stomachs. The ox has four: in the first or largest, called the ventriculus or paunch, the food is collected without being masticated, the grass, etc., being received into it as the beast crops it from the earth. The food, by the force of the muscular coats of this stomach, and the liquors poured in, is sufficiently macerated; after which, formed into small balls, it is thrown up by the esophagus into the mouth, where it is made very small by mastication or chewing, and then sent down into the second stomach, into which the esophagus or gullet opens, as well as into the first, ending exactly where the two stomachs meet. This is what is termed chewing the cud. The second stomach, which is called the reticulum, honeycomb, bonnet, or king's hood, has a great number of small shallow cells on its inward surface, of a pentagonal or five-sided form, exactly like the cells in a honey-comb; in this the food is farther macerated, and then pushed onward into the third stomach, called the omasum or many-plies, because its inward surface is covered with a great number of thin membranous partitions. From this the food passes into the fourth stomach, called the abomasum, or rede. In this stomach it is digested, and from the digested mass the chyle is formed, which, being absorbed by the lacteal vessels, is afterwards thrown into the mass of blood, and becomes the principle of nutrition to all the solids and fluids of the body. The intention of rumination, or chewing the cud, seems to be, that the food may be sufficiently comminuted, that, being more fully acted on by the stomachs, it may afford the greatest possible portion of nutritive juices. The word cud is probably not originally Saxon, though found in that language in the same signification in which it is still used. Junius, with great show of probability, derives it from the Cambro-British chwyd, a vomit, as it is the ball of food vomited, or thrown up, from the first stomach or paunch through the esophagus into the mouth, which is called by this name. Those who prefer a Saxon derivation may have it in the verb whence our word chew; and so cud might be considered a contraction of chewed, but this is not so likely as the preceding.

The coney - שפן shaphan, not the rabbit, but rather a creature nearly resembling it, which abounds in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and is called by Dr. Shaw daman Israel, and by Mr. Bruce ashkoko. As this creature nearly resembles the rabbit, with which Spain anciently abounded, Bochart supposes that the Phoenicians might have given it the name of שפניה spaniah, from the multitude of שפנים shephanim (or spanim, as others pronounce it) which were found there. Hence the emblem of Spain is a woman sitting with a rabbit at her feet. See a coin of Hadrian in Scheuchzer.

The hare - ארנבת arnebeth, as Bochart and others suppose, from ארה arah, to crop, and ניב nib, the produce of the ground, these animals being remarkable for destroying the fruits of the earth. That they are notorious for destroying the tender blade of the young corn, is well known. It is very likely that different species of these animals are included under the general terms שפן shaphan, and ארנבת arnebeth, for some travelers have observed that there are four or five sorts of these animals, which are used for food in the present day in those countries. See Harmer, vol. iii., p. 331, edit. 1808. Some think the mountain rat, marmot, squirrel, and hedgehog, may be intended under the word shaphan.

And the swine - חזיר chazir, one of the most gluttonous, libidinous, and filthy quadrupeds in the universe; and, because of these qualities, sacred to the Venus of the Greeks and Romans, and the Friga of our Saxon ancestors; and perhaps on these accounts forbidden, as well as on account of its flesh being strong and difficult to digest, affording a very gross kind of aliment, apt to produce cutaneous, scorbutic, and scrofulous disorders, especially in hot climates.

Whatsoever hath fins and scales - Because these, of all the fish tribe, are the most nourishing; the others which are without scales, or whose bodies are covered with a thick glutinous matter, being in general very difficult of digestion.

And these - among the fowls - the eagle - נשר nesher, from nashar, to lacerate, cut, or tear to pieces; hence the eagle, a most rapacious bird of prey, from its tearing the flesh of the animals it feeds on; and for this purpose birds of prey have, in general, strong, crooked talons and a hooked beak. The eagle is a cruel bird, exceedingly ravenous, and almost insatiable.

The ossifrage - Or bone-breaker, from os, a bone, and frango, I break, because it not only strips off the flesh, but breaks the bone in order to extract the marrow. In Hebrew it is called פרס peres, from paras, to break or divide in two, and probably signifies that species of the eagle anciently known by the name of ossifraga, and which we render ossifrage.

Ospray - עזניה ozniyah, from עזן azan, to be strong, vigorous; generally supposed to mean the black eagle, such as that described by Homer, Iliad. lib. xxi., ver. 252. Αιετου οιματ' εχων μελανος, του θηρητηρος, Ὁς θ' αμα καρτιστος τε και ωκιστος πετεηνων. "Having the rapidity of the black eagle, that bird of prey, at once the swiftest and the strongest of the feathered race." Among the Greeks and Romans the eagle was held sacred, and is represented as carrying the thunderbolts of Jupiter. This occurs so frequently, and is so well known, that references are almost needless. See Scheuchzer.

The vulture - דאה daah, from the root to fly, and therefore more probably the kite or glede, from its remarkable property of gliding or sailing with expanded wings through the air. The דאה daah is a different bird from the דיה daiyah, which signifies the vulture. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 195.

The kite - איה aiyah, thought by some to be the vulture, by others the merlin. Parkhurst thinks it has its name from the root אוה avah, to covet, because of its rapaciousness; some contend that the kite is meant. That it is a species of the hawk, most learned men allow. See Bochart, vol. iii., col..

Every raven - ערב oreb, a general term comprehending the raven, crow, rook, jackdaw, and magpie.

The owl - בת היענה bath haiyaanah, the daughter of vociferation, the female ostrich, probably so called from the noise they make. "In the lonesome part of the night," says Dr. Shaw, "the ostriches frequently make a very doleful and hideous noise, sometimes resembling the roar of the lion; at other times, the hoarser voice of the bull or ox." He adds, "I have heard them groan as if in the deepest agonies." - Travels, 4th edition, p. 455. The ostrich is a very unclean animal, and eats its own ordure as soon as it voids it, and of this Dr. Shaw observes, (see above), it is remarkably fond! This is a sufficient reason, were others wanting, why such a fowl should be reputed to be unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited.

The night hawk - תחמס tachmas, from חמס chamas, to force away, act violently and unjustly; supposed by Bochart and Scheuchzer to signify the male ostrich, from its cruelty towards its young; (see Job 39:13-18); but others, with more reason, suppose it to be the bird described by Hasselquist, which he calls the strix Orientalis, or Oriental owl. "It is of the size of the common owl, living in the ruins and old deserted houses of Egypt and Syria; and sometimes in inhabited houses. The Arabs in Egypt call it Massasa, the Syrians Bana. It is very ravenous in Syria, and in the evenings, if the windows be left open, it flies into the house and kills infants, unless they are carefully watched; wherefore the women are much afraid of it." - Travels, p. 196. If this is the fowl intended, this is a sufficient reason why it should be considered an abomination.

The cuckoo - שחף shachaph, supposed rather to mean the sea mew; called shachaph, from שחפת shachepheth, a wasting distemper, or atrophy, (mentioned Lev 26:16; Deu 28:22), because its body is the leanest, in proportion to its bones and feathers, of most other birds, always appearing as if under the influence of a wasting distemper. A fowl which, from its natural constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump or fleshy, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient why such should be prohibited.

And the hawk - נץ nets, from the root נצה natsah, to shoot forth or spring forward, because of the rapidity and length of its flight, the hawk being remarkable for both. As this is a bird of prey, it is forbidden, and all others of its kind.

The little owl - כוס cos, the bittern, night-raven or night-owl, according to most interpreters. Some think the onocrotalus or pelican may be intended; for as the word כוס cos signifies a cup in Hebrew, and the pelican is remarkable for a pouch or bag under the lower jaw, it might have had its Hebrew name from this circumstance; but the kaath in the following verse is rather supposed to mean this fowl, and the cos some species of the bubo or owl. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 272.

The cormorant - שלך shalach, from the root which signifies to cast down; hence the Septuagint καταρρακτης, the cataract, or bird which falls precipitately down upon its prey. It probably signifies the plungeon or diver, a sea fowl, which I have seen at sea dart down as swift as an arrow into the water, and seize the fish which it had discovered while even flying, or rather soaring, at a very great height.

The great owl - ינשוף yanshuph, according to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, signifies the ibis, a bird well known and held sacred in Egypt. Some critics, with our translation, think it means a species of owl or night bird, because the word may be derived from נשף nesheph, which signifies the twilight, the time in which owls chiefly fly about. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 281.

The swan - תנשמת tinshemeth. The Septuagint translate the word by πορφυριωνα, the porphyrion, purple or scarlet bird. Could we depend on this translation, we might suppose the flamingo or some such bird to be intended. Some suppose the goose to be meant, but this is by no means likely, as it cannot be classed either among ravenous or unclean fowls. Bochart thinks the owl is meant.

The pelican - קאת kaath. As קאת kaah signifies to vomit up, the name is supposed to be descriptive of the pelican, who receives its food into the pouch under its lower jaw, and, by pressing it on its breast with its bill, throws it up for the nourishment of its young. Hence the fable which represents the pelican wounding her breast with her bill, that she might feed her young with her own blood; a fiction which has no foundation but in the above circumstance. Bochart thinks the bittern is meant, vol. iii., col. 292.

The gier eagle - רחם racham. As the root of this word signifies tenderness and affection, it is supposed to refer to some bird remarkable for its attachment to its young; hence some have thought that the pelican is to be understood. Bochart endeavors to prove that it means the vulture, probably that species called the golden vulture - Bochart, vol. iii., col. 303.

The stork - חסידה chasidah, from חסד chasad, which signifies to be abundant in kindness, or exuberant in acts of beneficence; hence applied to the stork, because of its affection to its young, and its kindness in tending and feeding its parents when old; facts attested by the best informed and most judicious of the Greek and Latin natural historians. See Bochart, Scheuchzer, and Parkhurst, under the word חסד chasad. It is remarkable for destroying and eating serpents, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among unclean birds.

The heron - אנפה anaphah. This word has been variously understood: some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others the curlew, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane. The root אנף anaph, signifies to breathe short through the nostrils, to snuff, as in anger; hence to be angry: and it is supposed that the word is sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable disposition. It will attack even a man in defense of its nest; and I have known a case where a man was in danger of losing his life by the stroke of a heron's bill, near the eye, who had climbed up into a high tree to take its nest. Bochart supposes a species of the eagle to be meant, vol. iii., col. 335.

The lapwing - דוכיפת duchiphath, the upupa, hoopoe, or hoop, a crested bird, with beautiful plumage, but very unclean. See Bochart, and Scheuchzer. Concerning the genuine meaning of the original, there is little agreement among interpreters.

The bat - עטלף atalleph, so called, according to Parkhurst, from עט at, to fly, and עלף alaph, darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night: so the Septuagint νυκτερις, from νυξ, the night; and the Vulgate vespertilio, from vesper, the evening. This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in food should be avoided.

All fowls that creep - Such as the bat, already mentioned, which has claws attached to its leathern wings, and which serve in place of feet to crawl by, the feet and legs not being distinct; but this may also include all the different kinds of insects, with the exceptions in the following verse.

Going upon all four - May signify no more than walking regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that such insects have a great number of feet.

Which have legs above their feet - This appears to refer to the different kinds of locusts and grasshoppers, which have very remarkable hind legs, long, and with high joints, projecting above their backs, by which they are enabled to spring up from the ground, and leap high and far.

The locust - ארבה arbeh, either from ארב arab, to lie in wait or in ambush, because often immense flights of them suddenly alight upon the fields, vineyards, etc., and destroy all the produce of the earth; or from רבה rabah, he multiplied, because of their prodigious swarms. See a particular account of these insects in the notes on Exo 10:4 (note).

The bald locust - סלעם solam, compounded, says Mr. Parkhurst, from סלע sala, to cut, break, and עם am, contiguity; a kind of locust, probably so called from its rugged, craggy form. See the first of Scheuchzer's plates, vol. iii., p. 100.

The beetle - חרגל chargol. "The Hebrew name seems a derivative from חרג charag, to shake, and רגל regel, the foot; and so to denote the nimbleness of its motions. Thus in English we call an animal of the locust kind a grasshopper; the French name of which is souterelle, from the verb sauter, to leap" - Parkhurst. This word occurs only in this place. The beetle never can be intended here, as that insect never was eaten by man, perhaps, in any country of the universe.

The grasshopper - חגב chagab. Bochart supposes that this species of locust has its name from the Arabic verb hajaba to veil; because when they fly, as they often do, in great swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun. See the notes on Exo 10:4, and the description of ten kinds of locusts in Bochart, vol. iii., col. 441. And see the figures in Scheuchzer, in whose plates 20 different species are represented, vol. iii., p. 100. And see Dr. Shaw on the animals mentioned in this chapter. Travels, p. 419, etc., 4th. edition; and when all these are consulted, the reader will see how little dependence can be placed on the most learned conjectures relative to these and the other animals mentioned in Scripture. One thing however is fully evident, viz., that the locust was eaten, not only in those ancient times, in the time of John Baptist, Mat 3:4, but also in the present day. Dr. Shaw ate of them in Barbary "fried and salted," and tells us that "they tasted very like crayfish." They have been eaten in Africa, Greece, Syria, Persia, and throughout Asia; and whole tribes seem to have lived on them, and were hence called acridophagoi, or locust-eaters by the Greeks. See Strabo lib. xvi., and Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. xvii., c. 30.

Whatsoever goeth upon his paws - כפיו cappaiv, his palms or hands, probably referring to those animals whose feet resemble the hands and feet of the human being, such as apes, monkeys, and all creatures of that genus; together with bears, frogs, etc.

The weasel - חלד choled, from chalad, Syr., to creep in. Bochart conjectures, with great propriety, that the mole, not the weasel, is intended by the Hebrew word: its property of digging into the earth, and creeping or burrowing under the surface, is well known.

The mouse - עחבר achbar. Probably the large field rat, or what is called by the Germans the hamster, though every species of the mus genus may be here prohibited.

The tortoise - צב tsab. Most critics allow that the tortoise is not intended here, but rather the crocodile, the frog, or the toad. The frog is most probably the animal meant, and all other creatures of its kind.

The ferret - אנקה anakah, from אנק anak, to groan, to cry out: a species of lizard, which derives its name from its piercing, doleful cry. See Bochart, vol. ii., col. 1066.

The chameleon - כח coach. Bochart contends that this is the waril or guaril, another species of lizard, which derives its name from its remarkable strength and vigor in destroying serpents, the Hebrew כח cach signifying to be strong, firm, vigorous: it is probably the same with the mongoose, a creature still well known in India, where it is often domesticated in order to keep the houses free from snakes, rats, mice, etc.

The lizard - לטאה letaah. Bochart contends that this also is a species of lizard, called by the Arabs wahara, which creeps close to the ground, and is poisonous.

The snail - חמט chomet, another species of lizard, according to Bochart, called huluka by the Arabians, which lives chiefly in the sand - Vol. ii., col. 1075.

The mole - תנשמת tinshameth, from נשם nasham, to breathe. Bochart seems to have proved that this is the chameleon, which has its Hebrew name from its wide gaping mouth, very large lungs, and its deriving its nourishment from small animals which float in the air, so that it has been conjectured by some to feed on the air itself - Vol. iii., col. 1073. A bird of the same name is mentioned Lev 11:18, which Bochart supposes to be the night-owl - Vol. iii., col. 286.

Any vessel of wood - Such as the wooden bowls still in use among the Arabs. Or raiment, or skin - any trunks or baskets covered with skins, another part of the furniture of an Arab tent; the goat-skins, in which they churn their milk, may be also intended. Or sack - any hair-cloth used for the purpose of transporting goods from place to place.

And every earthen vessel - Such pitchers as are commonly used for drinking out of, and for holding liquids. M. De la Roque observes that hair-sacks, trunks, and baskets, covered with skin, are used among the travelling Arabs to carry their household utensils in, which are kettles or pots, great wooden bowls, hand-mills, and pitchers. It is very likely that these are nearly the same with those used by the Israelites in their journeyings in the wilderness, for the customs of these people do not change.

Ranges for pots - To understand this, we must observe that the Arabs dig a hole in their tent, about a foot and a half deep; three-fourths of this, says Rauwolff, they lay about with stones, and the fourth part is left open for the purpose of throwing in their fuel. This little temporary building is probably what is here designed by ranges for pots; and this was to be broken down when any unclean thing had fallen upon it. See Harmer, vol. 1., p. 464.

A fountain or pit, etc. - This must either refer to running water, the stream of which soon carries off all impurities, or to large reservoirs where the water soon purifies itself; the water in either which touched the unclean thing, being considered as impure, the rest of the water being clean.

