Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1

CHAP. II.

ANd when any will offer a meat-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flower, and he shall pour oil upon it, &c.] Because when any burnt-offering of beasts was brought, a meat-offering must be brought also, Num. 15. before he cometh to speak of other sacrifices, the Lord here showeth, what meat-offerings he would have brought. In Hebrew it is called mincah, signifying a gift, coming either of hincah, to bring, or to offer, or of hiniah, to recreate or to pacify, so Brenz. By this word any gift or present brought to God or man is set forth; as Gen. 4. 3, 4. 1 Sam. 10. 27. but more especially a sacrifice of things without life, as of the fruits of the earth, the chief whereof was Wheat, but we render it by a general name, a meat-offering, because most of it was eaten by the Priests, who had little benefit else of the whole burnt sacrifices.

The meat-offerings here described are of five sorts: 1. Of flower, verse. 1. 2. Of cakes baked in the oven, verse. 4. 3. Of cakes baked in a pan, verse. 5. 4. Of that which is fried in a pan, verse. 7. 5. Of whole green corn, verse. 14. Afterwards, Chap. 5. 11. another meat-offering for sin made by a poor man is described, of fine flower without oil or frankincense: 7. The meat-offering of the high priest every day, being flower baked in a pan with oil, which was wholly burnt. Chap. 6. 20. 8. The meat-offering of consecration of the Priests, Exod. 29. 23. Levite 8. 26. 9. The meat-offering of jealousy being of barley meal, Numb. 5. 15. Besides these there were other meat-offering of the congregation; as, 1. a sheaf of their first ripe fruits, Lev. 23. 10, 11, 12. 2. two loaves, verse. 17. 3. twelve cakes of show-bread, Levite. 24 5. but none of these twelve cakes were burned, but were the Priests portion. 4. the meat-offering with the daily sacrifice of the lamb morning and evening, Exod. 29. 40. That which is rendered here, if any shall offer, in Hebr. is, if a soul shall offer; it being ordinary by soul, to understand man. That of Hesychius, saying, that it is anima, because the Gentile, animalis homo, perceived not the things of God, is over-curious. Vatablus thinketh more particularly, that a private man is meant. Cajetan, a woman. Rickelius, that a man should offer from his heart and soul, &c. What quantity of flower must be brought, is not expressed here, nor yet of oil, or frankincense. But the least quantity was the tenth part of an Ephah, Chap. 5. 11. & 6. 20. that is, an Homer, Exod. 16. 36. the greatest, as many tenth parts as the offerer pleased, that offered voluntarily, but in other meat-offerings the quantity is set down, one tenth part, neither more nor less, saith Maimonides, viz. if it were offered for sin, in jealousy, for consecration, or if it were the sheaf-offering, the high Priests continual offering, or the offering of consecration of the priest, and the oil, he saith, was a log or half pint to a tenth part of an ephah, Levite. 14. 10. and the frankincense, and handful to the whole meat-offering, how great soever it was, if of 60 tenth parts, for this was the greatest quantity brought at any time in one vessel. For the manner, it was thus, first oil was put in, then the flower upon it, and oil again upon that, which being all mingled together, it was put out into a ministering vessel, and then the rest of the oil was poured on, and upon all this the frankincense. But Solomon Jarchi saith, that the frankincense was put only upon one part of it on the one side. And as the flower must be of the best, so must the oil also, and not having any ill smell. Of all this one handful only is to be taken by the priest and offered upon the fire, the remainder going to the priests. This was done thus, the Priest carried it to the Altar, and brought it to the southwest horn, then putting the frankincense to one side, he took out an handful of the foresaid mixture, and put it in another ministering vessel, and gathering up all the frankincense, he put it upon that handful, and then put it out together upon the fire; Maimonides.

and the Priest shall burn the memorial of it,] That is, the handful with the frankincense, that God may remember his covenant with his faithful people, and graciously accept of the offerer, in regard of which name, memorial, it is said, Psal. 20. 4. He remember all thy meat-offerings, it is a thing most holy. Hebr. holiness of holinesses; hereby the Rabbins distinguish this and such like sacrifices from others, which they call the light holy, as was before touched, Chap. 1. verse. 1.

For the mystery of this sacrifice, it is not unaptly held to figure out Christ, the faithful, and their prayers and devotions. For Christ is spoken of, as offered instead of the mincah, or meat-offerings, Heb. 10. 5, 8, 9. spoken of Psal. 40. sacrifices and oblations, Hebr. mincah, thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me; and therefore, he being come, these offerings ceased, as was prophesied, Dan. 9. 27. and he is said to be an oblation of a sweet smelling savor. And Christ, saith Osiander, was well set forth by Wheat making bread, for he is the bread of life; and by oil for the oil of gladness, that is, the Spirit, with which he was anointed above his fellows; and by frankincense, for the sweetness of his prayers and mediation with God for us. Ainsworth saith, that the flower of Wheat did set forth Christ pure and free from all bran of corruption. Touching the faithful, the Wheat flower did well set forth them also, because they subject themselves to the Lord to be macerated and ground with afflictions, and the oil because of the Spirit, of which they partake, and the frankincense for their acceptance before God in Christ, as sweet incense, so Junius; see for this last Cantic. 3. 6. Jer. 6. 20. Ephes. 5. 2. Rom. 12. 1. But Ainsworth will have the Wheat flower to signify the purity of the faithful in Christ. Isidor by the Wheat flower understandeth the Church gathered of many persons, as that of many grains.

Lastly, the graces and devotions of the faithful were figured out hereby, knowledge by flower, saith Hesychius; alms deeds by oil, and frankincense by prayers, because as Wheat flower is the first thing here named, with which the offerer must come, so the first, whereby a sinner cometh to God, is knowledge; and for prayers and alms, it is said to Cornelius of them, as of a sacrifice, thy prayers and alms are come in remembrance before the Lord. And the virtues of frankincense, saith he, are such, that they may most aptly set forth prayer, for the Physicians use it against the inward passions of the mind, and to cure the wounds of the eyes, and by the sum thereof the tears of the eyes are restrained, so by prayer a man is freed from inward troubles, and sin the disease of the eye of the mind is cured. For if any man be sick, the prayer of the faithful shall heal him, and if he hath committed sin, it shall be forgiven him, thus he.

But Ainsworth understandeth only prayers and alms-deeds, which are likened unto the mincha, and the incense therein, Psalm. 141. 3. Mal. 1. 10, 11, Heb. 13. 16. Phil. 4. 18. so that grenerally both these were figured out here, and particularly knowledge, almsdeeds and prayers; by the parts, fine flower, oil, and frankincense, whereas the poor man's meat-offering wanted oil and frankincense, chap. 5. 11. is shown, that the chief thing required in everyone is inward illumination and faith, yea even in the poorest, that have not wherewithal to express it by good works, and in the dullest, that know not how to utter themselves in prayer.

Whereas an handful only of the oiled flower must be offered, but all the frankincense, this shown, that the knowledge of God must be comprehended by faith, which is the measure, or else it is not acceptable, for without faith it is impossible to please him; and therefore all, which is more then this handful, that is, in infidelity is unacceptable, and the like may be said of alms, because this handful was of flower mingled with oil. And again, knowledge is here but in part, and therefore an handful only is taken, hereafter there shall be a greater measure, for we shall know as we are known, and that the knowledge of God under the Gospel is meant by this sacrifice appeareth, because it is called a sweet smelling savor unto God, 2 Cor. 2. 14. as this offering here is. All the frankincense is offered, to show that we must always be praying and giving of thanks, so Hesychius. According to this last the ordinary gloss agreeth with Hefychius, saying, it was hereby signified, that our knowledge and love are here but in part, but pray we must always. Brenz by the handful only offered understandeth Christ and his faithful members remaining still, although they suffer: for there is but a little consumed of these sacrifices, the rest remaining still to the Priests. And this was the mystical reason, but because the Priests were to be maintained by the altar, there was for the present a respect had unto them in reserving the residue, whereas it is said, He shall take an handful, this is by Hesychius referred to the offerer, which is not improbable, because the Priest is next spoken of, as offering it upon the altar, the offerer then took it out, and the Priest receiving from him offered it. Josephus saith, that one dram was sufficient to be offered for an handful. And as this was a memorial, so is Christ sitting at the right hand of God and making intercession for us, a memorial unto the father, that he may be mindful of us and bless us. Touching the remainder, it must be Aaron's and his sons, that is, the Priests in general to be eaten by them, their sons and their daughters, chap. 10. 14. and by their bought servants also, Levite. 22. 11. Yea although any of their sons had a blemish, so as that he might not offer sacrifice, yet he might eat of it, chapter 21. 21. But if any were unclean, he might not eat it, chap. 22. 5, 6. nor any lay person or stranger, chap. 22 12, 13. But of some sacrifices the males only might eat, chap. 6. 18. and not all the Priests children indifferently. By this remainder going to Aaron and his sons, as being most holy, Hesychius understandeth all the treasures of knowledge hid in Christ in heaven, who was figured out by Aaron, which are now hidden from us, but shall afterwards be revealed.

And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baked in the oven, it shall be an unleavened cake, o • &c.] There were 3 ways of preparing the meat-offering, when the flower by the offerer was willed to be made into some mass for that purpose. 1. By baking in the oven. 2. By baking in a pan, Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a pan to fry in, not hollow but plain, being like a pair of tongs broad at the end, wherewith wafers are made. 3. By baking in a pan, Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, a pan hollow, so Brenz, calling the first sartago, and the second craticula or cacabus. But Maimonides saith, that the difference between these two was, that the first was flat and smooth, whereupon things stiff and hard were baked, but the second had a lip about it, so that soft things being put in could not run out. And both these were in the court, and the oven to bake in was of metal, whereby we may gather that the one was a flat plate and the other a fryingpan, as in our translation.

The manner of making all these sorts of caks, wafers or fried things was thus for cakes, the flower being the tenth part of an Ephah was mingled with oil, and tempered with warm water put to, and then being made into ten cakes they were baked, and so broken into pieces and offered: for w • fers, they were made of flower and warm water only, and after the baking, anointed with oil again and again, till the oil being a log or half a pint to the tenth part of an Ephah was all spent. And for this the corn was ground and the flower sifted out, before it was brought to the santhere the cakes were made, so Maimonides. The dividing into pieces was by ctuary, but cutting one into two, and then cutting them again into four, &c.