Any sowing seed - If any part of an impure carcass fall accidentally on seed about to be sown, it shall not on that account be deemed unclean; but if the water put to the seed to prepare it for being sown, shall be touched by such impure carcass, the seed shall be considered as unclean, Lev 11:38. Probably this may be the meaning of these passages.

Whatsoever goeth upon the belly - In the word גהון gahon, the vau holem, in most Hebrew Bibles, is much larger than the other letters; and a Masoretic note is added in the margin, which states that this is the middle letter of the law; and consequently this verse is the middle verse of the Pentateuch.

Whatsoever hath more feet - Than four; that is, all many-footed reptiles, as well as those which go upon the belly having no feet, such as serpents; besides the four-footed smaller animals mentioned above.

Ye shall - sanctify yourselves - Ye shall keep yourselves separate from all the people of the earth, that ye may be holy; for I am holy. And this was the grand design of God in all these prohibitions and commands; for these external sanctifications were only the emblems of the internal purity which the holiness of God requires here, and without which none can dwell with him in glory hereafter. See at the conclusion of this chapter. The contents of this chapter must furnish many profitable reflections to a pious mind.

1. From the great difficulty of ascertaining what animals are meant in this part of the law, we may at once see that the law itself must be considered as abrogated; for there is not a Jew in the universe who knows what the animals are, a very few excepted, which are intended by these Hebrew words; and therefore he may be repeatedly breaking this law by touching and being touched either by the animals themselves or their produce, such as hair, wool, fur, skin, intestines, differently manufactured, etc., etc. It therefore appears that this people have as little law as they have gospel.

2. While God keeps the eternal interests of man steadily in view, he does not forget his earthly comfort; he is at once solicitous both for the health of his body and his soul. He has not forbidden certain aliments because he is a Sovereign, but because he knew they would be injurious to the health and morals of his people. The close connection that subsists between the body and the soul we cannot fully comprehend; and as little can we comprehend the influence they have on each other. Many moral alterations take place in the mind in consequence of the influence of the bodily organs; and these latter are greatly influenced by the kind of ailment which the body receives. God knows what is in man, and he knows what is in all creatures; he has therefore graciously forbidden what would injure both body and mind, and commanded what is best calculated to be useful to both. Solid-footed animals, such as the horse, and many-toed animals, such as the cat, etc., are here prohibited. Beasts which have bifid or cloven hoofs, such as the ox and sheep, are considered as proper for food, and therefore commanded. The former are unclean, i. e., unwholesome, affording a gross nutriment, often the parent of scorbutic and scrofulous disorders; the latter clean, i. e., affording a copious and wholesome nutriment, and not laying the foundation of any disease. Ruminating animals, i. e., those which chew the cud, concoct their food better than the others which swallow it with little mastication, and therefore their flesh contains more of the nutritious juices, and is more easy of digestion, and consequently of assimilation to the solids and fluids of the human body; on this account they are termed clean, i. e., peculiarly wholesome, and fit for food. The animals which do not ruminate do not concoct their food so well, and hence they abound with gross animal juices, which yield a comparatively unwholesome nutriment to the human system. Even the animals which have bifid hoofs but do not chew the cud, such as the swine, and those which chew the cud but are not bifid, such as the hare and rabbit, are by Him who knows all things forbidden, because he knew them to be comparatively innutritive. In all this God shows himself as the tender Father of a numerous family, pointing out to his inexperienced, froward, and ignorant children, those kinds of aliments which he knows will be injurious to their health and domestic happiness, and prohibiting them on pain of his highest displeasure. On the same ground he forbade all fish that have not both fins and scales, such as the conger, eel, etc., which abound in gross juices and fat which very few stomachs are able to digest. Who, for instance, that lives solely on swine's flesh, has pure blood and healthy juices? And is it not evident, in many cases, that the man partakes considerably of the nature of the brute on which he exclusively feeds? I could pursue this inquiry much farther, and bring many proofs founded on indisputable facts, but I forbear; for he who might stand most in need of caution, would be the first to take offense.

3. As the body exists only for the sake of the soul, and God feeds and nourishes it through the day of probation, that the soul may here be prepared for the kingdom of heaven; therefore he shows in the conclusion of these ordinances, that the grand scope and design of all was that they might be a holy people, and that they might resemble him who is a holy God - God Is Holy; and this is the eternal reason why all his people should be holy - should be purified from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. No faith in any particular creed, no religious observance, no acts of benevolence and charity, no mortification, attrition, or contrition, can be a substitute for this. We must be made partakers of the Divine nature. We must be saved from our sins - from the corruption that is in the world, and be made holy within and righteous without, or never see God. For this very purpose Jesus Christ lived, died, and revived, that he might purify us unto himself; that through faith in his blood our sins might be blotted out, and our souls restored to the image of God - Reader, art thou hungering and thirsting after righteousness? Then blessed art thou, for thou shalt be filled.

From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people. God spake to both of them, because the cognizance of the following matters belonged to both: the priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, where any doubt or difficulty arose; and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.

These are the beasts - Though every creature of God be good and pure in itself, yet it pleased God to make a difference between clean and unclean, which he did in part before the flood, Gen 7:2, but more fully here for many reasons; as, To assert his own sovereignty over man, and all the creatures which men may not use but with God's leave. To keep up the wall of partition between the Jews and other nations, which was very necessary for many great and wise purposes. That by bridling their appetite in things in themselves lawful, and some of them very desirable, they might be better prepared and enabled to deny themselves in things simply and grossly sinful. For the preservation of their health, some of the creatures forbidden being, though used by the neighbouring nations, of unwholesome nourishment, especially to the Jews, who were very obnoxious to leprosies. To teach them to abhor that filthiness, and all those ill qualities for which some of these creatures are noted.

Cloven - footed - That is, divided into two parts only: This clause is added to explain and limit the former, as appears from Lev 11:26, for the feet of dogs, cats &c. are parted or cloven into many parts. And cheweth the cud - Heb. and bringeth up the cud, that is, the meat once chewed, out of the stomach in the mouth again, that it may be chewed a second time for better concoction. And this branch is to be joined with the former, both properties being necessary for the allowed beasts. But the reason hereof must be resolved into the will of the law - giver; though interpreters guess that God would hereby signify their duties, by the first, that of discerning between good and evil; and by the latter, that duty of recalling God's word to our minds and meditating upon it.

The camel - An usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment. Divideth not the hoof - So as to have his foot cloven in two, which being expressed, Lev 11:3, is here to be understood. Otherwise the camel's hoof is divided, but it is but a small and imperfect division.

As for the names of the following creatures, seeing the Jews themselves are uncertain and divided about them, it seems improper to trouble the unlearned readers with disputes about them.

Ye shall not touch - Not in order to eating, as may be gathered by comparing this with Gen 3:3. But since the fat and skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful, for medicinal and other good purposes, and were used by good men, it is not probable that God would have them cast away. Thus God forbad the making of images, Exo 20:4, not universally, but in order to the worshipping them, as Christian interpreters agree.

Fins and scales - Both of them; such fishes being more cleanly, and more wholesome food than others. The names of them are not particularly mentioned, partly because most of them wanted names, the fish not being brought to Adam and named by him as other creatures were; and partly because the land of Canaan had not many rivers, nor great store of fish.

Unto you - This clause is added to shew that they were neither abominable in their own nature, nor for the food of other nations; and consequently when the partition - wall between Jews and Gentiles was taken away, these distinctions of meat were to cease.

Among the fowls - The true signification of the following Hebrew words is now lost, as the Jews at this day confess; which not falling out without God's singular providence may intimate the cessation of this law, the exact observation whereof since Christ came is become impossible. In general, this may be observed, that the fowls forbidden in diet, are all either ravenous and cruel, or such as delight in the night and darkness, or such as feed upon impure things; and so the signification of these prohibitions is manifest, to teach men to abominate all cruelty or oppression, and all works of darkness and filthiness. The ossifrage and the osprey - Two peculiar kinds of eagles, distinct from that which being the chief of its kind, is called by the name of the whole kind.

After his kind - According to the several kinds, known by this general name, which includes, besides ravens properly so called, crows, rooks, pyes, and others.

All fowls - Flying things that crawl or creep upon the earth, and so degenerate from their proper nature, and are of a mongrel kind, which may intimate that apostates and mongrels in religion are abominable in the sight of God. Upon all four - Upon four legs, or upon more than four, which is all one to the present purpose.

The locust - Locusts, though unusual in our food, were commonly eaten by the Ethiopians, Lybians, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon the Jews. And as it is certain the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielding better nourishment.

All other - That is, which have not those legs above and besides their feet mentioned, Lev 11:21.

Unclean - And such were excluded both from the court of God's house, and from free conversation with other men.

Beareth - Or, taketh away, out of the place where it may lie, by which others may be either offended, or polluted.

Upon his paws - Heb. upon his hands, that is, which hath feet divided into several parts like fingers, as dogs, cats, apes, and bears.

That on which such water cometh - That flesh or herbs or other food which is dressed in water, in a vessel so polluted, shall be unclean; not so, if it be food which is eaten dry, as bread, or fruits; the reason of which difference seems to be this, that the water did sooner receive the pollution in itself, and convey it to the food so dressed.

Of this no reason can be given, but the will of the law - giver and his merciful condescension to men's necessities, water being scarce in those countries; and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices, give place to the law of mercy.

Seed - Partly because this was necessary provision for man; and partly because such seed would not be used for man's food till it had received many alterations in the earth whereby such pollution was taken away.

If any water - The reason of the difference is, because wet seed doth sooner receive, and longer retain any pollution and partly because such seed was not fit to be sown presently, and therefore that necessity which justified the use of the dry seed, could not be pretended in this case.

If any beast die - Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice.

He that eateth - Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, Deu 14:21, and therefore punished with cutting off.

Every creeping thing - Except those expressly excepted, Lev 11:29,30.

Upon the belly - As worms and snakes, Upon all four - As toads and divers serpents.

Ye shall be holy - By this he gives them to understand, that all these cautions about eating or touching these creatures was not for any real uncleanness in them, but only that by diligent observation of these rules they might learn with greater care to avoid all moral pollutions, and to keep themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and from all familiar and intimate converse with notorious sinners.

That bringeth you up out of Egypt - This was a reason why they should chearfully submit to distinguishing laws, who had been so honoured with distinguishing favours.

This is the law - It was so, as long the Mosaic dispensation lasted. But under the gospel we find it expressly repealed by a voice from heaven, Acts 10:15. Let us therefore bless God, that to us every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused.

25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcass of them, shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

Or, taketh away, out of the place where haply it may ly, by which others may be either offended, or polluted.

26 The carcasses of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them, shall be unclean.

Which word is easily to be understood out of ver. 24. and 25. where it is expressed.

27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws , among all manner of beasts, that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcass, shall be unclean until the even.

Heb. upon his hands; i. e. which hath feet divided into several parts like fingers, as dogs, cats, apes, bears, &c.

34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh , shall be unclean: And all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel, shall be unclean.

The meaning is, that flesh or herbs or other food which is dressed in water, to wit, in a vessel so polluted, shall be unclean, not so, if it be food which is eaten dry, as bread, fruits, &c. the reason of which difference seems to be this, that the water did sooner receive the pollution in it self, and convey it to the food so dressed.

36 Nevertheless, a fountain, or pit, wherein there is plenty of water , shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean.

Of which no solid reason can be given, whilest such unclean things remained in them, but onely the will of the lawgiver and his merciful condescension to mens necessities, water being scarce in those countries, and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices to be offered to God give place to the moral law of mercy towards men.

Marginal references: Heb. a gathering together of [illegible: 1 word].; ‖ Or, [illegible: 1+ letters]e that [illegible: 1 word].

37 And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown , it shall be clean.

Partly because this was necessary provision for man; and partly because such seed would not be used for mans food till it had received many alterations in the earth, whereby such pollution was taken away. See Ioh. 12. 24. 1 Cor. 15. 36.

38 But if any water be put upon the seed , and any part of their carcass fall thereof, it shall be unclean unto you.

The reason of the difference is, partly because wet seed doth sooner receive and longer retain any pollution; and partly because such seed was not fit to be sown presently, and therefore that necessity which justified the use of the dry seed which was speedily to be sown could not be pretended in this case.

39 And if any beast of which ye may eat, die , he that toucheth the carcass thereof, shall be unclean until the even.

Either of it self, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice.

40 And he that eateth of the carcass of it , shall wash his clothes, and be unclean untill the even: he also that beareth the carcass of it, shall wash his clothes, and be unclean untill the even.

To wit, unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, Deut. 14. 21. and therefore punished with cutting off, Numb. 15. 30.

Marginal references: chap. 1[illegible: 1+ letters]. 1[illegible: 1+ letters]. & 22. 8. Ezek. 4. 14. & 44. 31.

41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, shall be an abomination: it shall not be eaten.

Except those before expresly excepted above, ver. 29, 30.

42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly , and whatsoever goeth upon all four , or whatsoever hath more feet , among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat, for they are an abomination.

As worms and snakes.

As [illegible: 1+ letters]oads and divers serpents.

To wit, more than four, as caterpillars, &c.

Marginal references: Heb. doth [illegible: 1+ letters] tiply feet.

44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctifie your selves, and ye shall be holy for I am holy: neither shall ye defile your selves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

By which he gives them to understand, that all these cautions and prohibitions about the eating or touching of these creatures was not for any real uncleanness in them, all being Gods good creatures, but onely that by the diligent observation of these rules they might learn with greater care to avoid all moral pollutions, and to keep themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and particularly from all familiar and intimate converse with notorious sinners.

Marginal references: chap. 19. 2. and 20. 7. [illegible: 1 word] 1. 15, 16.

Laws Relating to Clean and Unclean Animals - Leviticus 11

The regulation of the sacrifices and institution of the priesthood, by which Jehovah opened up to His people the way of access to His grace and the way to sanctification of life in fellowship with Him, were followed by instructions concerning the various things which hindered and disturbed this living fellowship with God the Holy One, as being manifestations and results of sin, and by certain rules for avoiding and removing these obstructions. For example, although sin has its origin and proper seat in the soul, it pervades the whole body as the organ of the soul, and shatters the life of the body, even to its complete dissolution in death and decomposition; whilst its effects have spread from man to the whole of the earthly creation, inasmuch as not only did man draw nature with him into the service of sin, in consequence of the dominion over it which was given him by God, but God Himself, according to a holy law of His wise and equitable government, made the irrational creature subject to “vanity” and “corruption” on account of the sin of man (Rom 8:20-21), so that not only did the field bring forth thorns and thistles, and the earth produce injurious and poisonous plants (see at Gen 3:18), but the animal kingdom in many of its forms and creatures bears the image of sin and death, and is constantly reminding man of the evil fruit of his fall from God. It is in this penetration of sin into the material creation that we may find the explanation of the fact, that from the very earliest times men have neither used every kind of herb nor every kind of animal as food; but that, whilst they have, as it were, instinctively avoided certain plants as injurious to health or destructive to life, they have also had a horror naturalis, i.e., an inexplicable disgust, at many of the animals, and have avoided their flesh as unclean. A similar horror must have been produced upon man from the very first, before his heart was altogether hardened, by death as the wages of sin, or rather by the effects of death, viz., the decomposition of the body; and different diseases and states of the body, that were connected with symptoms of corruption and decomposition, may also have been regarded as rendering unclean. Hence in all the nations and all the religions of antiquity we find that contrast between clean and unclean, which was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in many of the religious systems, but had its primary root in the corruption that had entered the world through sin. This contrast was limited in the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israelites, to contact with dead animals and human corpses, and to certain bodily conditions and diseases that are associated with the decomposition, pointing out most minutely the unclean objects and various defilements within these spheres, and prescribing the means for avoiding or removing them.

The instructions in the chapter before us, concerning the clean and unclean animals, are introduced in the first place as laws of food (Lev 11:2); but they pass beyond these bounds by prohibiting at the same time all contact with animal carrion (Lev 11:8, Lev 11:11, Lev 11:24.), and show thereby that they are connected in principle and object with the subsequent laws of purification (ch. 12-15), to which they are to be regarded as a preparatory introduction.

Lev 11:1

The laws which follow were given to Moses and Aaron (Lev 11:1; Lev 13:1; Lev 15:1), as Aaron had been sanctified through the anointing to expiate the sins and uncleannesses of the children of Israel.

Lev 11:2-3 (cf. Deu 14:4-8). Of the larger quadrupeds, which are divided in Gen 1:24-25 into beasts of the earth (living wild) and tame cattle, only the cattle (behemah) are mentioned here, as denoting the larger land animals, some of which were reared by man as domesticated animals, and others used as food. Of these the Israelites might eat “whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud among the cattle.” פּרסת שׁסע שׁסעת, literally “tearing (having) a rent in the hoofs,” according to Deu 14:5 into “two claws,” i.e., with a hoof completely severed in two. גּרה, rumination, μηρυκισμός (lxx), from גּרר (cf. יגּר Lev 11:7), to draw (Hab 1:15), to draw to and fro; hence to bring up the food again, to ruminate. גּרה מעלת is connected with the preceding words with vav cop. to indicate the close connection of the two regulations, viz., that there was to be the perfectly cloven foot as well as the rumination (cf. Lev 11:4.). These marks are combined in the oxen, sheep, and goats, and also in the stag and gazelle. The latter are expressly mentioned in Deu 14:4-5, where - in addition to the common stag (איּל) and gazelle (צבי, δορκάς, lxx), or dorcas-antelope, which is most frequently met with in Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, of the size of a roebuck, with a reddish brown back and white body, horns sixteen inches long, and fine dark eyes, and the flesh of which, according to Avicenna, is the best of all the wild game-the following five are also selected, viz.: (1) יחמוּר, not βούβαλος, the buffalo (lxx, and Luther), but Damhirsch, a stag which is still much more common in Asia than in Europe and Palestine (see v. Schubert, R. iii. p. 118); (2) אקּו, probably, according to the Chaldee, Syriac, etc., the capricorn (Steinbock), which is very common in Palestine, not τραγέλαφος (lxx, Vulg.), the buck-stag (Bockhirsch), an animal lately discovered in Nubia (cf. Leyrer in Herzog's Cycl. vi. p. 143); (3) דּישׁן, according to the lxx and Vulg. πύραργος, a kind of antelope resembling the stag, which is met with in Africa (Herod. 4, 192), - according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the buffalo-antelope, - according to the Samar. and Arabic, the mountain-stag; (4) תּאו, according to the Chaldee the wild ox, which is also met with in Egypt and Arabia, probably the oryx (lxx, Vulg.), a species of antelope as large as a stag; and (5) זמר, according to the lxx and most of the ancient versions, the giraffe, but this is only found in the deserts of Africa, and would hardly be met with even in Egypt-it is more probably capreae sylvestris species, according to the Chaldee.

Lev 11:4-6

Any animal which was wanting in either of these marks was to be unclean, or not to be eaten. This is the case with the camel, whose flesh is eaten by the Arabs; it ruminates, but it has not cloven hoofs. Its foot is severed, it is true, but not thoroughly cloven, as there is a ball behind, upon which it treads. The hare and hyrax (Klippdachs) were also unclean, because, although they ruminate, they have not cloven hoofs. It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter do not ruminate at all, as they have not the four stomachs that are common to ruminant animals; but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating, so that even Linnaeus affirmed that the hare chewed the cud, and Moses followed the popular opinion. According to Bochart, Oedmann, and others, the shaphan is the jerboa, and according to the Rabbins and Luther, the rabbit or coney. But the more correct view is, that it is the wabr of the Arabs, which is still called tsofun in Southern Arabia (hyrax Syriacus), an animal which feeds on plants, a native of the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan, also of Arabia and Africa. They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings to their caves, and extremely timid as they are quite defenceless (Pro 30:26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish grey or brownish yellow colour, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests.See Shaw, iii. p. 301; Seetzen, ii. p. 228; Robinson's Biblical Researches, p. 387; and Roediger on Gesenius thesaurus, p. 1467.

Lev 11:7

The swine has cloven hoofs, but does not ruminate; and many of the tribes of antiquity abstained from eating it, partly on account of its uncleanliness, and partly from fear of skin-diseases.

Lev 11:8

“Of their flesh shall ye not eat (i.e., not slay these animals as food), and their carcase (animals that had died) shall ye not touch.” The latter applied to the clean or edible animals also, when they had died a natural death (Lev 11:39).

Lev 11:9-12 (cf. Deu 14:9 and Deu 14:10). Of water animals, everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc., forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome (Lane, Manners and Customs).

Lev 11:13-14 (cf. Deu 14:11-18). Of birds, twenty varieties are prohibited, including the bat, but without any common mark being given; though they consist almost exclusively of birds which live upon flesh or carrion, and are most of them natives of Western Asia.The list is “hardly intended to be exhaustive, but simply mentions those which were eaten by others, and in relation to which, therefore, it was necessary that the Israelites should receive a special prohibition against eating them” (Knobel). Hence in Deuteronomy Moses added the ראה and enumerated twenty-one varieties; and on doubt, under other circumstances, he could have made the list still longer. In Deu 14:11 צפּור is used, as synonymous with עוף in Deu 14:20.

The list commences with the eagle, as the king of the birds. Nesher embraces all the species of eagles proper. The idea that the eagle will not touch carrion is erroneous. According to the testimony of Arabian writers (Damiri in Bochart, ii. p. 577), and several naturalists who have travelled (e.g., Forskal. l.c. p. 12, and Seetzen, 1, p. 379), they will eat carrion if it is still fresh and not decomposed; so that the eating of carrion could very properly be attributed to them in such passages as Job 39:30; Pro 30:17, and Mat 24:28. But the bald-headedness mentioned in Mic 1:16 applies, not to the true eagle, but to the carrion-kite, which is reckoned, however, among the different species of eagles, as well as the bearded or golden vulture. The next in the list is peres, from paras = parash to break, ossifragus, i.e., wither the bearded or golden vulture, gypaetos barbatus, or more probably, as Schultz supposes, the sea-eagle, which may have been the species intended in the γρύψ = γρυπαίετος of the lxx and gryphus of the Vulgate, and to which the ancients seem sometimes to have applied the name ossifraga (Lucret. v. 1079). By the next, עזניּה, we are very probably to understand the bearded or golden vulture. For this word is no doubt connected with the Arabic word for beard, and therefore points to the golden vulture, which has a tuft of hair or feathers on the lower beak, and which might very well be associated with the eagles so far as the size is concerned, having wings that measure 10 feet from tip to tip. As it really belongs to the family of cultures, it forms a very fitting link of transition to the other species of vulture and falcon (Lev 11:14). דּאה (Deut. דּיּה, according to a change which is by no means rare when the aleph stands between two vowels: cf. דּואג in 1Sa 21:8; 1Sa 22:9, and דּויג in 1Sa 22:18, 1Sa 22:22), from דּאה to fly, is either the kite, or the glede, which is very common in Palestine (v. Schubert, Reise iii. p. 120), and lives on carrion. It is a gregarious bird (cf. Isa 34:15), which other birds of prey are not, and is used by many different tribes as food (Oedmann, iii. p. 120). The conjecture that the black glede-kite is meant, - a bird which is particularly common in the East, - and that the name is derived from דּאה to be dark, is overthrown by the use of the word למינהּ in Deuteronomy, which shows that דאה is intended to denote the whole genus. איּה, which is referred to in Job 28:7 as sharp-sighted, is either the falcon, several species of which are natives of Syria and Arabia, and which is noted for its keen sight and the rapidity of its flight, or according to the Vulgate, Schultz, etc., vultur, the true vulture (the lxx have Ἰκτίν, the kite, here, and γρύψ, the griffin, in Deut. and Job), of which there are three species in Palestine (Lynch, p. 229). In Deu 14:13 הראה is also mentioned, from ראה to see. Judging from the name, it was a keen-sighted bird, either a falcon or another species of vulture (Vulg. ixion).

Lev 11:15

“Every raven after his kind,” i.e., the whole genus of ravens, with the rest of the raven-like birds, such as crows, jackdaws, and jays, which are all of them natives of Syria and Palestine. The omission of ו before את, which is found in several MSS and editions, is probably to be regarded as the true reading, as it is not wanting before any of the other names.

Lev 11:16-19 היּענה בּת, i.e., either daughter of screaming (Bochart), or daughter of greediness (Gesenius, etc.), is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13, etc.), or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8; Job 30:29), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally. It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka (Seetzen and Burckhardt), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia (Diod. Sic. 3, 27; Strabo, xvi. 772) and Numidia (Leo Afric. p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also (Seetzen, iii. p. 20; Burckhardt, p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. תּחמס, according to Bochart, Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg., and others, it is the owl (Oedmann, iii. pp. 45ff.); but this is mentioned later under another name. According to Saad. Ar. Erp. it is the swallow; but this is called סיס in Jer 8:7. Knobel supposes it to be the cuckoo, which is met with in Palestine (Seetzen, 1, p. 78), and derives the name from חמס, violenter egit, supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest (Aristot. hist. an. 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). שׁחף is the λάρος, or slender gull, according to the lxx and Vulg. Knobel follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk, which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc.; but this is certainly included in the genus נץ. נץ, from נצץ to fly, is the hawk, which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26). It stands in fact, as למינהוּ shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the ἱέραξ, accipiter, of which the ancients enumerate many different species. כּוס, which is mentioned in Psa 102:7 as dwelling in ruins, is an owl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the screech-owl, which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl, which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury. שׁלך, according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx καταῤῥάκτης; in the Targ. and Syr. נוּנא שׁלי, extrahens pisces. It is not the gull, however (larus catarractes), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican, to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water. The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that. ינשׁוּף: from נשׁף to snort, according to Isa 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu, which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu. תּנשׁמת, which occurs again in Lev 11:30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri, a bird resembling the uhu, but smaller. Jonathan calls it uthya = ὠτός, a night-owl. The primary meaning of the word נשׁם is essentially the same as that of נשׁף, to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea, a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl (strix stridula), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu, at other times bane, a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence. קאת, which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11; Zep 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7), was not the katà, a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14, but the pelican (πελεκάν, lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num 14:17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry. It is the true pelican of the ancients (pelecanus graculus), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from קוא to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). רחם, in Deut. רחמה, is κυκνός, the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio, the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus (Saad. Ar. Erp.), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles (Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called ὀρειπέλαργος, the mountain-stork (Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white. It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of “tenderly loving” from the tenderness with which it watches over its young (Bochart, iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, חסידה, avis pia, a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17, cf. Bochart, iii. pp. 85ff.). In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well.Oedmann (v. 58ff.), Knobel, and others follow the Greek translation of Leviticus and the Psalms, and the Vulgate rendering of Leviticus, the Psalms, and Job, and suppose the reference to be to the ἐρωδιός, herodius, the heron: but the name chasidah points decidedly to the stork, which was generally regarded by the ancients as pietatis cultrix (Petron. 55, 6), whereas, with the exception of the somewhat indefinite passage in Aelian (Nat. an. 3, 23), καὶ τοὺς ἐρωδιοὺς ἀκούω ποιεῖν ταὐτόν (i.e., feed their young by spitting out their food) καὶ τοὺς πελεκᾶνας μέντοι, nothing is said about the parental affection of the heron. And the testimony of Bellonius, “Ciconiae quae aetate in Europa sunt, magna hyemis parte ut in Aegypto sic etiam circa Antiochiam et juxta Amanum montem degunt,” is a sufficient answer to Knobel's assertion, that according to Seetzen there are not storks in Mount Lebanon. אנפה, according to the lxx and Vulgate χαραδριός, a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of which there are several species in Egypt (Hasselquist, p. 308). This is quite in accordance with the expression “after her kind,” which points to a numerous genus. The omission of ואת before האנפה, whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ו before את in Lev 11:15.On account of the omission of ואת Knobel would connect האנפה as an adjective with החסידה, and explain אנף as derived from ענף frons, ענף frondens, and signifying bushy. The herons were called “the bushy chasidah,” he supposes, because they have a tuft of feathers at the back of their head, or long feathers hanging down from their neck, which are wanting in the other marsh-birds, such as the flamingo, crane, and ibis. But there is this important objection to the explanation, that the change of א for ע in such a word as ענף frons, which occurs as early as Lev 23:40, and has retained its ע even in the Aramaean dialects, is destitute of all probability. In addition to this, there is the improbability of the chasidah being restricted by anaphah to the different species of heron, with three of which the ancients were acquainted (Aristot. h. an. 9, 2; Plin. h. n. 10, 60). If chasidah denoted the heron generally, or the white heron, the epithet anaphah would be superfluous. It would be necessary to assume, therefore, that chasidah denotes the whole tribe of marsh-birds, and that Moses simply intended to prohibit the heron or bushy marsh-bird. But either of these is very improbable: the former, because in every other passage of the Old Testament chasidah stands for one particular kind of bird; the latter, because Moses could hardly have excluded storks, ibises, and other marsh-birds that live on worms, from his prohibition. All that remains, therefore, is to separate ha-anaphah from the preceding word, as in Deuteronomy, and to understand it as denoting the plover (?) or heron, as there were several species of both. Which is intended, it is impossible to decide, as there is nothing certain to be gathered from either the ancient versions or the etymology. Bochart's reference of the word to a fierce bird, viz., a species of eagle, which the Arabs call Tammaj, is not raised into a probability by a comparison with the similarly sounding ἀνοπαῖα of Od. 1, 320, by which Aristarchus understands a kind of eagle. דּוּכיפת: according to the lxx, Vulg., and others, the lapwing, which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt (Forsk, Russel, Sonnini), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn (Sonn. 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung. Lastly, העטלּף is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.

Lev 11:20-23 (cf. Deu 14:19). To the birds there are appended flying animals of other kinds: “all swarms of fowl that go upon fours,” i.e., the smaller winged animals with four feet, which are called sherez, “swarms,” on account of their multitude. These were not to be eaten, as they were all abominations, with the exception of those “which have two shank-feet above their feet (i.e., springing feet) to leap with” (לא for לו as in Exo 21:8). Locusts are the animals referred to, four varieties being mentioned with their different species (“after his kind”); but these cannot be identified with exactness, as there is still a dearth of information as to the natural history of the oriental locust. It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greeks thought the Cicades very agreeable in flavour (Arist. h. an. 5, 30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure; and they are also dried, and kept in bags for winter use. For the most part, however, it is only by the poorer classes that they are eaten, and many of the tribes of Arabia abhor them (Robinson, ii. p. 628); and those who use them as food do not eat all the species indiscriminately. They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal and make cakes of them. The Israelites were allowed to eat the arbeh, i.e., according to Exo 10:13, Exo 10:19; Nah 3:17, etc., the flying migratory locust, gryllus migratorius, which still bears this name, according to Niebuhr, in Maskat and Bagdad, and is poetically designated in Psa 78:46; Psa 105:34, as חסיל, the devourer, and ילק, the eater-up; but Knobel is mistaken in supposing that these names are applied to certain species of the arbeh. סלעם, according to the Chaldee, deglutivit, absorpsit, is unquestionably a larger and peculiarly voracious species of locust. This is all that can be inferred from the rashon of the Targums and Talmud, whilst the ἀττάκης and attacus of the lxx and Vulg. are altogether unexplained. חרגּל: according to the Arabic, a galloping, i.e., a hopping, not a flying species of locust. This is supported by the Samaritan, also by the lxx and Vulg., ὀφιομάχης, ophiomachus. According to Hesychius and Suidas, it was a species of locust without wings, probably a very large kind; as it is stated in Mishnah, Shabb. vi. 10, that an egg of the chargol was sometimes suspended in the ear, as a remedy for earache. Among the different species of locusts in Mesopotamia, Niebuhr (Arab. p. 170) saw two of a very large size with springing feet, but without wings. חגב, a word of uncertain etymology, occurs in Num 13:33, where the spies are described as being like chagabim by the side of the inhabitants of the country, and in 2Ch 7:13, where the chagab devours the land. From these passages we may infer that it was a species of locust without wings, small but very numerous, probably the ἀττέλαβος, which is often mentioned along with the ἀκρίς, but as a distinct species, locustarum minima sine pennis (Plin. h. n. 29, c. 4, s. 29), or parva locusta modicis pennis reptans potius quam volitans semperque subsiliens (Jerome (on Nah 3:17).In Deu 14:19 the edible kinds of locusts are passed over, because it was not the intention of Moses to repeat every particular of the earlier laws in these addresses. But when Knobel (on Lev. pp. 455 and 461) gives this explanation of the omission, that the eating of locusts is prohibited in Deuteronomy, and the Deuteronomist passes them over because in his more advanced age there was apparently no longer any necessity for the prohibition, this arbitrary interpretation is proved to be at variance with historical truth by the fact that locusts were eaten by John the Baptist, inasmuch as this proves at all events that a more advanced age had not given up the custom of eating locusts.