For the mystery, some referring all to Christ will have his birth figured out by the bakt in the oven, his cross and passions by the bakt in a fryingpan, and his death and burial by that fried upon a gridiron, for thus Hesychius distinguishes these. Some referring them to the faithful expound them of the divers ways of afflicting themselves by repentance, as Origen, or of the divers ways of suffering death in the time of persecution, as Pelican. Others refer them to divers sorts of the faithful, the bakt in the oven to Doctors in the Schools, the bakt on the pan to Preachers in the pulpit, and the bakt in the frying pan to Confessors of the faith. Gloss. Ordin. and some hold only, that these divers ways are mentioned, because they were in use, that every man might offer of the one sort or the other, which liked him best. so Junius. I prefer that of Pelican, holding that the divers sorts of sufferings both in Christ and his members were set forth hereby, being cruelly used by persecutors, but made the more grateful unto God hereby. For the quantity offered of any of these, it was the same that was before said, viz. an handful of the pieces, and the manner was the same that was in offering the oiled flower, and the priests had the remainder.

Here next follow general rules. 1. Against leaven, no meat-offering shall be made with leaven. Why leaven must not be in the sacrifices was shown before, Exod. 29. 2. and chap. 12. 8. viz. to figure out Christ free from all corruption, and that we should not have in us the leaven of maliciousness, and as Calvin hath it, that in teaching the will of God, nothing strange or devised by man should be mingled with it, but the pure word of God, that corrupt doctrine is meant by leaven appeareth, because it is said, take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees. Lastly, all unleavened things put them in mind of their coming out of Egypt, yet this rule is not so general, but in some sacrifices leaven was used, as in peace-offerings, chapter 7. 13. and in the first fruits offering, chap. 23. 17. and if it be demanded what was the reason hereof? Some answer, that it is not meant that it should he burned contrary to this rule, but to be eaten by the Priests with the flesh: so Origen, Lyranus, Pelican, &c. But the words seem plainly to imply, that part of it was to be burnt, as well as of the unleavened, see chap. 23. 17, 18. And the Hebrew doctors say that it was burned, for the offerer brought 20 tenths of an Ephah, saith Maimonides, and of these ten were made into 10 caks leavened, and 10 into 30 caks unleavened; 10 bakt in the oven, 10 in a pan, 10 in a fryingpan, and then the Priest took four of them, of each for one, &c.

But why doth the Lord thus prescribe contrary things in his worship? [Quest.]

As leaven doth sometime signify evil, so it doth also good, as Matthew, 13. 33. and therefore to set this forth it is prescribed in some sacrifices, [Answ.] there being still with leavened bread, unleavened offered also, that we might remember, as to avoid and be free from evil, so to be qualified with good, when we come to worship God. The leaven then in a good sense setteth forth the spirit working secretly in the heart in the preaching of the word, and seasoning the whole man, so Borrheus. It may also be taken for an intimation, that we should prepare ourselves to God's worship; so Junius and Ainsworth, or that God accepteth of us in Christ in the service, which we do from our hearts unto him, although mixed with the leaven of infirmities in us, as Ainsworth.

Origen will have it meant of human learning, which should not commonly be mixed with our preaching, but yet of some parts of human learning, as of grammar, Rhetoric, &c. he saith there is use to be made; but this is strained.

The second general rule is, that no honey should be burnt in sacrifice, that is, because, as Calvin saith, honey boiled is for bread like unto leaven leavening it, so also Junius. Honey is sweet indeed in the taste, but much of it being eaten, it turneth into bitterness and choller, wherefore as unapt to figure out Christ it must not be offered, for he the more he is fed upon by faith, is the more sweet to the soul, so Osiander. Honey also may set forth carnal concupiscence which is sweet, so Baal-Hatturim: and being thus applied to Christ, the not offering it shown that there was no evil lust in him. And it is to be noted, that the heathen offered leaven and honey in their sacrifices, Euripides. Rab. Elias will have pride signified hereby, because being boiled it riseth up into froth R. Sol. Jarchi saith, that by honey all sweet fruit is signified, none of which must be offered. Pelican and the ordinary gloss will have pleasure set forth hereby, with which God is not pleased. And it may be noted that honey is contrary to leaven, this being sweet, that sour, to show then that no extremity either of grief which is as leaven, nor of delight in worldly things must be in the faithful, but a moderation in all, both these are forbidden.

Before the next general rule, which is that salt shall be in all offerings, v. 13. It is inserted as an exception to the rules before going. For the oblation of the first fruits, ye shall offer them to the Lord, but they shall be burnt on the altar for a sweet savor. Or more agreeably to the Hebrew, ye shall offer them an offering of first fruits to the Lord. it being meant that honey and leaven might be offered amongst the first fruits, notwithstanding the foregoing prohibition: thus it is commonly understood, and Sol. Jarchi touching honey, saith hereupon, the first fruits of honey, as of figs and dates, which are all sweet. For leaven see chap. 23. 17. for honey, 1 Chron. 31. 5. whereas it is added, they shall not be burnt, &c. but chapter 23. 17. burningis spoken of, the Rabbins say, as a sweet savor to the Lord they may not be burnt but as wood; but this is frivolous, for so much as there it is said also for a sweet savor. It is better therefore to hold that they were not commonly as leaven to be burned, but rarely in some particular sacrifice, wherein they shall be appointed. The first fruits of these should be brought as well as of other things, but of none of them offerings upon the altar should be commonly made; only they should be for the maintenance of the Priests.

Now followeth the third rule, every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt, neither shalt thou let the salt of the covenant of thy God be lacking, &c. Here salt is appointed to be in all sacrifices, and it is called salt of the covenant, because the covenant betwixt God and his people is everlasting, for in this sense a covenant of salt is spoken of, Numbers, 18. 19: 2 Chronicles 13. 5. Salt serveth to keep things from corrupting, and maketh meat savoury, and therefore was necessary for sacrifices, that must be most uncorrupt, and to set forth the uncorruptible stability of God's covenant with his people. The Hebrews say that, because salt is spoken of here three times, they used to salt their sacrifices thrice. 1. In the salt-chamber the skins. 2. Upon the footstall of the altar, the pieces. 3. On the top of the Altar, the handful of the meat-offering, and the frankincense, and the burnt-offerings of fowls. And because of this charge, they were careful to salt all things well, except the blood, the wine and the wood. Salt and wood were provided at the common charge. Maimonides.

Of this ordinance of salting sacrifices the Lord saith, have salt in yourselves, and peace one with another, and everyone shall be salted with fire, whereby is intimated, that by salt grace is to be understood, which suffereth us not to corrupt by sin. And because Matthew 5. 13. it is said, ye are the salt of the earth; salt also setteth forth the preacher of the truth. If we will be acceptable sacrifices to God, as Romans 12. 1. we must always have grace in us, and the true doctrine of God's holy Word, for hereby we are purged and seasoned for him, as meat for us by salt; and all service, and worship done to God must be according to his Word, which is as salt seasoning it: so Calvin. To show how distasteful the state of a man is before God, till he is by grace regenerated, the unregenerated are likened to a child new born and not salted, Ezekiel 16. 4. Osiander will have Christ figured out hereby, who seasoneth us all. Lorinus will have our fellowship with God set forth, and the salt of Baptism, and the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. But these are phantasies; that of Brenz may be taken in here, salt setteth forth faith, by which all our service done to God is made acceptable; and because dead bodies are preserved hereby from corrupting our incorruptible estate to come, and resurrection was figured out hereby.

The last sort of meat-offerings here spoken of is of corn beaten out of the full ears of the first fruits, the words are green ears of corn dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears; Calvin and Ainsworth render it ground corn of the full ear. The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Solom. Jarchi signifieth breaking or grinding with a mill. And therefore the Cald. rendereth it broken grains: so likewise Tremellius. But Brenz according to translation hath gratia excussa, holding that the grains of corn were offered whole.

And the Hebrew doctors upon the Law of the meat-offering of first fruits, chapter 23. 10. write thus. At the time of the Passover, when barley in that Country began to be ripe, (for their barley was ripe before their wheat; so the Cald. upon Ruth, 1. 22. Ruth came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest,) saith in the beginning of the Passover, and upon that day the sons of Israel began to reap the sheaf of the wave-offering, which was of barley. And Ruth 2. 22. the barley harvest is set before the wheat harvest, as in Egypt the barley was eared before the wheat or rie, Exodus 9. 11. the wheat harvest was long after, at the feast of Pentecost, Exodus 34. 22. At the time of the Passover therefore, when barley waxed ripped, the 16. day of the month, Nisan or Abib, (for they were both one, the one name being Chaldee, and the other Hebrew, as I have shown upon Exodus 12. 2.) Although it were a Sabbath, in the evening the messengers of the Synedrion went out, and all the Cities about Jerusalem came together for the greater solemnity: the three men reaped three Seahs, that is, an Ephah, or bushel of barley, when it was dark, and brought it into the Court yard of the Sanctuary, there threshing it, and fanning it.

Then they took a tenth part, and put it in the fire, as it is written, Leviticus, 2. 14. Green ears of corn parched by the fire, corn beaten out of the full ear, this is spoken of the meat-offering of the sheaf only. And after they have parched it, they spread it in the Court yard, that the wind might blow upon it, then they ground the three seahs, and took out of all a tenth part, and that is waved, and the residue is redeemed and may be eaten by any man, and oil and frankincense, as is here prescribed, being put to, it is waved, and part with the frankincense after this burned, and the residue of this is eaten by the Priests, so Maimonides, and Talumd Babyl.

Thus the first fruits offering of the Congregation is described, of which Rab. Menahem. and R. Solom. Jarchi say, it is here spoken briefly, there more largely.

But this is against our distinction of meat-offerings made before upon verse 1. and against the words and scope of this place; for it is said, If thou offer a meat-offering of thy first fruits, it being put to the will of the offerer, as all other meat-offerings before mentioned in this Chapter the first, whereas one meat-offering of all the Congregation, Chapter 23: 10. must necessarily be made. It is doubtless then meant of a free will offering of a particular person, but by green ears of corn happily was meant a sheaf or sheaves, as is said of the offering of the Congregation as much at the least as might make the tenth part of an Ephah or an whole Ephah, if the officer would, and therefore the word is rendered sheaf or omer, chap. 23.

There be three sorts of first fruits, saith Lyranus. First, of green ears of corn, that is of Barley offered the second day of the Passover. Secondly, of other corn, that is, wheat offered at the Pentecost. Thirdly, of all fruits, when all were gathered in at the Feast of tabernacles.

And Brenz addeth a fourth brought in a basket, Deuteronomy 26. 2. what was brought for first fruits in general, see upon Exodus 22. 29. and what is signified hereby

Brenz will have Christ signified by these first fruits intimated in this saying, unless a grain of corn being cast into the ground dieth, it remaineth alone, but if it dieth it bringeth much fruit, for he was the grain offered here, and bringing much fruit unto us all. And he is said by the Apostle to be the first fruits of them that sleep. He was parched, threshed, and put in the fire, when he suffered for us, and the frankincense of his cries and prayers in his passions were a most sweet smelling savor to the Father.

CHAP. III.