Lev 11:24-26

In Lev 11:24-28 there follow still further and more precise instructions, concerning defilement through contact with the carcases (i.e., the carrion) of the animals already mentioned. These instructions relate first of all (Lev 11:24 and Lev 11:25) to aquatic and winged animals, which were not to be eaten because they were unclean (the expression “for these” in Lev 11:24 relates to them); and then (Lev 11:26-28) to quadrupeds, both cattle that have not the hoof thoroughly divided and do not ruminate (Lev 11:26), and animals that go upon their hands, i.e., upon paws, and have no hoofs, such as cats, dogs, bears, etc.

Lev 11:27-28

The same rule was applicable to all these animals: “whoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even,” i.e., for the rest of the day; he was then of course to wash himself. Whoever carried their carrion, viz., to take it away, was also unclean till the evening, and being still more deeply affected by the defilement, he was to wash his clothes as well.

Lev 11:29-38

To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals (Sherez), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez, the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf. Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men. חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys., etc.), although the Arabs still call this chuld, but the weasel (lxx, Onk., etc.), which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds (Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth (Mishn. Tohor. iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel (Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse, the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here. צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb, a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen, iii. pp. 436ff., also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia, or the waral, as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen, cannot be determined.

Lev 11:39-45

Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly,The large ו in גּחון (Lev 11:42) shows that this vav is the middle letter of the Pentateuch. as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc., or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).

Lev 11:46-47

Lev 11:46, Lev 11:47 contain the concluding formula to the whole of this law. If we take a survey, in closing, of the animals that are enumerated as unclean and not suitable for food, we shall find that among the larger land animals they were chiefly beasts of prey, that seize upon other living creatures and devour them in their blood; among the water animals, all snake-like fishes and slimy shell-fish; among birds, the birds of prey, which watch for the life of other animals and kill them, the marsh-birds, which live on worms, carrion, and all kinds of impurities, and such mongrel creatures as the ostrich, which lives in the desert, and the bat, which flies about in the dark; and lastly, all the smaller animals, with the exception of a few graminivorous locusts, but more especially the snake-like lizards, - partly because they called to mind the old serpent, partly because they crawled in the dust, seeking their food in mire and filth, and suggested the thought of corruption by the slimy nature of their bodies. They comprised, in fact, all such animals as exhibited more or less the darker type of sin, death, and corruption; and it was on this ethical ground alone, and not for all kinds of sanitary reasons, or even from political motives, that the nation of Israel, which was called to sanctification, was forbidden to eat them. It is true there are several animals mentioned as unclean, e.g., the ass, the camel, and others, in which we can no longer recognise this type. But we must bear in mind, that the distinction between clean animals and unclean goes back to the very earliest times (Gen 7:2-3), and that in relation to the large land animals, as well as to the fishes, the Mosaic law followed the marks laid down by tradition, which took its rise in the primeval age, whose childlike mind, acute perception, and deep intuitive insight into nature generally, discerned more truly and essentially the real nature of the animal creation than we shall ever be able to do, with thoughts and perceptions disturbed as ours are by the influences of unnatural and ungodly culture.“In its direct and deep insight into the entire nexus of the physical, psychical, and spiritual world, into the secret correspondences of the cosmos and nomos, this sense for nature anticipated discoveries which we shall never make with our ways of thinking, but which a purified humanity, when looking back from the new earth, will fully understand, and will no longer only 'see through a glass darkly.'” - Leyrer, Herzog's Cycl. Laws of Purification - Leviticus 12-15

The laws concerning defilement through eating unclean animals, or through contact with those that had died a natural death, are followed by rules relating to defilements proceeding from the human body, in consequence of which persons contaminated by them were excluded for a longer or shorter period from the fellowship of the sanctuary, and sometimes even from intercourse with their fellow-countrymen, and which had to be removed by washing, by significant lustrations, and by expiatory sacrifices. They comprised the uncleanness of a woman in consequence of child-bearing (Lev 12:1-8), leprosy (ch. 13 and 14), and both natural and diseased secretions from the sexual organs of either male or female (emissio seminis and gonorrhaea, also menses and flux: ch. 15); and to these there is added in Num 19:11-22, defilement proceeding from a human corpse. Involuntary emission defiled the man; voluntary emission, in sexual intercourse, both the man and the woman and any clothes upon which it might come, for an entire day, and this defilement was to be removed in the evening by bathing the body, and by washing the clothes, etc. (Lev 15:16-18). Secretions from the sexual organs, whether of a normal kind, such as the menses and those connected with child-birth, or the result of disease, rendered not only the persons affected with them unclean, but even their couches and seats, and any persons who might sit down upon them; and this uncleanness was even communicated to persons who touched those who were diseased, or to anything with which they had come in contact (Lev 15:3-12, Lev 15:19-27). In the case of the menses, the uncleanness lasted seven days (Lev 15:19, Lev 15:24); in that of child-birth, either seven or fourteen days, and then still further thirty-three or sixty-six, according to circumstances (Lev 12:2, Lev 12:4-5); and in that of a diseased flux, as long as the disease itself lasted, and seven days afterwards (Lev 15:13, Lev 15:28); but the uncleanness communicated to others only lasted till the evening. In all these cases the purification consisted in the bathing of the body and washing of the clothes and other objects. But if the uncleanness lasted more than seven days, on the day after the purification with water a sin-offering and a burnt-offering were to be offered, that the priest might pronounce the person clean, or receive him once more into the fellowship of the holy God (Lev 12:6, Lev 12:8; Lev 15:14-15, Lev 15:29-30). Leprosy made those who were affected with it so unclean, that they were excluded from all intercourse with the clean (Lev 13:45-46): and on their recovery they were to be cleansed by a solemn lustration, and received again with sacrifices into the congregation of the Lord (Lev 14:1-32). There are no express instructions as to the communicability of leprosy; but this is implied in the separation of the leper from the clean (Lev 13:45-46), as well as from the fact that a house affected by the leprosy rendered all who entered it, or slept in it, unclean (Lev 14:46-47). The defilement caused by a death was apparently greater still. Not only the corpse of a person who had died a natural death, as well as of one who had been killed by violence, but a dead body or grave defiled, for a period of seven days, both those who touched them, and (in the case of the corpse) the house in which the man had died, all the persons who were in it or might enter it, and all the open vessels that were there (Num 19:11, Num 19:14-16). Uncleanness of this kind could only be removed by sprinkling water prepared from running water and the ashes of a sin-offering (Num 19:12, Num 19:17.), and would even spread from the persons defiled to persons and things with which they came in contact, so as to render them unclean till the evening (Num 19:22); whereas the defilement caused by contact with a dead animal lasted only a day, and then, like every other kind of uncleanness that only lasted till the evening, could be removed by bathing the persons or washing the things (Lev 11:25.).

But whilst, according to this, generation and birth as well as death were affected with uncleanness; generation and death, the coming into being and the going out of being, were not defiling in themselves, or regarded as the two poles which bound, determine, and enclose the finite existence, so as to warrant us in tracing the principle which lay at the foundation of the laws of purification, as Bähr supposes, “to the antithesis between the infinite and the finite being, which falls into the sphere of the sinful when regarded ethically as the opposite to the absolutely holy.” Finite existence was created by God, quite as much as the corporeality of man; and both came forth from His hand pure and good. Moreover it is not begetting, giving birth, and dying, that are said to defile; but the secretions connected with generation and child-bearing, and the corpses of those who had died. In the decomposition which follows death, the effect of sin, of which death is the wages, is made manifest in the body. Decomposition, as the embodiment of the unholy nature of sin, is uncleanness κατ ̓ ἐξοχξήν; and this the Israelite, who was called to sanctification in fellowship with God, was to avoid and abhor. Hence the human corpse produced the greatest amount of defilement; so great, in fact, that to remove it a sprinkling water was necessary, which had been strengthened by the ashes of a sin-offering into a kind of sacred alkali. Next to the corpse, there came on the one hand leprosy, that bodily image of death which produced all the symptoms of decomposition even in the living body, and on the other hand the offensive secretions from the organs of generation, which resemble the putrid secretions that are the signs in the corpse of the internal dissolution of the bodily organs and the commencement of decomposition. From the fact that the impurities, for which special rites of purification were enjoined, are restricted to these three forms of manifestation in the human body, it is very evident that the laws of purification laid down in the O.T. were not regulations for the promotion of cleanliness or of good morals and decency, that is to say, were not police regulations for the protection of the life of the body from contagious diseases and other things injurious to health; but that their simple object was “to impress upon the mind a deep horror of everything that is and is called death in the creature, and thereby to foster an utter abhorrence of everything that is or is called sin, and also, to the constant humiliation of fallen man, to remind him in all the leading processes of the natural life-generation, birth, eating, disease, death - how everything, even his own bodily nature, lies under the curse of sin (Gen 3:14-19), that so the law might become a 'schoolmaster to bring unto Christ,' and awaken and sustain the longing for a Redeemer from the curse which had fallen upon his body also (see Gal 3:24; Rom 7:24; Rom 8:19.; Phi 3:21).” Leyrer.

Distinction of Meats. (b. c. 1490.)

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over the house of God, God spoke to him with Moses, and appointed them both as joint-commissioners to deliver his will to the people. He spoke both to Moses and to Aaron about this matter; for it was particularly required of the priests that they should put a difference between clean and unclean, and teach the people to do so. After the flood, when God entered into covenant with Noah and his sons, he allowed them to eat flesh (Gen. ix. 13), whereas before they were confined to the productions of the earth. But the liberty allowed to the sons of Noah is here limited to the sons of Israel. They might eat flesh, but not all kinds of flesh; some they must look upon as unclean and forbidden to them, others as clean and allowed them. The law in this matter is both very particular and very strict. But what reason can be given for this law? Why may not God's people have as free a use of all the creatures as other people? 1. It is reason enough that God would have it so: his will, as it is law sufficient, so it is reason sufficient; for his will is his wisdom. He saw good thus to try and exercise the obedience of his people, not only in the solemnities of his altar, but in matters of daily occurrence at their own table, that they might remember they were under authority. Thus God had tried the obedience of man in innocency, by forbidding him to eat of one particular tree. 2. Most of the meats forbidden as unclean are such as were really unwholesome, and not fit to be eaten; and those of them that we think wholesome enough, and use accordingly, as the rabbit, the hare, and the swine, perhaps in those countries, and to their bodies, might be hurtful. And then God in this law did by them but as a wise and loving father does by his children, whom he restrains from eating that which he knows will make them sick. Note, The Lord is for the body, and it is not only folly, but sin against God, to prejudice our health for the pleasing of our appetite. 3. God would thus teach his people to distinguish themselves from other people, not only in their religious worship, but in the common actions of life. Thus he would show them that they must not be numbered among the nations. It should seem there had been, before this, some difference between the Hebrews and other nations in their food, kept up by tradition; for the Egyptians and they would not eat together, Gen. xliii. 32. And even before the flood there was a distinction of beasts into clean and not clean (Gen. vii. 2), which distinction was quite lost, with many other instances of religion, among the Gentiles. But by this law it is reduced to a certainty, and ordered to be kept up among the Jews, that thus, by having a diet peculiar to themselves, they might be kept from familiar conversation with their idolatrous neighbours, and might typify God's spiritual Israel, who not in these little things, but in the temper of their spirits, and the course of their lives, should be governed by a sober singularity, and not be conformed to this world. The learned observe further, That most of the creatures which by this law were to be abominated as unclean were such as were had in high veneration among the heathen, not so much for food as for divination and sacrifice to their gods; and therefore those are here mentioned as unclean, and an abomination, which yet they would not be in any temptation to eat, that they might keep up a religious loathing of that for which the Gentiles had a superstitious value. The swine, with the later Gentiles, was sacred to Venus, the owl to Minerva, the eagle to Jupiter, the dog to Hecate, &c., and all these are here made unclean. As to the beasts, there is a general rule laid down, that those which both part the hoof and chew the cud were clean, and those only: these are particularly mentioned in the repetition of this law (Deut. xiv. 4, 5), where it appears that the Israelites had variety enough allowed them, and needed not to complain of the confinement they were under. Those beasts that did not both chew the cud and divide the hoof were unclean, by which rule the flesh of swine, and of hares, and of rabbits, was prohibited to them, though commonly used among us. Therefore, particularly at the eating of any of these, we should give thanks for the liberty granted us in this matter by the gospel, which teaches us that every creature of God is good, and we are to call nothing common or unclean. Some observe a significancy in the rule here laid down for them to distinguish by, or at least think it may be alluded to. Meditation, and other acts of devotion done by the hidden man of the heart, may be signified by the chewing of the cud, digesting our spiritual food; justice and charity towards men, and the acts of a good conversation, may be signified by the dividing of the hoof. Now either of these without the other will not serve to recommend us to God, but both must go together, good affections in the heart and good works in the life: if either be wanting, we are not clean, surely we are not clean. Of all the creatures here forbidden as unclean, none has been more dreaded and detested by the pious Jews than swine's flesh. Many were put to death by Antiochus because they would not eat it. This, probably, they were most in danger of being tempted to, and therefore possessed themselves and their children with a particular antipathy to it, calling it not by its proper name, but a strange thing. It should seem the Gentiles used it superstitiously (Isa. lxv. 4), they eat swine's flesh; and therefore God forbids all use of it to his people, lest they should learn of their neighbours to make that ill use of it. Some suggest that the prohibition of these beasts as unclean was intended to be a caution to the people against the bad qualities of these creatures. We must not be filthy nor wallow in the mire as swine, nor be timorous and faint-hearted as hares, nor dwell in the earth as rabbits; let not man that is in honour make himself like these beasts that perish. The law forbade, not only the eating of them, but the very touching of them; for those that would be kept from any sin must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, and every thing that looks towards it or leads to it.

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Here is, 1. A general rule concerning fishes, which were clean and which not. All that had fins and scales they might eat, and only those odd sorts of water-animals that have not were forbidden, v. 9, 10. The ancients accounted fish the most delicate food (so far were they from allowing it on fasting-days, or making it an instance of mortification to eat fish); therefore God did not lay much restraint upon his people in them; for he is a Master that allows his servants not only for necessity but for delight. Concerning the prohibited fish it is said, They shall be an abomination to you (v. 10-12), that is, "You shall count them unclean, and not only not eat of them, but keep at a distance from them." Note, Whatever is unclean should be to us an abomination; touch not the unclean thing. But observe, It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians. The Jews were honoured with peculiar privileges, and therefore, lest they should be proud of those, Transeunt cum onere—They were likewise laid under peculiar restraints. Thus God's spiritual Israel, as they are dignified above others by the gospel-covenant of adoption and friendship, so they must be mortified more than others by the gospel-commands of self-denial and bearing the cross. 2. Concerning fowls here is no general rule given, but a particular enumeration of those fowls that they must abstain from as unclean, which implies an allowance of all others. The critics here have their hands full to find out what is the true signification of the Hebrew words here used, some of which still remain uncertain, some sorts of fowls being peculiar to some countries. Were the law in force now, we should be concerned to know with certainty what are prohibited by it; and perhaps if we did, and were better acquainted with the nature of the fowls here mentioned, we should admire the knowledge of Adam, in giving them names expressive of their natures, Gen. ii. 20. But the law being repealed, and the learning in a great measure lost, it is sufficient for us to observe that of the fowls here forbidden, (1.) Some are birds of prey, as the eagle, vulture, &c., and God would have his people to abhor every thing that is barbarous and cruel, and not to live by blood and rapine. Doves that are preyed upon were fit to be food for man and offerings to God; but kites and hawks that prey upon them must be looked upon as an abomination to God and man; for the condition of those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake appears to an eye of faith every way better than that of their persecutors. (2.) Others of them are solitary birds, that abide in dark and desolate places, as the owl and the pelican (Ps. cii. 6), and the cormorant and raven (Isa. xxxiv. 11); for God's Israel should not be a melancholy people, nor affect sadness and constant solitude. (3.) Others of them feed upon that which is impure, as the stork on serpents, others of them on worms; and we must not only abstain from all impurity ourselves, but from communion with those that allow themselves in it. (4.) Others of them were used by the Egyptians and other Gentiles in their divinations. Some birds were reckoned fortunate, others ominous; and their soothsayers had great regard to the flights of these birds, all which therefore must be an abomination to God's people, who must not learn the way of the heathen.

20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. 21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. 24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even. 25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. 26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. 27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even. 28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you. 29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, 30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole. 31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. 32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. 33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it. 34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean. 35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. 36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean. 37 And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. 38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you. 39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even. 40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. 41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. 42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Here is the law, 1. Concerning flying insects, as flies, wasps, bees, &c.; these they might not eat (v. 20), nor indeed are they fit to be eaten; but there were several sorts of locusts which in those countries were very good meat, and much used: John Baptist lived upon them in the desert, and they are here allowed them, v. 21, 22. 2. Concerning the creeping things on the earth; these were all forbidden (v. 29, 30, and again, v. 41, 42); for it was the curse of the serpent that upon his belly he should go, and therefore between him and man there was an enmity put (Gen. iii. 15), which was preserved by this law. Dust is the meat of the creeping things, and therefore they are not fit to be man's meat. 3. Concerning the dead carcasses of all these unclean animals. (1.) Every one that touched them was to be unclean until the evening, v. 24-28. This law is often repeated, to possess them with a dread of every thing that was prohibited, though no particular reason for the prohibition did appear, but only the will of the Law-maker. Not that they were to be looked upon as defiling to the conscience, or that it was a sin against God to touch them, unless done in contempt of the law: in many cases, somebody must of necessity touch them, to remove them; but it was a ceremonial uncleanness they contracted, which for the time forbade them to come into the tabernacle, or to eat of any of the holy things, or so much as to converse familiarly with their neighbours. But the uncleanness continued only till the evening, to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of the world. And we must learn, by daily renewing our repentance every night for the sins of the day, to cleanse ourselves from the pollution we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness. Even unclean animals they might touch while they were alive without contracting any ceremonial uncleanness by it, as horses and dogs, because they were allowed to use them for service; but they might not touch them when they were dead, because they might not eat their flesh; and what must not be eaten must not be touched, Gen. iii. 3. (2.) Even the vessels, or other things they fell upon, were thereby made unclean until the evening (v. 32), and if they were earthen vessels they must be broken, v. 33. This taught them carefully to avoid every thing that was polluting, even in their common actions. Not only the vessels of the sanctuary, but every pot in Jerusalem and Judah, must be holiness to the Lord, Zech. xiv. 20, 21. The laws in these cases are very critical, and the observance of them would be difficult, we should think, if every thing that a dead mouse or rat, for instance, falls upon must be unclean; and if it were an oven, or ranges for pots, they must all be broken down, v. 35. The exceptions also are very nice, v. 36, &c. All this was designed to exercise them to a constant care and exactness in their obedience, and to teach us, who by Christ are delivered from these burdensome observances, not to be less circumspect in the more weighty matters of the law. We ought as industriously to preserve our precious souls from the pollutions of sin, and as speedily to cleanse them when they are polluted, as they were to preserve and cleanse their bodies and household goods from those ceremonial pollutions.

43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. 44 For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Here is, I. The exposition of this law, or a key to let us into the meaning of it. It was not intended merely for a bill of fare, or as the directions of a physician about their diet, but God would hereby teach them to sanctify themselves and to be holy, v. 44. That is, 1. They must hereby learn to put a difference between good and evil, and to reckon that it could not be all alike what they did, when it was not all alike what they ate. 2. To maintain a constant observance of the divine law, and to govern themselves by that in all their actions, even those that are common, which ought to be performed after a godly sort, 3 John 6. Even eating and drinking must be by rule, and to the glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31. 3. To distinguish themselves from all their neighbours, as a people set apart for God, and obliged not to walk as the Gentiles: and all this is holiness. Thus these rudiments of the world were their tutors and governors (Gal. iv. 2, 3), to bring them to that which is the revival of our first state in Adam and the earnest of our best state with Christ, that is, holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. This is indeed the great design of all the ordinances, that by them we may sanctify ourselves and learn to be holy. Even This law concerning their food, which seemed to stoop so very low, aimed thus high, for it was the statute-law of heaven, under the Old Testament as well as the New, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. The caution therefore (v. 43) is, You shall not make yourselves abominable. Note, By having fellowship with sin, which is abominable, we make ourselves abominable. That man is truly miserable who is in the sight of God abominable; and none are so but those that make themselves so. The Jewish writers themselves suggest that the intention of this law was to forbid them all communion by marriage, or otherwise, with the heathen, Deut. vii. 2, 3. And thus the moral of it is obligatory on us, forbidding us to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; and, without this real holiness of the heart and life, he that offereth an oblation is as if he offered swine's blood (Isa. lxvi. 3); and, if it was such a provocation for a man to eat swine's flesh himself, much more it must be so to offer swine's blood at God's altar; see Prov. xv. 8.

II. The reasons of this law; and they are all taken from the Law-maker himself, to whom we must have respect in all acts of obedience. 1. I am the Lord your God, v. 44. "Therefore you are bound to do thus, in pure obedience." God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, oblige us to do whatever he commands us, how much soever it crosses our inclinations. 2. I am holy, v. 44, and again, v. 45. If God be holy, we must be so, else we cannot expect to be accepted of him. His holiness is his glory (Exod. xv. 11), and therefore it becomes his house for ever, Ps. xciii. 5. This great precept, thus enforced, though it comes in here in the midst of abrogated laws, is quoted and stamped for a gospel precept, 1 Pet. i. 16, where it is intimated that all these ceremonial restraints were designed to teach us that we must not fashion ourselves according to our former lusts in our ignorance, v. 14. 3. I am the Lord that bringeth you out of the land of Egypt, v. 45. This was a reason why they should cheerfully submit to distinguishing laws, having of late been so wonderfully dignified with distinguishing favours. He that had done more for them than for any other people might justly expect more from them.

III. The conclusion of this statute: This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, &c., v. 46, 47. This law was to them a statute for ever, that is, as long as that economy lasted; but under the gospel we find it expressly repealed by a voice from heaven to Peter (Acts x. 15), as it had before been virtually set aside by the death of Christ, with the other ordinances that perished in the using: Touch not, taste not, handle not, Col. ii. 21, 22. And now we are sure that meat commends us not to God (1 Cor. viii. 8), and that nothing is unclean of itself (Rom. xiv. 14), nor does that defile a man which goes into his mouth, but that which comes out from the heart, Matt. xv. 11. Let us therefore, 1. Give thanks to God that we are not under this yoke, but that to us every creature of God is allowed as good, and nothing to be refused. 2. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and take heed of those doctrines which command to abstain from meats, and so would revive Moses again, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 3. Be strictly and conscientiously temperate in the use of the good creatures God has allowed us. If God's law has given us liberty, let us lay restraints upon ourselves, and never feed ourselves without fear, lest our table be a snare. Set a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite; and be not desirous of dainties or varieties, Prov. xxiii. 2, 3. Nature is content with little, grace with less, but lust with nothing.

CHAP. XI.

ANd Iehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying unto them. Speak ye unto the sonnes of Israel, saying: These are the beasts, which ye shall eat; of all the beasts, which are on the earth. All that parteth the hoofe, and cleaveth▪asunder the cleft of the hoofes; and cheweth the cud, among the beasts: that, shall ye eat. But this, ye shall not eat; of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoofe: the Camel; because he cheweth the cud, and he parteth not the hoofe: he shall be uncleane unto you. And the Conie; because hee cheweth the cud, and parteth not the hoofe: hee shall be uncleane unto you. And the Hare; because he cheweth the cud, and parteth not the hoofe: he, shall be uncleane unto you. And the swine; because he parteth the hoofe, and cleaveth-asunder the clef[illegible: 1 letter] of the hoof; & he, cheweth not the cud: he, shall be unclean unto you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat; and their carkasse, shall ye not touch: they, shall be uncleane unto y[illegible: 1 letter]u.

These ye shall eat, of all that are in the waters: all that hath [illegible: 1 letter]in and scale in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall yee eat. And all that hath not [illegible: 1 letter]in and scale, in the seas, and in the rivers; of every moving▪thing of the waters, & of every living soule, that is in the waters: they, shall be an abhomination unto you. Even an abhomination, shall they be unto you: of their flesh, ye shal not eat; and their carkasses, ye shall have-in-abhomination. All that hath not fin and scale, in the waters: that, shall be an abhomination unto you.

And these, ye shall have-in-abhomination among the fowles; they shall not be eaten, they shall be an abhomination: the Eagle, and the Ossifrage, and the Osprey. And the Vulture, and the Kite, after her kinde. Every Raven, after his kinde. And the Owle, and the Night-hawk, and the Sea-gull: and the Hawk, after his kinde. And the Great-owle, and the Cormorant, and the Little-owle. And the Redshanke, and the Pelecan, and the Gier-eagle. And the Storke; the Heron, after her kinde: and the Lapwing, and the Bat. Every creeping-thing that flieth, that goeth upon all foure: that, shall be an abhomination unto you. Yet these ye shall eat, of every creeping-thing that flieth, that goeth upon all foure: which [illegible: 1 word] hath not legges, above his feet; to leap with them, upon the earth. These of them, yee shall eat; the common-Locust, after his kinde; and the locust-Soleam, after his kinde; and the locust-Chargol, after his kinde; and the locust-Chagab, after his kinde. And every creeping-thing that flieth, which hath foure feet; that, shall be an abhomination unto you.

And for these, yee shall be uncleane: who-soever toucheth the carkasse of them, shall be uncleane untill the evening. And whosoever beareth, ought of the carkasse of them; shall wash his clothes, and be unclean untill the evening. Of every beast, which do[illegible: 2 letters] part the hoofe, and it cleaveth not the cle[illegible: 1 letter] asunder, and it cheweth not the cud; they, shall be uncleane unto you: whosoever toucheth them, shall be uncleane. And whatsoever goeth upon his pawes, of any beast, that goeth upon foure feet; they, shall be uncleane unto you: whosoever toucheth the carkasse of them, shall be uncleane untill the evening. And hee that beareth the carkasse of them; shall wash his clothes, and bee unclean untill the evening: they, shall be unclean unto you.

And these shall be unclean unto you, among the creeping-things, that creepe upon the earth: the weasel, & the mouse, and the [illegible: 1 letter]ortoys, after his kind. And the ferret, and the chamaeleon, & the lyzard; and the snail and the moll. These shall be uncleane to you among all that creepe: whosoever toucheth them, when they are dead, shall bee uncleane untill the evening. And upon who-soever ought of them when they are dead doth fall, it shall be uncleane; of any vessell of wood, or of cloth, or of skin, or of sackcloth; any vessell, with which worke is done: it shall be put into water, and be uncleane untill the evening, and it shall be cleansed. And every earthen vessell, whereinto any of them falleth: whatsoever is within it, shall bee uncleane, and ye shall breake it. Of all meat which may bee eaten, that on which water commeth, shall be uncleane: and all drinke, which may be drunke; in every vessell shall bee uncleane. And every-thing, wherupon ought of their carkasses falleth, shall bee unclean: oven, and pots, they shall be brokendowne, uncleane they are; and uncleane shall they be unto you. But fountaine and pit, and a gathering-together of waters, shall bee cleane: but that which toucheth the carkasse of them, shall be uncleane. And if ought of their carkasse fall, upon any sowing seed, which shall be sowne: it shall be cleane. But if water be put upon the seed, & ought of their carkasse fall thereon: it shall be uncleane unto you.

And if any beast dye, which is unto you for meat: he that toucheth the carkasse therof, shall be uncleane untill the evening. And he that eateth of the carkasse thereof; shall wash his clothes, and be unclean untill the evening: and he that beareth the carkasse therof; shall wash his clothes, and be uncleane until the evening. And every creeping-thing, that creepeth upon the earth; it shall be an abhomination, it shall not be eaten. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all foure, or whatsoever hath many feet of any creeping-thing that creepeth upon the earth: ye shall not eat them, for they are an abhomination. Make not your soules abhominable, by any creeping-thing that creepeth: and make not your selves uncleane by them, that ye should be defiled by them. For I am Iehovah, your God. and ye shall make your selves holy, and shall bee holy, for I am holy: and yee shall not make your soules uncleane, by any creeping-thing, that moveth upon the earth. For I am Iehovah, that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be a God unto you: and ye shall be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowle, and of every living soule, that moveth in the waters: and of every soule, that creepeth upon the earth. To make a difference, betweene the uncleane and the cleane: and betweene the beast that may be eaten; and the beast, that may not be eaten.