IF his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering, if it be of the herd, it shall be without blemish. After the whole burnt-offerings, chap. 1. and their appurtenances, meat-offerings, chap. 2. here follow other sacrifices of beasts, whereof part was offered, and part went to the Priest, and part to the offerer, and they are called peace-offerings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they never offered in way of thanksgiving for peace and prosperity, and sometimes upon vow, comfort and peace and good desired being obtained of the Lord as may be gathered, chap. 7. 12, 16. or voluntarily. Because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used signifieth not only to pacify, but also to render or restore to wish health, or to perfect and consummate (because he that rendereth what he oweth, or hath perfected a work undertaken, hath peace) a divers reason, saith Brenz, is rendered by divers of the name of this sacrifice. The Greek calleth it the sacrifice of salvation, others the sacrifice of retribution or thankfulness, and some a perfecting sacrifice. Some of the Hebrews will have it called a peace-offering, because either peace was hereby obtained to the world, or because as in peace here was a quiet division made to each one his part, to God, to the Priest and the Offerer, as chap. 7. The Chaldee calleth it the sacrifice of the sanctified, because although common persons might eat of it, yet none but the clean might upon pain of death, chap. 7. 20. and this Brenz preferreth, calling it the sacrifice of the saints.

But the first reason is without exception, they were gifts vowed or rendered in way of thankfulness, which being done, a man had peace to God ward, so likewise Lyranus, Junius, Osiander. Calvin rendereth it sacrifice of prosperities, as brought in way of thankfulness therefore, which differeth not much from this. And these sacrifices were of these which as it hath been shown before, the Hebrews called light holy sacrifices, because they might be eaten of by any clean person. As the burnt-offerings, chap. 1. set forth chap. 2. Christ sanctifying us, so the peace-offering did set forth both Christ bringing peace with God unto us, and our Praise offering unto God therefore.

Hesychius distinguishing the sacrifices hitherto spoken of into two, the burnt-offering with the appurtenance, the mincah, and the peace-offering, because in the first all was offered upon the Altar, but in this the fat only, will have the perfect to be meant by that, who give themselves wholly to the service of God, but others by this, who with a good heart serve God also, but in a secular and married estate.

But touching the divers things in Christ set forth by divers sorts of sacrifices, I rest in that which hath been already said, chap. 1. v. 1. The peace-offerings here described agreed in many things with the burnt-offering before spoken of, and therefore touching that wherein they agree, I will add nothing here but only touching their differences. 1. There a male only [Differ. 1] must be offered, here either male or female. Because as Brenz hath it, Christ and his Church consisting both of men and women are set forth hereby. One kind of sacrifice before described might have sufficed to set forth Christ and his Church, but because women hearing of the males only there appointed, as worthy to be offered to God might be discouraged: Here another sacrifice is instituted of males or females, Christ being most properly meant in the first, and Christ together with his Church in this, it being hereby intimated, that women who are faithful, are menbers of the true Church of God as well as men, and shall together with them be accepted of into his heavenly kingdom. And he further addeth, that the Egyptians as Herodotus saith, never sacrificed a female bullock, and therefore a respect might herein be had to the drawing of them from their idolatrous sacrifices.

Ainsworth will have it hereby understood, that in Christ there is neither male, or female, but all are one in him, and that not only Christ's sacrificing of himself is acceptable to the Father, but ours also through him, Heb. 13. 15. Lyranus saith, that because this was not so perfect as the former kind of sacrifice, but part only of it was offered, it was indifferent, whether it were a male or female which is less perfect. He sychius saith, that hereby was signified, that although women attain not to such perfection of wisdom and understanding as men, set forth by the exclusion of the female out of the whole burnt-offering, yet they must as well as men serve God and fear him, if they will be accepted by him. For all these reasons, and for this last specially, as I take it, was it thus ordained.

Without blemish. Of this enough before, Exodus, 12. 5. but only that it may here be further added a redundancy in a beast, or a defect, if it wanted tail, or ear or, any member, it was blemished, but the want of such a member did not blemish it for any sacrifice but only for this kind, wherein the tail of the sheep must be offered, v. 9. And if the beast had touched any unclean thing, as Leviticus, 11. it was unclean and unlawful for sacrifice.

The second difference is, that there all the parts, and all the fat must be [Differ. 2] offered, but here the fat only of the inwards, the kidneys and the fat upon them, and the caul of the liver must be offered; and Comestor saith, according to some, the tongue peradventure, saith he, cleaving to some of the inwards, but here is no such matter. Of the signification of these, see before, Exod. 29. 13. But hereafter the fat upon the kidneys spoken of, it is added, which is upon the flanks. The Rabbins say, this was a distinct fat from the former growing upon the roots of the thighs on the fore part, and the Septuagint and Chaldee render it upon the thighs; The sons of Aaron shall burn it upon the Altar, upon the burnt sacrifice; that is, as Sol. Jarchi noteth, after the daily burnt sacrifice, for no offering was to be made before that. It being hereby intimated that in Christ figured out by the daily sacrifice all our praises and prayers are accepted, and not without him. The manner of this sacrifice offering, saith Maimonides, was thus; the Priest having killed the bullock and sprinkled the blood, flayed it, and cut it into his parts, and then taking out the right shoulder & the breast from the rest, ch. 7. 30. he put the fat and both these into the offerers hands, laying on the kidneys and the caul of the liver last, then putting his hands under the hands of the offerer, he waved it on the East side together with one cake of ten that was brought for a meat-offering. Then he took the fat and kidneys, and caul, and salted and burned them, and the breast, shoulder and cake waved for himself, the rest of the parts and cakes going to the offerer, to be eaten by him and his company. If two or more joined together in offering, one only waved for all, and if a woman brought a sacrifice, she waved not, but the Priest for her. Yet she waved in the offering of jealousy, and of a Nazarite. For the manner of waving with the offerers hands, see somewhat before, Exod. 29. 24. why all the fat within the beast must always be offered upon the Altar, Exod. 29. 13. and of the shoulder and breast, Exod. 29. 27. But as the Priests had their part, saith Brenz, so the lay man offering had his part in this sacrifice also, of which any man might eat that was clean, to show that although the laity had no part in other sacrifices, but the Priests only, yet all the godly and faithful amongst them had part in God, and in the grace of Christ, as well as the Priests.

A third difference is betwixt the peace-offering of a bullock and of a [Differ. 3] lamb, besides the fat and kidneys, the rump of the lamb must be burnt also: see the like, Exod. 29. 22.

A fourth difference is, here it is said, it is the food of the offering made by [Differ. 4] fire, but touching the other, it is an offering made by fire, verse, 5. But by this phrase is nothing else meant, but that God accounted this thus burnt upon the Altar, as his food or bread as the word signifieth, and so it is called, Numb. 28. 2. Ezech. 44. 7. Levite. 21. 6. 8. 17. Levite. 21. 22. because it was offered to God being set upon his altar as upon his table. The vulgar Latin rendereth it food of the fire, Vatablus bibarium sacrificium.

A fifth difference is there were fowls offered, but here not, only of the [Differ. 5] herd or of the flock must the offering be, the reason was, because the offering was to be divided, and birds were too small for this purpose, Genesis, 15. 10.

Lastly, it is added, All the fat is the Lord's, it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations, ye shall eat neither fat nor blood. Blood was forbidden before, Gen. 9. 4. but here fat also, that is, such fat as groweth in the inward parts before spoken of, not that which is joined to the flesh, neither was it meant of the fat of all the beasts without exception, but only of these kinds of clean beasts, which were for sacrifice of other clean beasts they might eat the fat, as well as the flesh; so Maimonides, adding further that the fat of the rump of the heart, and within the kidneys might be eaten, and touching blood, it is the blood of beasts and fowls only, which is forbidden, Levite. 7. 26. not of fishes or locusts, but who maketh any use of such blood, besides the Text proveth it not. This forbidding of blood and fat to be eaten by man, viz. such as was offered in sacrifice and called the Lord's bread or meat, did mystically figure out, that we have no communion with the Lord in the work of our redemption or sanctification, but that they are only from him, as Eph. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 30. Ephes. 5. 26. Heb. 10 10. so Ainsworth, because eating and drinking signifieth communion, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 11. 24. They were also forbidden these, saith Lyranus, because the heathen did drink the blood and eat the fat of their sacrifices, as is partly touched, Deut. 32. 38. by their blood drinking professing that they had their life and the fat eating, their sustentation from God.

If it be demanded, what they did with the fat of these clean beasts killed [Quest.] for their private use, if they might not eat it?

Saint Augustine answereth, that it is not meant of all beasts in general, whether they were sacrificed or not, but only of those, that were brought for sacrifices, of the flesh of some of them the Priests and the offerers might eat, but it was altogether unlawful to eat of any of the fat before spoken of, but if they were not sacrifices, but killed for their private use, they might eat of this fat. And this is cited and followed by Willet. But Tostatus, Junius, Tremellius and others hold, that this fat of any ox, sheep or goat was altogether unlawful to be eaten, and the text may seem to be plain for it, Levite. 7. 23, 25. And here having pronounced all the fat of the sacrifices to be the Lord's, this is added as another injunction, not to eat blood or fat in all their habitations, that is not only, when they came to Jerusalem to sacrifice, and to feast there before the Lord, but when at any time in their private houses they killed of these beasts for food, as no blood of any living thing, so no fat of these kinds might be eaten. They must therefore employ it to other uses, as the fat of a beast torn or dying alone, chap. 7. 24. the fat of that which dieth alone, or is torn in the field is spoken of as to be used otherwise, but not in case that the beast were killed to be eaten at home, for nothing is said of this, and verse. 25. it is said, Whosoever eateth of the fat of the beast, of which men offer, &c. shall be cut off.] I do rather incline to that of Augustine also, because these last words seem to be an explication of all that was said against the eating of fat before, giving us to understand, that it was meant of the fat of the beast offered in sacrifice, and not of any other, for although fat eating and blood eating are here joined together as alike forbidden, yet if we compare Levite. 7. 25. and v. 27. together, we shall find that the prohibition of fat is not of so large extent, as that of blood. For of blood it is said, Whosoever eateth any manner of blood shall be cut off, but of fat, who so eateth of the fat of the beast, of which men offer. Brenz maketh the same allegory with that of Ainsworth, but another way, By the fat, saith he, and the blood Christ was specially set forth, because it is by his blood that our sins are expiated, and he is the sweetest and the best of all things, as the fat is the best of the beast, God smelleth the savor of him offered, and is well pleased with us sinners. These therefore must not be eaten, to show that justification and salvation brought to us by Christ alone, must not in any part be imputed to man's works or merits. For thus even by those that keep fasts, and eat no flesh or fat then, the blood and the fat yet is eaten, for which God threateneth to cut off their souls. For what is it to eat of these, but to apply the virtues of Christ figured out hereby unto ourselves?

Hesychius by fat understandeth desire, and by blood, life, saying, that we are under these mystically commanded to give our most earnest desires, and our very lives unto God, and not to carnal things, which are pleasing to us, because this were to eat the fat, &c.