Annotations. SPeake ye] As before he gave speciall lawes, for the sanctification of the Priests: so now hee giveth generall, for all the people: Which both Moses the Magistrate, and Aaron the Minister, must speake, and teach, and see carefully practised: as afterward there is example of the Magistrates, in 2 Chron. 29. 5. and 30 18. of the Priests, in Ezek. 44. 23. and of both joyntly, in Numb. 9. 6. where men that were uncleane, came for judgment before Moses and before Aaron. And here the first kinde of uncleannesse, which commeth from things without the man, is described. the sonnes of Israel] to them onely, and the proselites with them, was this law of uncleane meats given; not at all to other nations, as Sol. Iarchi here saith. the Beasts] Hebr. Chajah, the wild-beast, or, the livingthing: differing from B[illegible: 1 span] beasts, or cattell, the word which next followeth: but the Greeke also translateth them both alike. By the beasts, are spiritually signified peoples of sundry sorts; and by eating or not eating, is meant communion with, or abstaining from them, as by the vision shewed unto Peter, the holy Ghost expoundeth this law, Act. 10. 12. 13. 15. 28. and 11. 6. 7. &c. Likewise the Hebrew doctors applied the uncleane beasts following in vers. 4. 5. &c. to the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greekes, Romans, &c. R. Menachem, on Levit. 11. Vers. 3. and cleaveth asunder] namely into two hoofes, or clawes, Deut. 14. 6. and so the Greeke be[illegible: 2 letters] translateth it. The former word, parteth, may be when it is divided above, but not beneath, as appeareth after in verse 26. such parting is in the feet of dogs and the like, which have many clawes sundred above, and joyned under with a skinne. This second word meaneth a cleaving-quite through, as in the feete of sheepe, oxen, &c. [illegible: 1 letter]o by Sol. Iarchi it is expounded, that divideth above and beneath into two clawes. A third sort of hoofes are solid and unparted, as in horses, &c. The first and last sort, were uncleane. and cheweth] or, chewing againe: the Greeke also addeth the word and: for both these properties were requisite, to divide the hoofe, and to chew againe. Chewing the Cud, in the originall, signifieth the bringing up the meat into the mouth, to chew it againe. These two signes, must be in every beast, or else it was uncleane. In Deuteronomie 14. 4. 5. the cleane beasts, are reckoned by their names, tenne in number: and the Hebr. doctors say, Thou hast not of all the beasts that are in the world, any that it is lawfull to eat of, except those ten sorts mentioned in the Law; three of cattell, the oxe, the sheepe, & the goat; and seven sorts of wilde beasts, the Hart, &c. those, and the kindes of them, Maimony in Misneh, tom. 2. treat. of forbidden meats, c. 1. S. S. among the beasts] to weet, bred of them according to their kinde, as God ordamed in the first creation, Gen. 1. 24. For, as it was not lawfull to let the cattellingender with a divers kinde, Levit. 19. 19. so by the Hebr. canons, If an uncleane beast brought forth her yong, after the kinde of a clean beast, although it did both part the hoose and chew the cud, and were in all respects like an oxe or a sheepe, yet it was unlawfull to be eaten; for that which was bred of an uncleane beast, was uncleane; and that of a cleane beast, was cleane. So that if a cleane fish, were found in the belly of an uncleane fish, it was lawfull, because it bred it not, but had swallowed it. Likewise, if in a beast there were found (a creature) like afowle, though it were a cleane fowle; yet was it unlawfull to be eaten. Maimony, treat of forbidden meats, chap. 1. Sect. 5. 7. shall ye eat] or, ye may eat. Hereby communion was signified; as when God called Peter by a vision, to communicate the Gospell with the Gentiles, he said, Rise Peter, kill and eat; Act. 10. 13. 17. 20. 28. So our communion with Christ, is taught under this figure, of eating his flesh, Ioh. 6. 51. 53. The beasts, figured men, Act. 10. 12. 28. (as often in the scriptures, Esa. 11. 6. 7. 8. Ezek. 34. 31. Zeph. 3. 3. Matth. 7. 15.) The parting of the hoofe in twaine, signified the right discerning of the word and will of God, of the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell; and the walking in obedience to the word, with a right foot, Rom. 2. 18. and 3. 20. 21. 22. and 10. 4-8. Gal. 2. 12.—14. The chewing of the eud, signified the meditating in the law of God, which the godly man doth day & night, Psal. 1. 2. for that is the food of the soule, Amos 8. 11. which all ought to remember, Mal. 4. 4. 1 Cor. 11. 2. and having heard it, to search the scriptures daily, whether the things be so, Acts 17. 11. and having tried it, to keepe that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. 21. and remember the commandements of God, for to doe them: Psal. 103. 18. And as that which was borne of an uncleane beast was uncleane, and on the contrary: so the children of unbeleevers are uncleane, and the children of beleevers holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ezra 9. 1. 2. Vers. 4. not eat] to weet ordinarily, but in case of necessity they might be eaten. Soldiers that come into the heathens countrie, and subdue them, it is lawfull for them to eat carkasses, or torne beasts, or swines flesh, or the like, if they be hungry and finde not what to eat, save these forbidden meats: and so they may drinke wine offred to idols: saith Maimony in tom. 4. treat. of Kings. chap. 8. Sect. 1. or of them] Heb. and of them. camel] named of the Hebrew Gamal; from which the Greekes also derived the name Kamelos, the Arabians, Gemal; the Chaldaeans, Gamla. It is a beast that hath a long necke, and a bunch on the backe, upon which men lay burdens, Esay. 30. 6. by reason of this shape, it is not easie for a camel to enter in a straight place; whereupon is that proverbe of a camel to goe thorough the eye of a needle: Math. 19. 24. Camels are of common use in other countries, both for service of warre and of peace, for men to ride upon, to use in charrets, or to lade with burdens, Gen. 24. 10. Iudg. 6. 5. 1 Sam. 30. 17. Esay. 21. 7. and 30. 6. But for to eat of, the camel was uncleane; because it parted not the hoofe, Deut. 14. 7. Vers. 5. conie] in Hebrew Shaphan; which hath the name of hiding in holes; as it is said, The conies are but a feeble folke, yet make they their houses in the Rockes; Prov. 30. 26. and, The Rockes, are a shelter for the coneyes, Psal. 104. 18. In Chaldee, it is called Taphsa, of skipping. Vers. 6. hare] in Hebrew, arnebeth: mentioned onely here, and in Deut. 14. 7. Vers. 7. swine] in Hebrew, chazir; so named of returning: for this beast returneth after it is washed, to wallowing in the mire, 2 Pet. 2. 22. It is also given to wastand spoile, Psal. 80. 14. To feed on it, or offer it for sacrifice, is counted most abhominable, Esa. 65. 4. and 66. 3. 17. Vers. 8. not eat] to weet, any whit of it at any time. The Hebrew canons say: All meats forbidden by the law, the quantity of them is as much as a common olive; whether (the punishment) be beating, or cutting off, or death by the hand of God. This measure or quantity, we have learned by tradition. And it is forbidden by the law, to eat any whit at all, of the thing that is forbidden: notwithstanding a man is not beaten, save for the quantity of an olive: yet if be eat any lesse, he is chastised with stripes. Maimony, treat. of forbidden meat; chap. 14. Sect. 1. 2. carkasse] The originall word, is used for that which dyeth of it self, Lev. 22. 8. The Greeke here translateth carkasses, or caions. A carkasse is one of the principall uncleane things; as an olive of the flesh thereof, maketh men and vessels unclean by touching, and an ear then vessell by the ayre; and maketh men uncleane by bearing. Maimony, in Aboth hatumoth, chap. 1. Sect. 1. See after in the notes on vers. 40. As eating, so touching signifieth communion and fellowship, and is forbidden, to teach us to refraine from all fellowship in evill, Esa. 52. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 17. for dead carkasses, figured such as are dead in sinnes, Eph. 2. 1. Vers. 9. fin and scale] or, as the Chaldee and Greeke translate, finnes and scales, one being put [illegible: 1 word] many. The Iewes canons open it thus. For fiftes there are two signes, the fin and the scale: the fin, is that which groweth out of it; the scale, is that which cleareth unto all the body; and whatsoever hath scales hath sinnes also; &c. If it hath not scales to cover it all over, it is lawfull neverthelesse; though it hath but one fin and one scale, yet it is lawfull. Maimony, treat. or forbidden meates, chap. 1. Sect. 24. The fin of the fish, serveth as wings to guide her way: the scale is to cove[illegible: 1 letter], protect and adorne the body. These two figures in men faith in Gods word, whereby all religioa is guided and directed: and good workes the fruits of faith, by which it is manifested and adorned. Vers. 10. every moving] or, any creeping thing of the waters] which the waters bring forth: see Gen. 1. 20. and the notes thereon. The Greeke translateth, of all things which the waters bring forth: The Hebrew doctors say; what is this moving thing of the waters? They be the lesser creatures, as wor[illegible: 1 letter]es and horsleeches, which are in the water; and the greater creatures, which are the wilde beasts of the sea. And generally whatsoever hath not the forme of fishes, &c. [illegible: 1 word] sea dogges, frogs, and the like. Maimony, treat. of forbidden meats, chap. 2. Sect. 12. soule] that is living creature: see the notes on Gen. 1. 20. a abhomination] that is, uncleane; as Deut. 14. 10. But from this word Chazkuni teacheth, that it was not lawfull to make merchandize of them. Vers. 11. their flesh] so Paul mentioneth the [illegible: 1 word] of fishes, 1 Cor. 15. 39. Vers. 13. have in abomination] or, abhorre of the foule. There are no fignes of cleane fowles explained in the law: but it reckoneth the sorts of uncleane fowles onely; and other sorts of fowles are lawfull: saith Maimony in treat of Forbidden meats, ch. 1 s. 14. eagle] in Hebrew, Nesher: it is the chiefe of fowls, flyeth most high and swiftly, sucketh blood, and feedeth on carkasses, Deut. 28. 49. Iob 39. 27. 30. used to signifie violent persecutors, Lam. 4. 19. Ier. 4. 13. and 48. 40. Hos. 8. 1. Heb. 1. 8. ossifrage] the Greeke translateth it, Gryphen: in Hebrew Peres, so named of Breaking; for with strength of beake and talons she breaketh her prey. The Ossi frage (by interpretation bonebreaker,) is bigger thē the eagle, and much of the same kind. It is mentioned only here, and in Deut. 14. 12. The Chaldee of Onkelos nameth it Ar; and Ionathan Uzza. osprey] in Hebrew, Oznijah; in Chaldee Azja: (called so of strength in her sight and flying,) in Greeke, haliaetos, that is, a sea eagle, or Osprey: which is a bird with a great necke and broad taile, strong sighted, and can looke on the Sunne, and from on high espieth fishes in the sea, and lakes, & falleth violently upon the waters, & taketh them. Vers. 14. vultur] called in old English, a geyr; in Hebrew here, daah, of flying, and in Deut. 14 13. raah, of seeing: (for the Hebrew letters D and R. be one like another, and often put one for another, as is noted on Gen 4. 18.) for the vultur espieth and smelleth her prey from farre, and flyeth with violence, being an heavy fowle; teedeth on carkasses, and buildeth her nest on hye rockes. The Greeke also translateth it gups, (that is, a geyr or vultur,) both here and in Deut. 14. The Chaldee here followeth the Hebrew Dajtha: but in Deut. 14. 13. it hath Bath canpha; that is, daughter of wing. kyee] a knowne ravenous bird, called also a glede, and a puttock. In Hebrew it is named Ajah, of her manner of flying, which is as if she did swim, and by the bowing of her tayl, seemeth to have taught how to governe ships by a rudder, as Plinie noteth in hist. b. 10. c. 10, The scripture elsewhere mentioneth her sharpe eye sight, in Iob 28. 7. The Chaldee here translateth T[illegible: 1 letter]raphitha, of Tearing & ravening her prey, after her kind] This is spoken, because of kites there be two kindes; the greater, of a ruddy colour, common in England: the lesser, of a more blacke colour, knowne in Germanie: both sorts, (and if there bee any other) are uncleane. In Deut. 14. 13 there is another named, Wch is not here, the kite (Ajah,) and the glede (Dajah,) after her kind. That dajah, (or glede,) is a fowle that haunterh ruinous places, Esay 34. 15. The kite (Ajah) is the glede (Dajah) spoken of in Deuteronomie: saith Maimony, in treat. of Forbidden meats, ch. 1. s. 14. Vers. 15. raven] a knowne bird; named in Hebrew Oreb, in Chaldee Urba, of her darke, or blacke colour; Song. 5. 11. It is ravenous, and of unkinde nature to her yong, Prover. 30. 17. Esay 34. 11. Iob 38. 41. his kinde] as crowes, caddowes, pies, and the like. It is said, after his kinde, to imply the Z[illegible: 1 letter]z[illegible: 1 letter]r (the pie) saith Maimony, ibidem. Vers. 16. the owle] or, as in Greeke, the ostrich; the Hebrew bath hajagnanah, properly is, the daughter of the owle (or ostrich,) that is, the kinde of that bird, or the yong thereof. But by this word bath, the Hebrew doctors understand, the egges of this bird, and so of all other uncleane fowles, to be uncleane also. Maimony, ibidem, c. 3. s. 1. But Chazkuni here expoundeth it the Estritch, and by the daughter understandeth the young: because the flesh of the fowle when it is old, is (he saith) as hard as a sticke, and so there was no need to forbid the eating thereof. This bird liveth in deserts and solitary places, Iob 30. 29. Esay. 43. 20. and 34. 13. and (as the name also implyeth) makes a dolefull noise, Mich. 1. 8. and is of a cruell nature, Lam. 4. 3. The ostrich spoken of in Iob 39. 13. 14. hath another name. The Chaldee here translateth Bath neamttha; of pleasantnesse, spoken by the contrary; for her unpleasant cry; so in Deut. 14. night-hawke] or, night-owle, as the Greeke translateth it. The Hebrew name Tachmas signifieth rapine and violence, which argueth the nature of this bird. Some thinke it to bee the Night-raven, others the Harpie. The Night-hauke seeth bette; by night then by day; and hath deadly warre with the Eagle, saith Plinie, hist. b. 10. c. 8. It is mentioned in scripture, only here and in Deut. 14. The Chaldee of her wing or flying, calleth her Tsitsa; but Ionathan, Chatphitha, that is, the Snatcher, or Harpte. sca-gull] or s[illegible: 1 letter]acob: in Hebrew Shachapls, and in Chaldee Shachpha: mentioned but here and in Deur. 14. The Greeke translateth it Laros, that is, a sea gull, a bird of a greedy and revenous kind, it nestleth on rocks by the sea: Aristot hist. Animal. l. 5. c. 9. Some thinke it to be the cuckow, others a kinde of Hawke, called the Merlin. Hawke] called in Hebrew Nets, in Chaldee Natsa, in Gr. hierax; in all, she is named of her swift flying and fighting: and of Nets, the Latine word Nisus is derivec. Of it God saith, Doth the hawke fly by thy wisdome? Iob 39. 26. his kinde] as there are sundry sorts of hawks, (Arist. hist. animal. l. 9. c. 36.) all which are by this law uncleane: so the Hebrew doctors understand this of a second kinde, which they call Sarnaka, Maimony, treat. of Forbidden meats, ch. 1. s. 14. Vers. 17. great owle] called in Latine Bubo, Aristotle writes that it is of the bignesse of an Eagle, and Plinie, that it dwelleth in deserts, maketh a dolefull noise, & flyeth not right forth but thwart wise. So the Prophet compaineth I am like the great owle of the deserts, Psal. 102. 7. In Hebrew it is named Cos, of covering or hiding; and Chazkuni saith, it hideth it selfe from the eyes of men, and dwelleth in places not inhabited: the Greeke translateth it here, the Night raven: and in Deut. 14. the Heron. The Chaldee by Onkelos calleth it Ka[illegible: 1 letter]ja; and Ionathan, Tsajra. cormorant] in Hebrew Shalac, or casting it selfe downe into the water: the Chaldee nameth it Shalenona, that is, the Fish hunter; and Ionathan addeth, the hunter of the fish of the sea. little owle] or, bat: in Hebrew Ianshuph, so named of flying in the twilight or darke evening, which owles & bats both doe. It dwelleth also in desolate places, Esay 34. 11. The Chaldee name is Kiphopha. Vers. 18. the Red-shanke] so the Greeke translateth it here Porphyrion, which is either that, or like that which wee call the Red-shanke. Hierome translateth it the Swan. Some of the Hebrew dotors, the Bat: which is more likely, because the Hebrew Tinshemeth, which here is a bird, after in ver. 30. is the name also of a creeping thing, called the Moll. Sol. Iarchi saith it is like a mouse, flyeth in the night, and is so called because it is like that creeping thing which lacketh eyes, called Talpa (a Moll.) The Chaldee here calleth it Cavtha: and in Deut. 14. 16. Botha. Pelecan] or, shovelard: a fowle that dwelleth in the wildernesse, Psal. 102. and in desolate places, Esay 34. 11, Zeph. 2. 14. In Hebrew, named Kaath, in Chaldee Katha, of Vomiting. So Aristotle and Plinie shew the nature of the Pelecan or Shovelard, that it vomiteth up shelfishes, which it before devoured. And Chazkuni saith hereof; Kaath, the name differeth not from the custome thereof, which is to vomit up the meat. gier-eagle] or, Swan, as the Greek here translateth it, but in Deu. 14. 17. the Greeke is the porphyrion. The Hebrew Racham, hath the signification of deare-love, which it beareth to the young, as Chazkuni saith, The Chaldee translateth it Ierakreka, which implyeth a greenish coloured fowle, such as the Greekes call Chlorion, a Witwol. V. 19. Storke] in Hebrew Chasidah, which signifieth kindnesse, such as the yong storkes are sayd to shew unto their dams, whō they feed in their age: or, as Sol. Iarchi here saith, because it sheweth kindnesse unto her fellowes, in food. The Greeke translateth it diversly. The scripture noteth this bird for her wings and flying, Iob 39. 13. Zach. 5. 9. it is a fowle much like a crane, white, but her wings partly blacke; she buildeth on high fyrr trees, Psal. 104. 17. and upon tops of houses and chimneyes in cities, as all Germany knoweth. It keepeth much about waters, and feedeth on fishes, snakes, frogges, and the like. Therefore in Thessalia (as Plinte reporteth) men might not kill them, upon paine of death, because they devoured the serpents. The storkes depart out of the country towards the end of summer, no man knoweth whither, and come again at the spring, wherupon the Prophet saith, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times, Ie 8. 7. No man seeth them either going or comming, but when they are come, & that is a signe that winter is past. Of them Pliny, writeth, hist. b. 10. c. 23. The Chald[illegible: 1 letter]e calleth her Chavvaritha, of her white feathers. So the Latine Poet; cum Vere rubenti Canaida venit avis longis invisa colubris, Virgil. Geor. 2. that is, when in the rosie Spring, The white fowle comes which unto Snakes is a most hatefull thing. the Heron] in Greeke, and the Heron, so in Deut. 14. 18. The Heron is in Hebrew Anaphah, so named of anger: The Greeke turneth it Charadrios: so in Deut. 14. 18. The Chaldee translateth it Ibbo, and Ajbu; which name implyeth enmity. Chazkuni writeth Anapha; commonly called Heron, it is soone angry: and Sol. Iarchi saith, it is a furius fowle, and seemeth unto me to be that which they call the Heron. Lapwing] so also the Greeke translateth it: the Hebrew name is Duchiphath, mentioned onely here, and in Deut. 14. 18. The Chaldee, Nagar tura: the Cocke of the mountaine, bat] in Hebrew Atalleph, in Chaldee Atalpha, in Greeke Nucteris: it flyeth in the night, and cannot behold the day light, but keepeth in holes; whereto the Prophet alludeth in Esay 2. 20. they shall cast their idols, to the mo[illegible: 2 letters]s, and the batts. Chazkuni saith, Atalleph is a little bird that flyeth in the night, and hath no eyes. Thus there bee twenty severall fowles named as uncleane; to which if wee adde those words after his kinde foure times repeated, there are 24. and so many particular sorts doe the Hebrew doctors say are forbidden. And whosoever hath certaine knowledge of these kindes, and of their names; he may eate any fowle that is none of them, and hee need make no inquisition. Who so knoweth them not, nor knoweth their names; must make inquisition, by the signes which the wise men have given. Every fowle that treadeth on the meat and eateth, [as is the manner of ravenous fowles that teare their prey,] it is evident that it is of those kinds, and uncleane: saith Maimony, in treat. or Forbidden meats, chap. 1. sect. 15. 16. And; the signes of beasts, are spoken of in the law; the signes of [illegible: 1 span]les are not spoken of: but our wise men have said, every fowle that treadeth (on her prey) is uncleane: Talmud Bab. in Cholin, ch. 3. These figured the ravenous, and uncieane conditions of ungodly people: as Babylon is called, the cage of every uncleane and b[illegible: 2 letters] [illegible: 2 letters]ll bird, Rev. 18. 2. Vers. 20. that flyeth] or, of the flying-fowle, as the Greeke translateth, All creeping-things of fowle[illegible: 1 span] that is, all fowles (or flying things) that creepe. Vnder this prohibition, the Iewes understand also, flyes, bees, hornets, ants, and the like; as Thargum Ionathan and others here explaine it. upon all fowre] or, upon fowre feet: which word is expressed after, in verse 23. Ver. 21. hath not legs] or, as the Hebrew read[illegible: 1 span] in the margine, hath legs. Both Greeke and C[illegible: 1 span] dee doe translate as in the margine, hath legs: bu[illegible: 1 letter] because the legges of the Locusts following, are bowed backward, and they goe not with them [illegible: 1 word] other creatures, therefore after a sort they have [illegible: 1 word] legs above their feet. Or rather, because the yong locusts are borne without legges (as Plime shewett in hist. b. 11. c. 29.) and afterwards their legges doe grow. So the Hebrew canons say, Whatsoever [illegible: 1 word] not now wings or legges, but they will grow upon them after a time when they are bigger: they are lawfull (to [illegible: 1 word] eaten) presently. Maimony, treat. of Forbidden me[illegible: 1 span], ch. 1. s. 23. Thus both readings were written by Moses: see the like, in Exodus 21. 8. The holy Ghost sometime plainly confirmeth these div[illegible: 1 span] reading to bee of God; as in 1 Chron. 11. 20. * Lo, Not, is in the margine to bee read Lo, To him, and another Prophet, writing of the same person, hath onely Lo, To him, 2 Sam. 23. 18. Vers. 22. common Locust] or, grashopper; in Hebrew Arbeh, so named of their multitude; see the notes on Exod. 10. 4. 5. 14. Such in the easterne countries are used for meat; so Iohn the Baptist, fed on Locusts, Mat. 3. 4. and humane stories tell, how some in Ethiopia used to eate them salted and [illegible: 2 letters] ed in smoke, Plinie, hist. b. 6 c. 30. Locust-Sol[illegible: 1 span] which hath the name, (as Chazkuni saith) of Sole[illegible: 2 letters] the Rocks, on which they keepe: the Greeke calleth it Attakes: the Chaldee Rashona, and Resh[illegible: 2 letters]a, It is not mentioned in scripture, but in this place. locust-Chargol] this word also is not found any other where: the G. translateth it Ophiomiches, that is, the Serpent fighter: and that there are Locusts which kill serpents, Plinie mentioneth, in b. 11. c. 29. Chazkuni interpreteth the name Chargol, as striving with the feet to skip with them. locust-Chagab,] or grashopper; which the Greeke nameth Akris, that is, a Locust, so in Numb. 13. 33. Esay 40. 22. Eccles. 12. 5. after his kinde] this being spoken foure times, the Hebrewes thinke it implyeth foure other sorts of Locusts, which they call Zipporeth cramim, and Iothana Ierushalemith, and Gnartsubja, and Razbanith; all which are also cleane for to eat; Thalmud Bab. in Cholin, ch. 3. So Maimony in Forb. meats, c. 1. s. 21. where he calleth the two latter by other names, Gnotsaranja, & Ducanith: and so maketh eight sorts of Locusts, which the Law permitteth to be eaten. V. 23. every creeping thing] to weet, every other, save those Locusts aforesaid. Vers. 24. for these] or, by these; meaning as Solom. Iarchi explaineth it, these which follow, that not only by eating, but by touching of them dead, they should be defiled. See before on v. 8. The uncleannes by touching, spoken of in any place, whether it be of a dead man, or of other uncleane things; is, when a man with his flesh toucheth the uncleane thing it selfe; whether it be with his hand, or with his foot, or with any other part of his flesh; though it be with his tongue, loe he is uncleane. And it seems to me, he is defiled if he touch with his nailes or with his teeth, whiles they are joyned to the body, they are as the body; saith Maim. in treat. of Poll. by the dead. c. 1. s. 3. till the evening] that is, till the end of that day and beginning of a new: for the Iewes day began at evening, as is noted on Gen. 1. 5. And so it figured mans pollution by sins, till hee come to the new day of salvation by Christ, and become a new creature, 2 Cor. 5. 17. & 6. 2. It signified also, those legall pollutions to continue but during the day (or time) of the law: wch in the day of Christ should be abolished, Coloss. 2. 16. 17. 20. 21. V. 25. beareth] the Hebr. canons say, although he touch it not, though there bee a stone betweene him and it, for asmuch as he hath borne it, he is unclean, whether he beare it on his head, or on his hand, or on any other part of his body. Whether hee hath taken it up him-selfe, or an other hath laid it on him; yea though the uncleane thing hang by a threed, or haire, and that threed hang on his hand; he beareth it, and is uncleane. Maim. treat. of Pollut. by the dead, ch. 1 sect. 6. wash his clothes] that is, all the clothes that are upon him. Sol. Iarchi not eth, that uncleannes by bearing, is more then the uncleannes by touching, for a man is charged for this, to wash his clothes. This washing was a signe of sanctification, as in Exodus 19. 10. for sinne defileth men, and all that is about them: but by repentance and faith, our clothes are washed, & made white in the blood of the Lambe (Christ) Revel. 7. 14. The Hebrew doctors say, Every place where it is said in the law, of the uncleane, that hee shall wash his clothes: it is not to teach us, that onely the clothes which are upon him are uncleane: but to teach that every cloth or vessell, which that uncleane person toucheth, in the time whiles he is joyned to the thing that makes him uncleane, is uncleane also. Maim. treat. of the Red heiffer, chap. 5. sect. 2. Vers. 26. them] that is, their dead carkasses, as the Gr. here expresseth, and rightly from ver. 24. Vers. 27. pawes, or palmes; which the Greeke translateth hands. And to explaine this, Sol. Iarchi instanceth, the dog, and the beare, and the cat. Ver. 29. upon the earth] this is spoken, as Chazkuni saith to expect those that are in the sea. weasell] named in Hebrew, Choled; in Chaldee, Chulda; of running hastily from place to place. Iarchi explaineth it by the Latine name Mustela: in Greeke it is called Galee. mouse] in Hebrew, Gnachar, of troubling, gnawing and rooting things in the house and fields. With such, God marred the Philistians land, 1 Sam. 6. 5. and the eating of such is expresly condemned, in Esay 66. 17. tor[illegible: 1 span]] or, as the Greeke translateth, the land crocodile; in Hebrew Tsab, so called of the shell that covere[illegible: 1 span] it; for Tsab is also used for a coach, or covered wagon, Numbers 7. 3. Of this creature Sol. Iarchi saith, it is like a frog. after his kinde] the Greeke translateth, and things like unto it. Vers. 30. ferret] or weasell-mouse, as the Greeke translateth it Mugalee; which the Latines call Mus araneus, (the Shrew, as Gaza saith in hist. animal. l. 8. c. 24. It is of the colour of a weasell, and bignesse of a mouse, saith Aetius, in l. 13. c. 14. The Hebrew name is Anakah, which signifieth groaning; and the Chaldee, Iela, of yelling. The scripture mentioneth it not elsewhere. Chamaeleon] so the Greeke translateth it; others, the lisard. In Hebrew it is named Coach, of Strength. lizard] or, stellio, which is like a lizard, spoted on the backe as with stars: and to this latter, the Greek Askalabotes agreeth. In Hebrew, Letaah, which Sol. Iarchi expoundeth Lisard. snaile] or lisard, in Hebrew Chomet; in Greeke Saura, that is the Lisard: others thinke this to be the chamaeleon. These creatures names are not elsewher found in scripture. The Rabbins say, There are eight creeping things spoken of in the Law, the weasell &c. who so eateth of their flesh the quantity of a lentel (or little pease) is to bee beaten. Maim. in Forb. meats, c. 2. s. 7. Moll] in Hebr. Tinshemeth, in Chaldee Ashshutha; which Iarchi explaineth by the Latine name Talpa; but Thargum Ionathan calleth it Sallamandra. Vers. 31. toucheth] Creeping things (as the Hebr. doctors observe) doe defile men and vessells when they are touched, and earthen vessells by the aier: but defile not when they are caried, (as other creatures do v. 25) and the measure of their vncleannes, is by (touching) so much as a lentell. Maim. in Aboth hatumoth, c. 4. s 2. are dead] There is no kinde of living creature that is defiled whiles it is alive, or that defileth whiles it is alive, save man only, saith Maimony, in treat. of Pollution by the dead, c. 1. s. 14. The creeping thing defileth not untill it bee dead. All other abominable creeping things, as frogs, serpents, scorpions, and the like, though they are unlawfull to be eaten, &c (Lev. 11. 41. 42.) yet hast thou none of all the creeping things, that defileth (by touching it) when it is dead, save the eight sorts that are expressed in the Law. Maimony, in Aboth hatumoth, c. 4. s. 14. Vers. 32. ought of them] to weet, of their flesh. For as of beasts, the Hebrew doctors say, the bones, hornes, hoofes, gristles, sinews, &c. of their carkasses, doe not defile; to weet, when they are separated from the carkasse; though who so toucheth any of these things, while they are joyned with the flesh, hee is uncleane; so they say, the bones, sinewes, nayles of creeping things, are cleane. Maim. in Aboth hatumoth, c. 1. s. 7. and c. 4. s. 8. vessell] or, instrument; any thing made for use or service. The Hebrews say; there are seven sorts of vessels (or instruments) that by the law doe receive uncleannesse; which are clothse, things made of skin, and sackes, and things made of bone, and of metall, and of wood, and of potters earth. Five of these they gather from this verse and the next; for metals, from Numbers 31. 22. 23. and for bones, from Numb. 31. 20. all worke of goats, &c. which by tradition they learned to understand of vessells made of the hornes, or hoofes, or bones of goats, & consequently of other beasts: Maim. in Celim, c. 1. s. 1. of wood] under this, they understand also vessels made of bulrushes (as Esay 18. 2.) and of reed, of wicker, of shells of nuts, barks of trees, and other the like; of things which grow out of the earth like wood. All things made of wood, for the service and use of man onely, as ladders, are cleane, & receive no pollution at all. And all things made of wood, for the service of vessels and of men, as tables, bupboards, beds and the like, doe receive pollution: (for these serve both for mans use, and for dishes, cups, plate, &c. to bee set upon.) Things made of wood, for the service of vessells (or instruments) onely, because they serve unto those things which serve unto man, if they serve unto those vessells, but in the houre of imployment onely, then are they cleane and receive no pollution; as a wodden candle sticke, which serveth for the candle in the time that it burneth: and so all other the like. But if they serve unto the vessell or instrumēt, in the time of the use of it, and in the time when it is not used, then it receiveth pollution, as sheads, scabberds, cases of knives, swords, and other the like. Maim. in Celim, c. 1. s. 13. and c. 4. s. 1. cloth] whatsoever is woven, be it of wooll, or of flax, or of hemp, or of any other thing that groweth out of the dry land; is called cloth, in this case of uncleannesse. Maim. in Celim, c. 1. s. 11. But cloth woven of wool that groweth in the sea receives no uncleannes. Ibidem. s. 3. skin] to weet, of beasts of the earth; but such as breed in the sea, their skins receive no uncleannes, Maim. in Celim. c. 1. sect. 3. sackcloth] it was made of threeds of baire, braided like a chaine, or woven as cloth, & made either of goats haire, or camels haire, or horse tailes, or the like. Mai. in Celim, c. 1. s. 12. Hence we may observe, that Ioh. Baptists garment of camels hair, was sackcloth opposed to soft & princely clothing, Ma. 3. 4. & 11. 8. and such the Prophets of old, used for to weare, as Elias, (in whose habit, and spirit and power Iohn Baptist came, Luk. 1. 17.) 2 King. 1. 8. & Esaias Esay 20. 2. and others, Zac. 13. 4. any vessell] or toole, instrument, fit for, and used unto any worke. Therefore; a skin which had not upon it the forme of a vessell (or instrument) received no uncleannesse. Uessells of metall, received no uncleannesse, till the worke of them was all finished: unperfect shapes were not capable of pollution. Neither any other vessels whatsoever, till they were wholly finished. And if a clean vessel were brokē, the peeces of it, were not capable of uncleannes: as Mai. sheweth in Celim, c. 7. s. 2. &c. 8. s. 1. &c. 1. s. 1. and ch. 6. s. 1. put] or broght, made come: the Greeke translateth dipped into water. And by the Hebrew canons, All that are uncleane, whether men or vessells, are not cleansed, but by dipping (or baptising) in water: And wheresoever the law speaketh of washing a mans flesh, or washing of clothes for uncleannes, it is not but by dipping the whole body therein. And whether they bee men or vessels, there may not bee any thing betweene them and the water to keepe them asunder, as clay, pitch or the like, that eleaveth to the body or vessell: if there bee, then they are uncleane as they were before, and their washing profiteth them not. Maim. in Mikvaoth (or Water places) c. 1. s. 1. 2. 12. and it shall] or, then it shall be clensed: which the Greeke translateth, and afterwards it shall bee cleane. Before the evening, that the sun be set, it abideth uncleane, though in a lesse degree. And so for men, of whom it is said, they shall wash and be uncleane untill the even: as v. 25. 28. and Lev. 15. 5. &c. Hereupon the Hebrewes describe the degrees of uncleannesse; as, All that are uncleane with any principall uncleannes, whether men or vessells, they are the first (or chiefest) in uncleannes, till they [illegible: 1 word] baptised. When he is baptised, then is he as the second in uncleannesse, untill his sun be set. And hee t[illegible: 1 letter]at [illegible: 1 word] so baptised, (and his sun not set) may not eat or dr[illegible: 1 span] of the trumah (or holy offrings,) or of any meat or dr[illegible: 1 span] that is holy. If such a baptised person touch the Tr[illegible: 1 letter] mah, he maketh the third in uncleannes, because him-selfe is the second. If he touch the holy meats or [illegible: 1 word], hee maketh them the fourth in uncleannes. But [illegible: 2 words] touch common meats, they are cleane. Maim. in A[illegible: 1 span] hatumoth, c. 10. s. 1. 2. 3. Vers. 33. earthen] or, vessell of pot bakers e[illegible: 1 span] For there is a difference betwene this, and anoth[illegible: 1 span] vessell of earth or of stone. Any vessel made of [illegible: 1 word] mould of the earth, and afterward burned in the [illegible: 1 word] that is the vessel (Cheres) of earth, here spoken of, Maimony, in Celim. c. 1. s. 13. See also Lev. 15. 1[illegible: 1 letter]. whereinto] or, into the midst whereof. The Hebrewes scanning this word, say, that an earth[illegible: 1 span] sel is not made unclean but in the aier thereof. All [illegible: 1 word] vessels, if uncleannesse touch them, they are u[illegible: 1 letter]cleane: and if an uncleane thing come into the aier of them, but toucheth them not, they continue cleane. And they count that an earthen vessel is not made uncleane, [illegible: 1 word] in the aier of it, as it is written, Into the midst where any of them falleth, (Levit. 11. 33.) in the midst ([illegible: 1 word] inside) thereof it is made uncleane, not in the o[illegible: 1 span] parts. And as it is made uncleane in the aier of it, [illegible: 1 word] maketh meats and drinks uncleane by the aier of it, [illegible: 1 word] an uncleane earthen vessel, if meat or drinke c[illegible: 1 span] [illegible: 1 word] the a[illegible: 1 letter]er of it, though they touch it not, yet are they [illegible: 1 word] uncleane, as it is written, whatsoever is in the [illegible: 1 word] it, shall be uncleane. But other uncleane vessels [illegible: 1 word] not meats or drinkes uncleane, till they touch [illegible: 1 word] Maimony, in Celim, c. 13. s. 1. 2. breake it] so in Lev. 6. 28. and 15. 12. All vessels that are defiled, are madecleane againe by water, except vessels of earth, and of glasse. Of the earthen vessel it is said, and ye shal breake it, (Levit. 11. 