CHAP. IV.

IF a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them. As in the sacrifices hitherto prescribed was figured out, how holily and godlily we should live, so because we are all subject to sin, when we do our best endeavors, Eccl. 7. 20. James, 3. 2. here are sacrifices appointed for the expiation of the imperfections and falls of God's faithful people. According to which Saint John saith, These things I write unto you that you sin not, but if any man sinneth, we have an advocate with the Father, &c.] But what sins are they which might be expiated by sacrifice? Not all, but only sins of ignorance, hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of erring or going astray through forgetfulness, ignorance, or by being deceived. For willful and witting or presumptuous sinning there, is no sacrifice, whereupon it is that the Apostle saith, If we sin willingly, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for judgment. And of presumptuous sinning, as opposite hereunto it is spoken, Num. 15. 27. 30. cutting off being appointed for such, and no sacrifice. Wherefore David prayeth specially to be kept from thus sinning, Psalm. 19. 13. The sins, for which the Priests offered sacrifice, are called by the Apostle ignorances and errors, thus expounding the meaning of this place, when a man sinneth not knowing it to be a sin, or not being so thoroughly informed, or through want of consideration of the odiousness of the evil. If any man sinneth not thus, but willfully and wittingly, he sinneth with an high hand, and his case is most dangerous. [Note.]

By the Commandments here are meant the precepts or charges forbidding. Thus the word command, is used, Deut. 4. 23. Take heed lest ye make the likeness of anything, which the Lord hath commanded thee, Deut. 17. 3. here negative or forbidding commands are meant, and of these the Rabbins have numbered 365. as many as there are days in the year, and of affirmative commandment, two hundred forty eight, as many as there be bones of a man's body. And when a negative commandment is broken only, and not for omitting the good commanded, they brought particular sacrifices. And if the commandment broken were negative, but not touching deeds, but words or opinions, the Rabbins say that no sacrifice was to be brought for this, as if a man being deceived had conceived or spoken anything unworthily of God, or blasphemously, because it is said, concerning things which ought not to be done. And if it were affirmative, although the leaving undone were capital, and to be numbered amongst the greatest sins, as neglecting to circumcise or to keep the Passover, there was no sacrifice to be brought therefore.

If it be demanded, how then were omissions of good, and sinful thoughts [Quest.] and speeches expiated? It may easily be conceived, even as sins that never came particularly to be known by the continual sacrifice made for all, and upon the day of expiation, chap. 16. and such sins of some particulars by their whole burnt-offerings and peace-offerings brought voluntarily; but of another constitution for sins of omission, see Numb. 15. 22. The Hebrews, saith Brenz, because two divers words are used to express sin, for which sacrifice was to be brought as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ch. 5. 2. teach that accordingly divers sacrifices were appointed, some for the one sort of sins and some for the other, some for omissions of good, and some for commissions of evil. But he thinketh rather, that the first sort of sins meant were such as were committed about sacrifices, &c. without reference to neighbors, as if a man being unclean had eaten of any sacrifice, &c. and the other, chap. 5. such as were committed against a neighbor, for which besides sacrificing, restitution must be made: or if in things pertaining to the Lord, restitution must be made to him, chap. 5. 14. But the first sort of sins spoken of in this chapter seemeth to extend further, viz. to all sorts of sins against the Lord, wherein no restitution is required, and the other sort of such sins, as for which there must be restitution, being most rightly therefore rendered in our translation trespasses, chap. 5. And if we look to the sixth chapter, we shall see, that not only trespasses done ignorantly, or through oversight, but willingly, had their sacrifice expiatorie also. Hence it is, that Lyranus distinguisheth the sins, for which sacrifices are here appointed thus. 1. Sins committed through ignorance in this chapter. 2. Sins committed through negligence, chapter 5. 3. Sins committed maliciously, chapter 6. but this last is only in matter of trespass betwixt man and man, and not of willful and malicious sinning against God, for which as Junius hath it, upon Heb. 10. 26. there was no sacrifice, but this is not always when a man knoweth a thing to be evil and yet doth it, because passions do sometimes overcome him that knoweth, and he is hereby carried to evil, as the passion of anger to striking and bloodshed, and railing, cursing, swearing, &c. and the passion of lust to fleshly uncleanness, &c. but that is willing sinning, for which there is no sacrifice, when as neither the understanding is darkened by ignorance, nor the will overpowered by passion, and yet sin is committed as it were in despite of God and of his Laws. Of the difference between these sins and those, chap. 5. see chap. 5. v. 1.

If the Priest that is anointed sinneth, &c.] That is, the high priest, so the Septuagint, and Cald. render it, and it must needs be meant of him, because he only was anointed in times following, Levite. 21. 10. and therefore is thus described, Levite. 16. 32. Exod. 29. 29. And it was not any sin committed by him before his anointing, for that was but as the sin of a private person, but after his anointing. And unto this sacrificing of the high priest for his sin it is alluded, Heb. 5. 3▪ Heb. 7. 27. according to the sin of the people; the Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the guiltiness of the people, or to the making of the people guilty by his teaching or example, so Junius. And Maimonides saith, if he only do that which is evil, but teacheth not ill, he is not bound to bring this sacrifice: for it is in the case of teaching erroneously and doing accordingly, whereby the people are corrupted, that he is bound to bring it; and the like he saith touching the Judges, it is for an error in teaching to the corrupting of the people only, for which they must bring their sacrifices. And this reading and sense is according to the Septuagint and the vulgar Latin; yet Vatablus expoundeth it of sinning like one of the people, and Lyranus to the corrupting of them by his evil example, so likewise Calvin, and it is certainly best understood of both doctrine and life, or of either.

Let him bring for his sin a young bullock without blemish. His offering must [Note.] be as great as that of the whole congregation to show the greatness of the Priests sin above the sin of any other, whether ruler or private person, because the congregation is corrupted hereby. If it be demanded, who offered for the high priest? Calvin saith, that he offered for himself, because the law of the high priesthood was inviolable, and God would not that another should offer for him, because there be no more mediators but one, wherefore God contrary to the ordinary course accepted of him being a sinner to offer for himself. Thus also Lorinus, but To status holdeth that another Priest offered for him, but the former is confirmed, Levite. 16. 6. & Heb. 5. 3. he is said to offer for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.

And he shall bring the bullock to the door of the Tabernacle, &c.] In this sacrifice▪ some things agree with the former, as the bringing of it to the door, the laying on of hands, &c. touching which therefore that shall suffice, which hath been already said.

But in some things it differed. 1. In that the blood must part be sprinkled [Differ. 1] towards the veil of the Sanctuary, verse. 6. part be carried and put upon the horns of the altar of incense within, and part be poured at the bottom of the altar, whereas in those sacrifices the blood was sprinkled only round about the altar of burnt-offerings.

2. Here the fat and kidneys only are burnt upon the altar, but the [Differ. 2] flesh, skin, and dung thereof is burnt with the head, feet and inwards in a clean place of the ashes without the camp. All which was not without a great mystery.

The sprinkling of part of the blood 7. times signified the perfect cleansing away of sin by Christ's blood, because seven is a number of perfection, spoken of therefore divers times; upon the atonement day there was sprinkling with blood 7 times, Levite. 16. 14. the Leper was sprinkled 7 times, and was 7 days in cleansing, Levite. 14. 7, 9. oil was 7 times sprinkled upon the altar to consecrate it, Levite. 8. 11. Moreover, 7 times sprinkling, that is, many times to purge from sin showeth, that sin hath need of much purging, and the stain thereof is so great, that the soul cannot easily be cleansed therefrom, see Psalm 51. 3. And from hence the heathen used the same number, as holy, as appeareth by the saying of Apuleius. To purify myself I wash me in the Sea, dipping my head in the waves 7 times, for the divine Pythagoras hath taught, that this number is most fit especially in religion. And the sprinkling of the blood towards the veil signified the opening of heaven unto us by virtue of Christ's blood upon these times of sprinkling, and bestowing the blood, part in one place and part in another, the Jews stood so strictly because of this express precept, that they held the sacrifice polluted and of no force for expiation, if in anything they erred herefrom. Pelican observeth, that answerably to these 7 times sprinkling Christ's blood was shed 7 times. 1. In his circumcision. 2. In his bloody sweat. 3. and 4. In his twice whipping. 5. In his crowning with thorns. 6. When upon the cross he was pierced with nails. 7. When the spear was thrust into his side. The Interlin. gloss, but not so rightly, will have the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit set forth hereby: so likewise Hesychius finding these 7 gifts of the Spirit in Christ, Isaiah 11. 1. Touching the blood carried within the veil and put upon the horns of the altar there, this was to show that, whereby we become acceptable to God, and are purged from sin, and have entrance into heaven, is now in heaven, viz. Christ in his human nature. Touching the carrying of this blood to the altar within the Tabernacle, and putting it upon the horns thereof, Maimonides saith, that the blood of the bullock offered in sacrifice was sprinkled 7 times upon the veil between the holy place and the most holy, and after that 4 times upon the horns of the altar, which were four, that is, of the golden altar, and this was thus done; the Priest standing between the candlestick and the altar, put the blood on the horns on the outside beginning at the Northeast horn, and proceeding to the Northwest, then to the south-west, and lastly, to the Southeast. According to this type Christ's hands and feet being together four were made bloody, when in his passion they were pierced with nails; so Pelican, and the cleansing of our prayers from the infirmities accompanying them, by this blood was figured hereby, that they might as incense which was offered upon this altar, have a sweet savor before God; so Osiander, Ainsworth, &c. Hesychius referreth these four to four Cardinal virtues. Touching the blood poured at the bottom of the brazen altar of burnt-offerings, this saith Maimonides, was on the West side which was next the door, at the coming out again from the tabernacle, and there were two holes in the ground, by which it was conveyed away. But as it hath been before shown, it was poured there to be consumed by the fire. Hereby the unthankfulness of wicked men, that tread underfoot the blood of Christ, saith Osiander, was figured out. But I think rather, that the abundance of blood running from the body of Christ upon the Cross to the ground below was set forth hereby. Hesychius will have the contrition and tears of repentance shed at the preaching of the Gospel set forth hereby.

Touching the skin and whole body burning in the place of the ashes; see the like before, Exod. 29. 14. And the skin, saith Maimonides, was not flayed off, but cleaving to the flesh was together divided into parts, as the whole burnt-offering, Levite. 1. and so laid upon the wood and burned. The place of ashes did notably set forth Christ's suffering at the place of dead men's skulls, who are ashes, Joh. 19. 17. The Rabbins say, that this burning was without the Camp now, but afterwards when the temple was built without the walls of the City, to remove away the unclean spirit, so Rab. Menahem, but Baal Harturim, in an open place to show, that no man should be ashamed to confess his sin, seeing the high priest so openly brought and burnt an oblation for his sin. Rab. Menahem also noteth, that this offering being made, it is not said as in the next for the Congregation, and for the Ruler, &c. It shall be forgiven them; verse. 20. v. 26. because it is not forgiven him, till he hath also made supplication unto God, for he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts, Mal. 2. 7. and ought to be innocent and pure in all things. But according to this type Christ suffered without the City, to teach us to go out of this world by our faith and expectation of another Country, viz. heaven, Heb. 13. 11. 14. and further to teach that our sins through his death are quite removed and put away from us. And moreover, how horrible sin is. And in the place of ashes, to show that sin was now extinct, as consumed to ashes. Of the place of the ashes, see Chapter, 6. 10.

If the whole congregation sin through ignorance, and it be hid from the eyes of the assembly, &c.] Here almost all things agree with the former, but first [Quest.] it may be demanded here what is meant by the sin of the congregation? The Rabbins say, that any tribe is to be understood by the assembly or the congregation, according to that 2 Chron. 20. 5. where Jehoshaphat is said to stand in the assembly of Judah, and in the case of having sinned, bullocks were to be brought according to the number of the tribes for the whole congregation. But that only say they, was counted the sin of the whole congregation, whereof the most tribes were guilty, that is 7▪ or more, although but some in each of these tribes, or the greatest number, although they were but of one or two tribes, as if the whole congregation were 600000. and of these 300000. and one sinned. And in describing this sin for which they were to bring their sacrifice, they say, if the great Synedrion through ignorance taught erroneously and the people hereupon erred, in this case the judges only were bound to bring a sacrifice, but not the people: but if they taught any error presumptuously, and the people hereupon erred simply, in this case the people must bring their sacrifice, or if any of the judges spake of anything evil, as lawful to be done, but teach not the people so, and they hearing offend thereupon, they must also bring their sacrifice, Numb. 15. 24. Moses speaking again of the people sinning through ignorance appointeth both a bullock and a kid of the goats to be offered, but that say the Rabbins, is in case that the sin committed be about idolatry, for then both a bullock and a goat was to be brought, but for any other transgression a bullock only. But this satisfieth not, seeing the not keeping of all the commandment is there spoken of. Cajetan saith, that the sacrifice prescribed, Numb. 15. was in case of sinning against some positive law of God, but herein the case of sinning against some divine natural law, because there it is said, have not done according to all the commandments given by Moses since the day of your coming out of Egypt: but here their sinning only against some commandment of the Lord is spoken of. Some again will have that Numb. 15. meant of the sin of any particular assembly belonging to any one Synagogue, but this is of the whole congregation. Tostatus saith, that Numb. 15. is to be understood of errors, about first fruits, and other ceremonial Laws, because the first fruits were spoken of immediately before, and the laws of burnt-offerings, meat-offerings and drink-offerings before that: wherefore if in any of these they erred, they must bring a bullock and a kid; for other errors in moral, or judicial matters a bullock only. Lorinus saith, that it is a supply of that, which was wanting here, Levite. 4. as the law of whole burnt-offerings and peace-offerings is supplied by teaching the addition of a meat-offering and drink-offering to each of them, Numb. 15. 4. Calvin saith, that there is no difference between that, Numb. 15. and this, but that here one bullock being offered for a burnt-offering, and another for a sin-offering, there a liberty is given in the want of a second bullock, instead thereof to bring a goat for a sin-offering. Of all these ways of reconciling these two places, I like that best, whereby it is said, the errors about first fruits and other ceremonies are meant, Numb. 15. 24. for which some satisfaction was made by the bullock of the burnt-offering, and then an expiation by the goat of the sin-offering, which was a law formerly wanting, and therefore is here supplied, as divers other supplements about other sacrifices are likewise made from the beginning of that chapter. Calvin's conjecture is most improbable, because not two, but one bullock was spoken of before, and it is not to be thought, that there was at any time such a want of bullocks, as that the whole congregation could not find two. And Lorinus is as far wide, because the goat is not appointed for a supply to the bullock, but for the only sin-offering, the bullock being for a burnt-offering of a sweet savor. And what divine natural Law, of which Cajetan speaketh, there should besides the positive Laws, I cannot tell, seeing all things in the law of nature were now positively set down. And lastly, as here, so Num. 15. all the congregation is spoken of, and therefore some particular assembly in one place cannot be meant. The goats indeed might in such a case in reason be prescribed instead of a bullock, but not a bullock and goat both when as a greater company brought only a bullock! Touching this of the whole congregation there are 3 differences from that, which was before said of the Priest.

1. Here it is said, when the sin committed is known, but there not to [Differ. 1] show, saith Interlin. gloss, that the Priests sin cannot but for the most part be committed willingly. But how can it then be said to be done ignorantly? I do rather think therefore, that the reason of this difference is, because the ignorant multitude are apt to pass over their sins without taking notice of them, until they be made known unto them, but the Priest can hardly go on, when he hath sinned, but he must needs take notice of it.

2. The elders must here lay their hands upon the head of the beast for all, [Differ. 2] there the Priest for himself, because so many hands could not imposed.

3. Which was before touched, here it is said, the Priest shall make an [Dffer. 3] atonement for him, but there not, because as Willet saith, the Priest could not be a mediator for himself. And he also addeth, as a mystical signification, that the congregation erring through ignorance figured out the Jews through ignorance sinning so greatly against Christ, Act. 3. 17. and therefore invited to repent, forgiveness being promised them, v. 19. as in this place upon their sacrificing, and the elders putting their hands upon the head of the beast figured out the elders and governors, by whose means Christ was crucified thus also Hesychius.

When a ruler hath sinned and done anything through ignorance, &c.] The word here translated ruler, is a common name both to the King and to inferior Magistrates, Exod. 18. 22. Numb. 16. 2. Exod. 16. 22. Ezech. 34. 24. Yet the Rabbins say, the King, that is under none but God, is meant, and if there be more Kings, and one of them doth not serve another, each one must bring this offering. An he goat brought by the ruler did most aptly agree unto him, he being the chief of the people, and the he goat was the chief of the flock. The differences betwixt this and the former sacrifices are. 1. That no sprinkling of the blood 7 times towards the veil is here spoken of. 2. No carrying of the blood to be put upon the horns of the Altar within the tabernacle, that is the golden altar of incense, but only the Priest with his finger must take and put of the blood upon the horns of the Altar of burnt-offerings, which was without at the door of the tabernacle. The manner of doing this saith Maimonides was thus. The Priest taking the blood in a bason went up by the footstall of the altar turning to his right hand, then putting the forefinger of his right hand into the blood he striked it first upon the southeast horn from the middle of the altar to the top, and so going round upon the north-east, then upon the north-west, and lastly, upon the south-west, pouring out the blood remaining at the bottom of the altar nearest to that. But when he had put blood upon the first horn, he wiped his finger upon the side of the bason, and then dipped again for the second, and so for the rest, because all the blood upon his finger must be wiped off, before he dipped again for another horn. 3, It is not here said, that the flesh with all the parts of this sacrifice should be carried and burnt without the host, as of the other, nor what should be done with it, but chapter, 6. v. 26. it is appointed to be meat for the Priests, and v. 30. there is a general rule, nothing must be eaten of the sacrifice made for sin, the blood whereof was brought into the tabernacle; from whence we may gather a reason, why this might be eaten, viz. because none of the blood of this was brought in, but all spent without.

If any of the common people sin through ignorance.] As a lesser sacrifice, and with fewer rites was offered for a Prince, then for the high Priest or the whole congregation, arguing that his sin was lesser, so a sacrifice somewhat lesser yet was appointed for one of the common people, viz. a female kid or lamb, arguing, that his sin was not so great, as that of the Ruler. For (one of the common people,) in Hebr. is one of the people of the land, or of the earth, according to Origen, who noteth hereupon, that an earthly minded man is meant. But Ibn Ezra better of any, saving the high Priest, or Ruler, whether Israelite, common Priest, or Levite. And this sacrifice, saith Maimonides, is to be understood, to be for one sin only, if more sins were by one committed, or the sin committed comprehended two or three sins in it then so many such sacrifices must be brought, for every sin one. For the rites of this, they are the same with the former for a Ruler, the blood was put upon the horns of the brazen altar, and not spinkled 7 times, and the flesh, &c. went to the Priests, why the Priest had no part in the sacrifice for the high Priest, or of the congregation as he had in this. Theodoret yieldeth this reason, because they must reap no commodity of their own or of the sins of the congregation.

These words, according to the offerings made by fire, are in Hebr. upon the fires, Septuagint upon the burnt-offerings as chap. 3. 5. where the meaning of this may be seen, the difference being no more but this, there it is upon the burnt-offerings of the Lord, here upon the fires of the Lord, in which the daily burnt-offering were burned, and therefore well rendered by one, the fire-offerings.

Here we may see, that even the high Priest is subject to error and so is [Note.] the whole Church contrary to the popish opinion, and that great men's sins, although they be passed over amongst men and the poorer sort are punished for theirs, yet before God they are no whit less, but greater, because a greater sacrifice must be offered therefore.

CHAP. V.

IF a soul sin and hear the voice of swearing and is a witness, &c.] In this chapter as hath been before noted, are sacrifices appointed for lesser faults about legal rites neglected, as in chap. 4. far greater against any of God's most weighty Commandments. For to expiate any sin done ignorantly, which was before spoken of, no less sacrifice might be brought by any then a female kid or lamb, but for one of these offenses if the party were poor, he might bring instead thereof two young pigeons, or a little flower, verse. 7. 11. For all sins that deserve cutting off, except these three, blasphemy, the neglect of circumcision and of the Passover, the sacrifice appointed for a sin-offering in those that do thus ignorantly or forgetfully, chap. 4. must be brought, but if an unclean person eateth of an holy thing, or cometh into the sanctuary, which also discern cutting off, he may bring the offering appointed here, v. 7. 11. Yet Augustine and Lyranus, and Gloss. ordin. say, that it is to be understood, in any case of sinning ignorantly, the poor man might come with his pigeons, or flower, because chap. 1. 14. these are prescribed and if not, the poor should in some cases be left without means of remission. If a soul sin, that is, any one, whether man or woman, for the woman offending must bring a sacrifice, as well as the man; but the Rabbins say, if she be a married woman, her husband bringeth it by her hand, and not the least, unless he be poor, but such as he is bound to bring. The voice of swearing, or as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, of adjuration or cursing, that is, if any be adjured by a curse to speak the truth in giving witness touching any matter, as if a man that hath lost anything adjureth another, who he thinketh can testify of it and he denieth that he can testify when he knoweth it, he sinneth the sin here spoken of, yea the Rabbins say, that if a man amongst many being together not challenging any one in particular shall only say in general, I adjure you all that stand here, if any can witness for me, that they stand forth and bear witness if there be any witnesses present, but deny or say nothing, they are guilty. Maimonides, He shall bear his iniquity, that is, the punishment due to it which is to be cut off, as it is expounded, Levite. 19. 8. and 20. 17. unless he repent, and bring this sacrifice, thus Ainsworth. But others hold, that the sins here meant are either sins committed by any other man contrary to that, which all nations are bound unto, as Act. 15. the eating of blood and things strangled is forbidden to all, because having said before, If any of the people of the land sinneth, chap. 4. 27. here the phrase is varied, if a soul sin or else sins, whereof a man becometh guilty by means of others, whereas chap. 4. the case of a man's own sinning in any matter is handled. Touching the first of these, it is overthrown by the first words, chap. 4. 2. if a soul shall sin. The other is followed by Calvin also, and is manifest, if we consider the particular sins here mentioned: for they are sins drawing the guilt from others. And if, as Ainsworth hath it, other smaller sins were meant, there should not have been appointed the same, but lesser sacrifices therefore, and that sinning only about legal rites is not here handled is plain, because the first sin here mentioned is not of that, but of another kind.