33.) and it is not cleansed but by breaking. Maim. in Mikvaoth, c. 1. s. 3. This seemeth to be in respect of the vilenesse of earth en vessels, more then of wood or of metall; so that the losse was not great, though they were broken. For otherwise, the Hebrew doctors say, that Vessells also of wood, and of skin, and of bone, and of metall, when they are broken, are clensed from their uncleannesse; Maim. in Celim, ch. 12. s. 1. Of this point Chazkuni here saith, An earthen vessel is not defiled but by the aier of it, and the reason is, for as much as it cannot bee clensed but is to bee broken; the Law is sparing from having it mored, so that it is not defiled on the outside, as it is written, And every open vessell, which hath no covering bound upon it, is uncleane, Numb. 19. 15. Loe if it have a covering bound vpon it, it is cleane, for it is not defiled on the outside of it. As waters signified the blood and spirit of Christ, wherewith we are sanctified, Ezek. 36. 25. Hebr. 9. 13. 14. and 10. 22. so the breaking of the vessell signified the abolishing of sinne and uncleannesse, by death. Wee are compared to earthen vessells, 2 Cor. 4. 7. and the breaking of such is death, Ierein. 19. 11. and 48. 38. See the notes on Lev. 15. 12. Ver. 34. Of all meat which may be eaten] Hebrew, which shall be eaten, that is, which usually is eaten of men. The Greeke translateth, And all meat which is eaten. on which water commeth] This is understood by some, of such water as whereinto an uncleane thing was put to cleanse the same, mentioned before in verse 32. that that water defileth all meats. But the Hebrewes understand it of all water generally, which when it commeth upon any thing that is mans meat, it maketh the meat apt to receive uncleannesse, by such things as are before mentioned: whereas unlesse water came upon it, it received no uncleannesse by the touch of any uncleane thing; according to that which followeth in verse 37. 38 where sowing seed is not defiled by any carkasse, unlesse water bee put upon the seed. So Iarchi explaineth it, Hence wee learne (saith he) that meat is not apt and prepared to receive uncleannesse, untill water come upon it; but after water is once come upon it, it receiveth uncleannesse for ever, though it be dry againe. And wine and oyle [illegible: 1 word] whatsoever is called Mashkeh (drinke or liquor,) [illegible: 1 span]keth seeds apt to take uncleannesse, as water doth. The like is holden by others of them, and they give these rules; All meat that is properly mans [illegible: 1 letter]eat, as bread, and flesh, and grapes, and olives, and the like, receiveth uncleannesse; and whatsoever is not properly mans meat, is cleane, and receiveth not uncleannesse; unlesse there bee an intent concerning it, and it [illegible: 1 word] determined to bee mans meat. And both the one and the other receiveth not uncleannesse, untill it bee mixed first with one of the seven liquors: as it is said, But if water be put upon the seed, Lev. 11. 38. The sevenliquors that make meats apt for uncleannes, are these, water and deaw, and oile, and wine, & milke, and blood, [illegible: 1 span]d honey. And they make not (meats) apt (for uncleannes,) untill they full upon the meats by the owners will; and are not putrified: for liquor that is putrified maketh not apt (for uncleannes.) And when meat is made apt (to receive uncleannesse,) although it be waxen dry againe, yet it receiveth uncleannes. Meat that is mixed with water of fruits, as with water of mulberries, or of pomgranets, although it be mixed. & one that hath a running yssue, or if the flesh of the dead do touch it: yet is it cleane, because it was not made apt (to take uncleannes,) by one of the seven liquors. There is not any liquor that receiveth uncleannes, save onely the seven liquors forementioned; but other water of fruits, as they make not apt, so neither receive they uncleannes at all. Somethings receive no uncleannes, though they be eaten by men; because they are not eaten save to give relish unto meats, or for odor, or for sight; as spices, ginger, pepper, and all such like. All meats that grow out of the ground, receive no uncleannes till they bee plucked up: but so long as they stick in the ground, though it be but by a little root, whereby they may live, they receive no uncleannes. All meats that are of liuing things, receive no uncleannes untill they be dead: so soone as a beast or fowle is killed, they may receive uncleannes. Fishes also receive uncleannes, when they are dead. All meat that is corrupt & putrified so that it is not fit for mans meat; receiveth no uncleannes. So liquor putrified and corrupt, that it is not fit for man to drinke, receiveth no uncleannes. Maim. in Tumath Oclin (or Uncleannes of meats) c. 1. and 2. all drinke] or all liquor. This generall, the Hebrewes restraine to seven particulars forementioned; water, dew, oile, wine, milk, blood, and honey, and such things as are of their kinde. Which must bee iudiciously weighed; for they had many traditions, which agreed not with the lawes of God, Marke 7. 3. 4.—13. Moreover they say concerning these things, Whatsoever is written in the Law touching things uncleane and cleane, it concerneth not ought save the sanctuary and the holy things thereof, and the Heave-offrings and the second tithe onely. For loe the uncleane are warned not to come into the Sanctuary, or to eate of the holy thing, or of the heave-offring, or of the tithe, in uncleannesse: (Levit. 12. 4. and 15. 31. Numb. 19. 13. 20. Levit. 7. 20. 21. Nū. 18. 11. 13.) But of common things, there is no prohibition at all; but it is lawfull to eat common things that are uncleane, and to drinke liquors that are uncleane. Loe it is said in the Law, And the flesh that toucheth any uncleane thing, shall not be eaten, Lev. 7. 19. Wherefore common things are lawfull, for he speaketh not save of the flesh of the holy things. And so it is lawfull for a man to touch all uncleane things, and to defile himselfe by them: for loe the scripture warneth the sons of Aaron and the Nazirite, not to defile themselves by the dead, (Lev. 21. 1. Num. 6. 6.) intimating, that all the people may. Yea & the Priests & Nazirites might defile themselues with other uncleannes, save the uncleannes of the dead. All Israel, are admonished to be clean at every solemne feast; for then they are to be fitted to come into the Sanctuary, and to eate the holy things. And this which is said in the Law, Their carkasseshal ye not touch, (Lev. 11. 8.) is meant at the solemne feast onely: but for other daies of the yeere, he is not forbidden. The unclean & the clean person together, Deu. 15. 22. we have been taught, that the unclean & the clean may eate in one dish. But the husband may not eate in the dish with his wife that is separated for her uncleannes, (Lev. 15. 19.) &c. Although it be lawfull to eate uncleane meats, and drinke uncleane drinkes, the holy men in former times used to eate common meats in their cleannes, and shunned all uncleane meats all their daies. Maimony in Tumath Oclin, c. 16. s. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. These things are to be understood of cleane meats made uncleane by touching other things: and not of twine & such beasts, fowles and fishes, as are forbidden before: for they might never be eaten by the people, except in case of necessitie. Vers. 35. oven] in Greeke ovens: wherein bread is baken, Levit. 26. 26. unto which the hart of man is sometime likened, Hos. 7. 6. potts] so the Gr. Chy[illegible: 1 letter]ropodes also signifieth pots with feet. Chazkuni saith the oven was for bread; the potts, for flesh; to bee baked and boyled in: and Sol. Iarchi saith, they were vessels (or instruments) moveable, and were of potters earth. they shall] Hebrew, it shall, that is, every of them shall be broken downe. Because as Sol. Iarchi saith, an earthen vessell is not made cleane by washing. Therefore were they to be broken as other earthen vessels, v. 33. Vers. 36. and a gathering.] The Greeke addeth the word and, whereby this is distinguished from pit and fountaine; implying all other places, di[illegible: 1 letter]ches, ponds, pooles, lakes, rivers and the like; where many waters are gathered together (not in vessels, but) upon the ground. Such when the uncleane thing, and water that touched it were taken out, remained clean. Vers. 37. sowing] or sowen seed, which useth to be sowne. which shall be sowen] Chazkuni expoundeth it, which shall be rooted in the ground: teaching even of uncleane seeds, that when they are sowne and have taken root, they are cleane. Vers. 38. water is put] Hebrew, is given; meaning willingly: the Greeke saith, is poured. Hereby is meant the fitting of it for man to eat: as by the Hebrew canons is before shewed. Where also it is said; By word of mouth we have beene taught that this which is said, But if water be put upon the seed, (Lev. [illegible: 1 word]. 38▪) is meant either of water, or of any other of the seven liquors: so that it be put thereon by the owners wil, and after that it is pulled from the ground: for it is not spoken of putting water on, save after the meats are pl[illegible: 1 letter]cked up, and the liquors pulled off from where they grow: whatsoever liquor falleth on meats without the owners will it maketh thē not apt (to receive uncleannes.) As if it be mixed with his fruits for fear, or dāger, or for necessity, & he was not otherwise willing that they shold be mixed: it makes them not apt (for uncleannes:) as he that hideth his fruits in water, because of theeves, &c. M[illegible: 1 span]. in Tumath Oclin, c. 12. s. 1. 2. of their carkasse] Ch[illegible: 1 letter]zkuni explaineth it thus; of their carkasse, and not of the b[illegible: 3 letters]s, or of the teeth, or of the nailes, or of the h[illegible: 1 letter]ire of th[illegible: 3 letters]: for these things made it not uncleane. larchi teacheth, that this is not onely whiles the seed is wet with the water, but also after it is dry from the water. Vers. 39. any beast dye] to weet, of it selfe; and is not orderly slaine. for meat] that is, any cleane beast, such as the Law permitteth to be eaten. And unclean beasts much more. toucheth the carkasse] Sol. Iarchi expoundeth this; the carkasse, and not the bones or sinewes, nor the hornes, or hoofes, neither the skin: for that these defiled not him that touched them. Ver. 40. that [illegible: 1 letter]eareth the [illegible: 1 letter]arkasse] see the notes on vers. 25. The Hebrewes say, A carkasse is one of the chiefest uncleane things; so much as an olive of the flesh thereof, defileth men, and vessells, by touching, and earthen vessels by the aeir, and defileth men by bearing it. Whether it be cattell or beast, lawfull to be eaten or unlawfull; if they dye, the flesh of them all, so much as an olive, maketh one uncleane. The killing of a clean beast, maketh it cleane every where: an uncleane beast, the killing thereof availeth it not: and whether it be killed, or strangled: or dye of it selfe, it is a carkasse; and all carkasses are alike in the case of uncleannes. The marrow is as the flesh; but the blood of the carkass defileth not as the carkasse, but is like uncleane liquors, which defile not men or vessels by the Law. The fat of a clean beast that dieth, is cleane, as it is written, And the fat of a carkasse, and the fat of that which is torne in peeces, sh[illegible: 1 letter]l be used for any worke, but eating ye shall eate of it (Lev. 7. 24.) Maimony in Aboth hatumoth, c. 1. s. 15. wash his clothes] the Greek addeth, and wash himselfe in water. Vers. 41. every creeping thing] besides those eight forementioned in v. 29. 30. which defiled men by touching them dead; all other defile men by eating them; but not by touching their carkasses. See the notes on v. 31. Who so eateth so much as an olive, of any creeping-thing on the earth, is to bee beaten: saith Maimon. in treat. of Forbidden meats, c. 2. s. 6. Touching this quantity, observe another rule which they give; This which we have said, of eating so much as an olive, is when he eateth that qua[illegible: 1 span] of any great creature, or if he joyne together a little of one creature, and a little of another of that kinde, till he eate so much as an olive. But he that eat[illegible: 1 letter]th an unclean creature by it selfe all of it; he is to be beaten by the Law, although it be lesse then a graine of mustard seed; whether he eate it dead, or eate it alive, Maimony, [illegible: 1 word] ▪ c. 2. s. 21. Vers. 42. upon the belly] as serpents and the like▪ Gē. 3. 14. upon all foure] or, upon foure feet. T[illegible: 2 letters] is the Scorpion, saith Sol. Iarchi. or whatso[illegible: 1 span] Hebr. unto whatsoever hath many feet. Iarchi saith, this is the Nadal, (the many-foot) a creeping thing which hath feet from the head there of to the taile that of on each side; [illegible: 1 letter]nd they call it (in Latine) C[illegible: 1 span]. Vers. 43. any thing that creepeth] This implyeth all other besides the things spoken of; as [illegible: 1 letter]eping things in the waters, and the like. He that [illegible: 1 span] much as an olive of the creeping things in the waters, [illegible: 1 word] to be beaten by the Law, Levit. 11. 43. Lee in [illegible: 1 word] prohibition, are comprehended creeping things of the earth, and creeping things that fly, and creeping [illegible: 1 word] of the waters. Maimony, in Forbidden meats, [illegible: 1 word] s. 12. What the creeping things of the waters as is shewed on v. 10. Vers. 44. make holy] or sanctify your selves. [illegible: 1 word] is the spirituall use of all these carnall rites: [illegible: 1 word] Meat commendeth us n[illegible: 1 letter]t to God, 1 Cor 8. 8. [illegible: 1 word] is any thing uncleane of it [illegible: 1 letter]e[illegible: 1 letter]fe, Rom. 14. 14. [illegible: 1 word] there is nothing from without a man, that entring into him, can defile him, Mark. 7. 15. and these ordinances of meats and drinks, and divers washings, were carnall ordinances, imposed on (the Iewes) untill the time of reformation (or bettering) Heb. 9. 10. all which are by Christ now done away, Collos. 2. 14. 16. 17. 20. 21. who calleth us from our former lusts in our ignorance, to be holy in all manner of conversation, because it is written, bee ye holy, for I am holy, 1 Pet. 1. 14. 15. 16. and to clense our selves from all filthinesse of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holinesse in the feare of God, 2 Cor. 7. 1. The Iewes also themselves saw that these outward things were figures of heavenly, and to bee abolished by Christ, as their owne words noted on Gen. 9. 3. manifest: and R. Menachem on Lev. 11. sheweth how things beneath, are all answerable to things above; and those above, have their figures here beneath, and that by uncleane beasts, the heathens of the world were meant, (according to that vision in Act 10. 12.—18.) and that the eating of uncleane beasts here forbidden, signified the going in unto (or unlawfull mariages with) such infidels, according to the phrase in Pro. 30. 20. she eateth, and wipeth her mouth: and the saying in Gen. 2. 24. they shall be one flesh. Also, that the clensing with water, signified the water that is above, which is the water of mercy, &c. And Maim. concludeth his treatise of the Vncleannesse of meats, thus; the cleannes of the body, bringeth one unto the holines of the soule, from evill thoughts; and the holinesse of the soule, is a meanes to make us like unto the Majesty (of God) as it is written, and yee shall make your selves holy, and shall be holy, for I the Lord that make you holy, am holy. your soules] that is, your selves; the soule is often put for ones selfe, for the whole person, soule and body. So in v. 43. that moveth] or, that creepeth upon the earth; but the Gr. also translateth moveth: and it is of more large signification. Wherfore the Hebr. cannons say; These kindes that breed in dunghils, and in bodies of carkasses, as worms, [illegible: 2 letters]ag gots, and the like, which are not procreated of male and female, but of rotten dung and the like; they are called the things that move upon the earth: and who so eateth so much as an olive of them, is to be beaten. &c. although they doe not increase and multiply (by generation.) But the creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Lev. 11. 29.) is that which increaseth and multiplieth of male and female. Those kinds that breed in fruits & i[illegible: 1 letter] meats; if they be separated & go forth upon the earth although they returne again into the meat; who so eateth so much as an olive of them, is to be beaten: but if they be not separated, it is lawfull to eat the fruit, and the worm that is within it. Provided that the food breed wormes after it is plucked up from growing on the earth: for if it breed worms, while it groweth; those wormes are unlawful, as those that are separated upō the earth, because they are created upon the earth. And if the case bee doubtful▪ [illegible: 2 letters]ey are also unlawfull. Therefore all kinde of fruits which are wont to breed worms whiles they grow, are not to be eaten, untill they search into the fruit, lest [illegible: 1 word] worme be in it. But if the fruit last a twelve month after it is gathered, it may be eaten without any searching into it: for there is no worme which can live twelve [illegible: 1 word] in it. Maim. treat. of Forbidden meats, ch. 2. sect. 13. 14. 15. V. 45. that bringeth you] upon condition that you shold receive my commandements, have I brought you up from the land of Egypt: as Iarchi explaineth it. for I am holy] Hence doth the Apostle frame his exhortation, as he which hath called you is holy, so bee ye holy, in all manner of conversation: because it is written Be ye holy, for I am holy, 1 Pet. 1. 15▪ 16. V 47. To make a difference] or to separate; & in the next sētence the Gr. addeth, to teach the sons of Israel, between the living thing, &c▪ as having reference to v. 1. 2. (where this law is spoken to Moses & Aaron,) and to the former precept, in Lev. 10. 10. 11. the beast, or, the living thing: which the G. calleth Zoogonountoon, that gender living things. And as we have heard of the creatures, so for those that come of the creatures, the Hebr. have these rules; All meat that cōmeth out of any of the kinds of creatures forbidden, for the eating whereof men are beaten: [illegible: 2 letters]e that meat is by the Law forbidden to be eaten as the milk of an unclean beast, and eggs of unclean fowles or fishes. Womans milk is lawfull to be eaten, though the flesh of mankind is unlawfull to be eaten. Honey of bees or of hornets is lawfull &c. Though it be unlawful to eat the milk or eggs of unclean beasts & birds yet are not mē beatē for eating thē; for it is said, Of their flesh shall ye not eat, (Lev. 11. 8▪) for eating the flesh they are beaten, not for eating the eggs or milk: yet for eating such they are chastised with stripes, Maim. in Forbidden meats, ch. 3. sect. 1 &c.