Brenz saith, that the Lord, having spoken of sins of ignorance in general, here cometh to name some particulars, by which we might gather, that others like to these were meant also. But this is too general. Willet following Tostatus distinguisheth these sins from the former thus, there sins of ignorance are spoken of, here sins of passion, but how this can be in in those of touching an unclean thing, I cannot see. I rest then in that of Hesychius and Calvin. And it is to be understood, that the cases here put do first and properly concern the common sort of people, but in like manner it is to be conceived, if the high Priest or Prince sinned thus, he was to bring his offering, as was before appointed. But Maimonides contrariwise, in these cases the King, the high Priest and the Judge were all alike, and brought only such offerings as the common sort of people did. For the Scripture puts no difference, saving in the sin-offerings appointed for their ignorances, chapter, 4. treatise of ignorances, chapter 10. Touching the particular sin here spoken of, some hold that it is meant, if any hear a blasphemy uttered, and sinneth by not disclosing it, or if he heareth cursing of his neighbor, for such sins ought to be disclosed. So Junius and Pelican and Willet. But this is rejected by Calvin, also that of some, who, as he saith, expound it of perjury being heard, because it is said, whether he hath seen or known of it, whereas if he had meant hearing the voice of perjury, he would only have added, if he hath heard it: and yet Brenz followeth this of perjury also; if a man knoweth that another hath stolen away any of his neighbors goods, of which he seeketh to purge himself by oath, or in any like case, if he holdeth his peace now and discloseth not his knowledge, he sinneth. And withal he mentioneth this, as the exposition of some, if he knoweth any man guilty of anything to which an execration belongeth, according to that, Deut. 27. 15. &c. but this he passeth over, affirming his first to be the most simple meaning; so likewise Hesychius, and Augustine expounding these words according to this sense thus, whether he hath seen or known of it, that is, whether he hath seen him do the thing, wherein he is perjured, or known of it by relation of the party himself, or by any other means. And whereas a question will then arise, whether a man be bound to disclose the perjury of another, if he that is perujrd, shall thus be brought in danger of his life? he answereth, yes, but because it is not said to whom he should disclose it, he is not bound to tell it to the endangering of him, for this were against charity, but to the Priest who may benefit him by praying for him and not hurt him. Lyranus following the same sense, saith, it is to be understood, that he must disclose it to the Judge requiring him, not otherwise: Origen seemeth to hold, that he is bound to disclose it, that the offender may receive condign punishment, for he saith, the Gospel was herein milder then the Law, because in this we are commanded, if a brother sinneth, to tell him first privately of his faults, but by the Law forthwith to disclose him. But Origen was forgetful thus saying, because even in the Law we are commanded to tell a neighbor of his fault also, but for the disclosing of the faults of others, see my Exposition Matth. 18. 17. The Cald. maketh for the foregoing Exposition of the Rabbins, and hear the voice of the judge adjuring, we may indifferently take it any of these ways: for whether a man be adjured, and concealeth his knowledge for fear or favor, or hearing perjury doth not reveal it, he sinneth. The exception taken by Calvin against perjury is of no force, if August. Exposition of the words be considered, and of as little force is that of Willet, saying, he that cometh as a witness to swear, heareth not an oath, for he heareth the adjuration. And whereas he objecteth, that a Law, as is here said, but taketh an oath, against false swearing is made, Chap. 6. 1. I answer, that is in another case, when he hath done wrong, and justifieth it by oath, which is a malicious sinning, but not to speak being adjured in another man's matter, or not to speak all the truth, may be out of fear or favor to the party, whose matter is in hand, and so not out of malice but weakness, evil affections overswaying. Touching the last words here, he shall bear his iniquity. As Ainsworth, so Osiander, Lyranus, Vatablus, and Pelican, &c. say that the punishment of his sin is meant; and Origen and Junius will have the sin of him meant, whom he concealeth, he shall be guilty and bear the punishment of his sin. But Pagninus better, he shall bear iniquitatem suam, the meaning being nothing else, but as by varying the phrase is expressed in the next case, verse. 2. he shall be guilty, so Calvin, that is, by means of the sin of another being by him born withal, as if he had otherwise actually sinned himself, and therefore must bring a sacrifice for expiation, because the other man's sin by his not opposing it becometh his, which is to be noted, that we may not rest securely in regard of other men's [Note.] sins, when we should oppose them, but seek to beat them down, that we may not bring them upon ourselves, and become guilty before God by them, who have guilt enough by our own.

If a soul touch an unclean thing whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, &c.] Because this followeth immediately after that of not revealing, verse. 1. no mention being yet made of a sacrifice to be brought. Saint Augustine moveth a question, whether no sacrifice were to be brought for one of the sins here named, but for all together? and answerreth, as he might easily, that the meaning is, for any one of these sins a sacrifice was to be brought, for so it is expressed, verse. 5. But it may seem [Quest.] strange, that for such uncleanness, as came by the touch of an unclean thing. which lasted not, but till the evening, and then a man washing his clothes was cleansed, Levite. 11. 24. 31. or by sprinkling water upon them, Numb. 19. 16, 17. yet for this uncleanness he must bring a sacrifice and confess. The Rabbins therefore answer, that this is to be understood of a person becoming ignorantly unclean by these means, which eateth of the holy things in the sanctuary: for such an one eating hereof is threatened, that he shall be cut off, Lev. 7. 20, 21. Numb. 19. 20. that is, if he doth it presumptuously, if ignorantly, he must bring this offering. Tostatus addeth that for neglecting to wash his clothes at the time appointed, &c. he was guilty and ought to bring this sacrifice, which may have place here also, and the same is followed by Calvin, saying, that for so gross a neglect of God's Law a greater punishment is here inflicted. The Hebrew Canons in explaining this sin of an unclean persons eating of the holy things, put this difference between it and other sins of ignorance, spoken of Chapter 4. 27. viz. that for it no offering was to be brought, unless the party offending knew himself to be unclean, both before his eating and after, but forgot his uncleanness at the time of his eating: but for any other sin of ignorance he must bring an offering, although he never knew of it, till afterwards, because Chapter 4. 27. it is said, be guilty, or his sin be made known unto him, which he hath sinned, but here verse 3. it is said, it be hidden from him, and he knoweth of it, and is guilty, that is, hidden from him at the time, through forgetfulness, but otherwise known unto him. But the Cald. expounding these words, saith thus, if it be hid from him, and he touch any holy thing and afterwards it be revealed unto him and he knoweth it, he is guilty. so likewise, in our translation, when he knoweth of it, he shall be guilty, and this is the most probable, and therefore I leave the distinction in the Hebrew Canons to the Authors thereof.

Also, if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be, &c.] What the unclennesses of men be, see Chapters 12, 13, 14, 15. Origen, and after him Hesychius, going from the literal sense say, that the uncleanness of man is sin only, he is dead, that is, dead in sin, and torn of wild beasts, that is, by the devil enticed to sin, he toucheth the dead carcass of a man that followeth him in sinning, because nothing outward defileth a man, but as from the living body of Christ virtue went out to heal the woman of her bloody issue, so from a man dead in sin goeth out a polluting force, defiling him that followeth such. And Origen argueth from the dead body of the Prophet, touched by a dead man, who was thereupon revived again, because if uncleanness by touching a dead body according to the literal sense were meant, that man was defiled by touching that body of the Prophet, which is absurd. But this argument of Origen is easily answered, that touch was sanctified and cleansed by the miracle, that was wrought, the case was extraordinary and therefore came not within the compass of the ordinary Law. And as for that saying, things without defile not a man, it is to be understood of moral, and not of legal uncleanness, which under the gospel ceased, for which cause meats before unclean are said now to be sanctified, according to the literal sense then by touching unclean things, a man was under the Law made unclean, and a sinner, because he transgressed against a commandment of God; although simply the object touched could not make him unclean, thus also Junius. But why did the Lord then forbid this? Answ. for a mystical signification, as all other legal rites were appointed, viz. to teach the [Qu.] uncleanness of sin of wicked men, which who so committeth, and with whomsoever companieth, he contracteth pollution spiritual hereby, according to that, a man cannot touch pitch, but he shall be defiled, and the companion of fools shall be afflicted: for a wicked man is dead in sin, Eph. 2. 2. and because washing and sacrificing is prescribed to purge such uncleanness, we must understand, that only by the blood of Christ we are purged from any the least pollution. Pelican saith, that God would hereby teach purity both of soul and body, it being unwholesome for the body to touch stinking carrion, and so to go to his meat without washing. Again by this Law, he saith, God provided for the good of men, that the clean might not be annoyed by the unclean. And lastly, because even carrion being turned into dung fatteneth the ground, and so bringeth forth things sweet and wholesome, hereby was shown, that from the sins of men, God finally hath glory. And Brenz addeth, that because a dead carcass is is not unclean of itself, but yet being touched it maketh a man unclean, seeing we are all, since the fall of Adam, sinful and wicked, and polluting whatsoever we touch, the Lord would by these uncleannesses show, that as the Apostle speaketh, to the impure all things are impure.

If a soul swear pronouncing with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man pronounceth with an oath, &c.] The Rabbins say, that there are four kinds of oaths. 1. A rash oath in common talk. 2. An oath in testifying. 3. An oath touching a neighbors goods delivered to keep, Chap. 6. 1. 4. An oath of pronouncing, as in this place. But [Qu.] what is meant by pronouncing to do good, or to do evil, for there is reason, when a man bindeth himself to do good, if he doth it not, that he should be a judged a sinner, and be enjoined to bring an offering but if he sweareth to do evil, and doth it not, as he ought not, howsoever he hath sworn, how shall this be counted a sin in him? Maimonides resolveth this thus. If a man sweareth to do evil to his neighbor, or to transgress against any commandment of God, this is not a swearing to do evil, because it is unlawful to do these things, but if a man sweareth to do that, which he may afterwards perceive will be to his own hindrance, as Psal. 15. and so evil to him, this only is the swearing to do evil here meant, and by neglecting such an oath, a man becometh guilty. Other oaths to do evil are rash and vain oaths, and such, as take them, are to be beaten and not suffered to do accordingly, and he is to be beaten likewise, that sweareth to do anything beyond his power, as to fast seven days together, &c. And by this oath of pronouncing, he saith, is meant not only an oath touching anything to be done, or not to be done hereafter, but also already done or not done, if a man shall pronounce contrary to the truth. But some understand it of doing evil to a neighbor, or of committing any sin. as David sware to kill Nabal, and Herod's oath was the like. Here they say was a double sin. 1. To swear to do evil, which is rash swearing. 2. To do well in not keeping such an oath, which yet is a sin, because the oath is neglected or forgotten. But against this Calvin argueth rightly, that God exacteth not constancy, but only in lawful oaths, and the case of neglecting to keep an oath is here handled, and not of rash or light swearing. Some of the Ancients by evil here understand the evil of punishment to be inflicted upon a man's own body for sin, in chastising it by fastings, &c. if he sweareth to do this, and doth it not, he sinneth. But so fasting and praying, and humiliation for sin should be evil, which God forbid; wherefore I subscribe to the first of Maimonides. For the order followed, here, after pollutions by others, verse. 1, 2, 3. followeth a being polluted by a man's own fact, which must be purged alike by sacrifice. And this, as I take it, is added here, because being a greater sin, then any of the former, it might have been doubted, if it had not been specified, whether some greater sacrifice must not be brought therefore, seeing the case of sinning about swearing is touched verse. 1.

When he shall be guilty in one of these sins, he shall confess, and bring his trespass-offering, &c.] In one of these things, that is, in one of the cases mentioned verse. 1, 1, 3, 4. touching this confession, the Rabbins say, atonement is not made for their sin, that bring the offerings, until that by word of mouth they have confessed, and repent. And he that hath done his neighbor damage in his goods, although he payeth him all, yet there is none atonement, until he confess and turn away from doing the like again forever. The vulgar Latin leaveth out this clause, when he shall be guilty in one of these, whereupon some have held, that for these sins no particular form of sacrificing is appointed, but that it was left to the discretion of the Priest, as Lyranus; but it is plain, that the sacrifice here appointed is for any of the forenamed sins, according to Augustine. Touching the offering to be brought, a female kid, or lamb, enough hath been said, Chap. 4. 28. and in case, that he which hath offended, be not able to bring this, then he must bring a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons, of which see Chap. 1. 14. They that sin, saith Hesychius, being of divers sorts, that none might be excluded from remission, divers courses for the expiation of their sins, as they are able, are prescribed, whereby are figured out the divers ways of obtaining remission now, for when a man either by reason of his great age, or of his bodily infirmity, cannot so much afflict himself by fasting and prayer, wearing hair-cloth and the like, he must by sequestering himself from worldly things, and by setting his mind wholly upon heavenly, offer this sacrifice of turtles, or young pigeons, setting forth heavenly contemplations. This sacrifice of a Lamb or of fowls is called Gnoleh-vajored, a sacrifice ascending or descending; Talmud Babyl because it was greater, if he that brought it were rich, or lesser, if he were poor, and the Rabbins observe, that besides in these four cases, in two more this Gnoleh-Vajored was offered. 1. By the leper at his cleansing, Levite. 14. 21. 2. By the woman after child-birth, Levite. 12. 8. One for a sin offering and another for a burnt offering] This was to figure out Christ, who is our sin-offering, and our serving God in newness of life, which is our burnt offering, Rom. 12. 1. And he bare our sins upon his body, saith Peter, that we being delivered from sin, might serve God in righteousness. And Hesychius following this sense saith, none can be an holocaust, or whole burnt offering to God, unless he be first freed from sin by Christ his sin-offering.

He shall offer that first, which is for the sin-offering, and wring off his head from his neck, but not divide it asunder, and he shall sprinkle the blood upon the side of the Altar, &c.] The two pigeons brought were not used both alike, but this for the sin-offering had only the blood wrung out at the Altar, but the body was not burned, but the other was, Chap. 1. 14. where see also the manner of this sacrifice. By these two Gregory will have two acts of Repentance set forth, the one for sins committed, the other for duties neglected, but the Gloss, the Repentance of the heart, and confession of the mouth. And for the pouring of the blood at the bottom of the Altar, Origen will have it a figure of the Jews believing in the blood of Christ at the end of the world. Ainsworth by the blood sprinkled upon the side of the Altar understandeth the drops of blood running from Christ's body in the garden, and by that poured at the bottom of the Altar, the rest of his blood shed upon the cross. The Rabbins yield this for a literal reason, why the pigeons brought must be two, viz. because in that, which was for a sin-offering, the Altar, upon which the blood only was sprinkled, had no meat, or food, as it is called, Levite. 3. 11. therefore there must be a second for a burnt-offering, that the one might be meat for the Priest, and the other for the Altar.

But if he be not able to bring two turtle doves or young pigeons, then the sinner shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an Ephah of fine flower, and he shall put no oil upon it nor frankincense, &c.] Here the Lord provideth for the comfort of those sinners that were poorest of all, that none might despair, but all acknowledge forgiveness of sins to flow only from his grace in Jesus Christ, because he standeth not upon the worth of the thing brought, as if hereby any were ransomed from sin, for a little flower being brought by the very poorest, it is said, as when a greater offering was brought, it shall be forgiven him. But what is meant by this, that no oil or frankincense should be in this, as in other meat-offerings, because this was an offerring [Qu.] for sin? Hesychius making this poorest person a figure of him, that is inconstant in his Repentance, & soon, that hath wasted all his riches of Repentance, as was the manner of the Jews, to whom this Law was given, sometimes Repenting and promising new obedience, and eftsoons again relapsing to their old sinful courses, will have the want of oil here, a figure of his uncertainty, whether he shall obtain mercy and compassion, and the want of frankincense, of his uncertainty, whether his prayer shall have a sweet smell before the Lord, or no, because after his former humiliations and repentings he hath so often rebelled again, and this he proveth from Joel 2. 14. who knoweth whether he will return and repent, &c. Thus Hesychius, and the Popish hereupon, as Brenz noteth, will have it hereby understood, that a man must be always doubtful, and that none can have assurance of their acceptance before God during this life, that in Ecclesiastes being also brought for the same purpose, no man knoweth, whether he be worthy of love or hatred. But he answereth, that this is meant, by outward things, which fall out alike to all, for hereby no man can know whether he be loved of God or hated: but the promises of God in Jesus Christ are not like unto these, he that hath faith rightly to apply them, may be assured of the love of God, and to teach doubting now is to overthrow the whole gospel of Christ Jesus, and all the gracious promises thereof, as uncertain and not to be believed. And he saith, that neither oil nor frankincense were permitted to be in the sin-offering, to show, not that the sacrifice was not well-pleasing to God, but that the sin for which was most abominable unto him. And Vatablus addeth, that the great sorrow and grief, that should be for sin, is hereby expressed. But Ainsworth best, there must be no oil, to show the want of grace, that was in the sinner, for it is through want of grace that a man sinneth, neither must there be frankincense to show that the remembrance of sin is not acceptable before God, and therefore in the jealousy-offering when a commemoration is made of sin, it must not be neither. In other meat-offerings, to show, that the things, for which they were offered, were well pleasing unto God, there must be both oil and frankincense, Levite. 2. For the quantity of flower to brought, the tenth part of an Ephah, see Exod. 16. For the manner of this offering, which followeth verse. 12, 13. see Chap. 2. 2.

If a soul commit a trespass through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he shall bring a Ram. &c.] This Law added here is singularly about any fraud used, or any error committed touching holy rites. As if a man did make profit, or had use of any holy things of the Lord, whether they were things offered upon the altar or sanctified for the reparation, or maintenance of the sanctuary, if the profit made were but to the value of a mite it was a trespass, and this offering must be brought, Maimonides. And he further saith, that these trespasses about holy things were accounted to be committed from the time of their sanctifying, till the sprinkling of their blood, their burning to ashes upon the Altar and their carrying out of their ashes to the place appointed. And if a man dedicated anything for the reparation of the sanctuary, as stone and timber, &c. or to be offered upon the altar, he might trespass therein. And therefore a due consideration must be had of this Law, and if the trespass be but about stone and timber, or ashes, it must not be estimated according to the smallness of the thing, wherein, but by the name of the Lord, which it beareth, and which sanctifieth it. And because Levite. 19. 37. it is said, ye shall keep all my statutes and all my judgments to do them, he saith by judgments are meant the commandments, the reason whereof is known unto us, and by statutes the ordinances of sacrificings, the reason whereof we know not, yet our wise men have taught, that for the service of the sacrifices the world doth continue, and hereby righteous men are made worthy of life in the world to come, wherefore statutes are set first, as also Levite. 18. 3. ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man doth he shall live in them. In which teaching they did darkly set forth justification not by works of the Law, but by Faith in Jesus Christ typified in the sacrifices. And it is to be noted touching this Ordinance, that no trespass about the holy things committed presumptuously was thus to be expiated; for such were to be cut off, or otherwise punished by the magistrate, but only the trespass done in ignorance. Hitherto Maimonides; [Qu.] but because in speaking of other trespasses only four cases are mentioned in the beginning of the Chapter, it may be demanded, what sacrifice was to be brought, if a man trespassed, not so, but otherwise, as the cases of trespassing must needs be many more?

To this Augustine answereth, that all other cases, besides those specified afterwards, come under the sin of ignorance, against which it is provided, chap. 4. the sacrifice there appointed must be brought therefore, if it be the sin of the Priest, Prince, or of one of the common sort, greater or lesser, whereas here without difference, but only in respect of ability, the sacrifice of every degree is alike. Touching the holy things of the Lord, about which the trespass here spoken of is, we have seen what the Rabbins say, and not much unlike is that of Augustine, saying, it is explained in the next words, what is meant hereby, viz. in these.

He shall make amends for the harm which he hath done, and add the fifth part more and give it to the Priest; for by these words it is plain, that a trespass about the payment of first fruits or tithes, which were for maintenance of the Priests, is meant, or about any sacrifice vowed unto the Lord, wherein the Priest had a part.

Lyranus saith also, there where three sorts of things. 1. Holy vessels and instruments. 2. Holy ointment and perfume. 3. Tithes and offerings, of which last, it must needs be meant, and not of the two former. Here are 3 words as Willet noteth, used in this chapter. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sin, as in the four first verses, wherein no restitution is required. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a trespass as in this place, wherein restitution is required. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifiing a sin of ignorance sometime, and sometime a voluntary deceit and fraud as chap. 6. 2. Junius deriveth it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a clock, because it is an offense committed unawares, quasi obducto pallio.

In that a ram must be offered for any trespass about the holy things, [Note.] which is more then for another trespass against a neighbor, Origen noteth well how great the sin of sacrilege is. For the words added, By thy estimation with shekels of silver, the vulgar Latin, which may be bought with two shekels, and R. Levi layeth a ground for this saying, where shekels are spoken of, but no number named, two are to be understood, and these must be shekels of the sanctuary, whereof one is twice so much, as the common shekel, that is 20d. see Exod 30. 13. But Levite. 27. 14. it seemeth, that no certain number of shekels is meant, but as the Priest shall value it. This name did singularly figure out Christ as the ram caught by the horns in a bush, and sacrificed instead of Isaac, who is like a ram in that he butteth against sin as it were with his horns. Origen is altogether for the mystical sense, because it is absurb to understand this, saith he, according to the letter, seeing some were so poor, that they were not able to bring a ram of this price, and therefore he will have nothing else meant hereby, but that the offender must bring an holy and tried faith, for this is the ram without blemish: But if the case be considered, that it is about tithes and sacrifices, it cannot be supposed, but that he which had these to pay, was able to add a fifth part, and bring a ram also, if he had negligently detained any of them. Let us then so look to the mystical sense, as not to neglect the literal. To show that Christ was figured out by this ram, he is said, Esa. 53. to have offered his soul a sacrifice for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , trespasses, according to the word here used.

He shall make amends for the harm which he hath done, and add the fifth part and give it to the Priest. See the like Law to this, chapter, 22. 14. and chap. 27. 13, 14. Numb. 5. 8. the principal, about which the trespass was committed, saith Maimonides, and the ram for sacrifice must be brought together, or else the atonement is hindered, but not although the fifth part be not brought then also, but remaineth as a debt to be paid afterwards. To this fifth part Brenz thinketh, that respect was had by the Philistines in offering five golden emrods, and five golden mice, and whereas Zacchaeus restored four-fold, and not according to this law, he saith, he went herein by the law of things stolen, Exod. 22. whereas Origen here by the fifth part understandeth five parts of the thing detained, as if it were enjoined to restore that which was detained, and as much more, and a fifth part above all this, he was certainly deceived, and so in applying this mystically to the five senses. A fifth part must be put to make amends to the Priest for his loss by his deteining it hitherto from him. And the Priest shall make an atonement for him. All things being done by the trespasser, as is here prescribed, his sin was not yet hereby remitted, but the Priest, Christ Jesus only cleanseth from all sin.

And if a soul sin and commit any of these things against the commandment of the Lord, &c. How doth this law agree with the former, seeing a ram only is here appointed to be brought, but no restitution to be made, or fifth part to be added? Junius answereth, that this is to be understood of offenses about holy things, whereby no damage cometh, and therefore no restitution was needful. But Brenz, and Ainsworth, of offenses about the holy things, whereof the party offending is still uncertain, whereas the trespasses before spoken of were known to a man's self in the end, and to the like effect Osiander. But this is against reason, because if a distinction of trespasses about holy things be not admitted, the former Law is imperfect, seeing in some there is no damage requiring restitution, wherefore that of Junius is best. And yet the Rabbins are for the other, when a man hath trespassed ignorantly and never knoweth certainly of it, but is doubtful, calling it therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . a doubtful trespass-offering, whereas they call a sacrifice brought for a sin certainly known 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a manifest trespass-offering, and of these they number five. 1. Lying with a bond-maid, chap. 19. 20. 2. Things taken by violence, chap. 6. 2. 6. 3. Sacrilegious transgression, chap. 5. 15. 4. For leprosy, chap. 14. 12. 5. The uncleanness of a Nazarite, Numb. 6. 12.

With thy estimation:] that is, which the Priest shall think worth the bringing for such a trespass, for a ram little or nothing worth must never be brought. For the rites about this sacrifice, nothing is spoken hereof, because they were the same with the former, see chap. 7. 7.

CHAP. VI.

IN this chapter one only case more is put, in which a ram must also be offered, and restitution made, verse. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and then he proceedeth more fully to set down rules and rites to be used about all the preceding oblations spoken of from the beginning of this book hitherto; from verse 8. of this chapter to the end of chap. 7. The case added here is,

If one lieth unto his neighbor in that which was committed to him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken by violence, &c. and sweareth falsely, &c. be shall restore, &c. This case cometh in here together with the trespasses about the holy things of the Lord, and accordingly a ram must be offered, and restitution made, and a fifth part added, saith Hesychius, because of the perjury, whereby it is trespassed against the Lord, as is here said, when by a falls oath anything is detained from a neighbor, not only man, but God is injuried. For fellowship, in Hebr. it is, In putting of the hand, a phrase, saith Ainsworth, here only used, but by the Cald. it is rendered in the communion of the hand, and by the Septuagint, in communion or fellowship; that is in partnership.

Solom. Jarchy expoundeth it of putting money into the hand to occupy, or lending money. Touching a thing lost, the finder is bound to restore it, Deut. 22. 2. and therefore if he doth not, but forsweareth it, he must be thus mulcted. It is a sin falsely to deny anything, Levite. 19. 11. but the oath added doth aggravate it more, God being now injuried, as well as man. The Rabbins say, that in the case of having detained any such thing, or any part of the laborers wages, when the offender cometh before the Judge if he confesseth it, he payeth only the principal, if upon oath he denieth it, a fifth part more also, as in this place is appointed. If a man's father hath trespassed thus, and the thing in question be in his sons hand after his death, and he upon oath denieth it, he is subject to the same law, but if it be not, he is only bound to restore according to the worth of the thing, because he took it not away. But if his father confessed it before his death, after that he had denied it upon oath, the son must pay the fifth part, the son having it by him confesseth it, he payeth it not, neither in any of both these cases is he bound to bring this offering, Maimonides.

He shall restore it in the principal, Hebr. the head, that is, according to Solom. Jarchi, the thing itself, and because head is sometime put for beginning or first, Caskuni noteth, that the meaning is, he should first put out of his hand the thing detained, that his sacrifice may be favourably accepted. The fifth part to be added more, he saith, is one part more counted with the four parts of the principal, and so is indeed as much as one fourth part, and if that be denied upon oath, a fifth part of that must be added more, and so as often as the fifth part is denied, till it becometh as small as a mite. And touching the party, to whom restitution is to be made, if the man wronged be dead, it must be to his heirs, a fifth part being added, and if he hath none heirs, to the Priests for the Lord. And if a son hath robbed his father that is dead, restitution must be made to his brethren.

In the day of his trespass-offering.] This is the time of making restitution, when he bringeth his oblation, and not when he first confesseth his trespass, so likewise it is directed, Matth. 5. 23. Now it is to be noted, that this restitution was not to be made upon conviction, as by the vulgar latin translation is intimated, si convicta fuerit, for if a man had stolen from another and were convicted of it, he was to restore double or four fold, Exod. 22. 49. wherefore the case here put is to be understood of trespasses, for which men being pricked in conscience do voluntarily confess them, and so there will be no contradiction betwixt this Law, enjoining to bring a fifth part more, only, and that requiring double or fourfold restitution, for that was in the course of civil justice, there being no sacrifice brought, this upon a proceeding in the Court of Conscience only before a divine Judge, the Priest.

Moreover, in the trespass here spoken of, there must needs be some negligence or error, as also Numb. 5. 6. where the same case is again handled; for a thing committed to a man's trust might be forgotten and so denied, and a thing might be violently taken away, he that took it, supposing at that time that he had most right unto it, and therefore there was no reason, that the mulct should be so great, as for a trespass in stealing, &c. willfully committed. And to this effect Junius Touching things kept from the right owners, although the sin is not remitted, unless the thing stolen or detained be restored, as Saint Augustine speaketh, yet this must both be received with a qualification in respect of those that have not wherewithal to make restitution, according to that which the same father addeth, saying, another man's goods when they can be restored, but are not, it is not truly repented by him that hath sinned herein, but repentance is feigned; and also the forgiveness must not be placed in the restitution, but in true faith apprehending forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, and moving in penitency to restitution.

The thing committed to keep is mystically, saith Origen, every man's soul, and the society here spoken of is our fellowship with God, the soul must be kept and restored, as it was at the first given, and in our fellowship with God, we must not offend by having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, and if we have done, we must repent, and so restore the thing detained. And by the fifth part, Hesychius will have the tongue, the organ of the fifth sense understood, but these things are streined.

This is the law of the burnt-offering, it is the burnt-offering, because of the burning of the fire all night, the Priest shall put on his linen garment, &c.] Junius here beginneth the chapter, because it is here entered upon a new argument, which although it may be accounted fit in this respect, yet because another distinction hath been always used amongst Christians, it is unfit, as tending to confound the reader in the quotations of places. Amongst the Hebrews here beginneth the 25. section of the Law. The burnt-offering here spoken of, which had the name from burning, in Hebrew called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 afcending, because the fume of it ascended, and so it was wasted in the fire, is first and chiefly to be understood to be the continual morning and evening sacrifice, the fat of the sacrifices, the blood whereof was sprinkled in the day; Maimonides saith was burnt in the night, till the ascending of the pillar in the morning. The beast must be killed and the blood sprinkled in the day, or else it was unlawful, but the pieces might lie burning all night, yet this was not purposely deferred, that it might be burning so long, for our wise men have taught that they should not be burning but till midnight, that they might make all the hast hereabout that they could.

If it be demanded, whether it burned not all the day but in the night [Quest.] only▪ because the day is not spoken of? Lyranus answereth, that the morning sacrifice burnt all the day, and the evening sacrifice all the night, and that of the day is not expressed for brevities sake but understood, the day morning sacrifice was the first offered every morning, and the evening sacrifice the last every evening, neither was it lawful to offer any other after it, except that of the Passover, and none might be offered before that of the morning, and other sacrifices brought were laid upon that; whereas the charge here given to Aaron and his sons somemake a question, whether this sacrifice were to be provided at their charge? but that it was not, but at the common charge was shown before, Exod. 29. 38.

That which is here delivered is for a supply of that, which was before wannting, chap. 1. where the burning of the holocaust is spoken of, but order is not taken for the continual burning of the fire never to go out, wherefore this is here enjoined, and mote plainly, verse. 12, 13. of the reason, why the fire should always be burning. somewhat hath been said before, chap. 1. 8. and Exod. 29. 38. Fire setteth forth afflictions, which are always the portion of Christ and of his Church, or the perpetual residence of Christ, who is the true light in his Church, or else true doctrine, the light of which it is the ministers duty always to preserve in the Church, or the fire of charity, which should always burn upon the altar of the heart. In a corrupt imitation hereof the Romans appointed the vestall Virgins to keep the fire burning always in their temple. Hesychius applieth this fire to the fire of the holy Ghost, which we must never extinguish. 1 Thess. 5. Quench not the spirit, and specially in the night must this fire be burning in us, then more wicked others are, we being the more studious of righteousness.

Touching the ashes made of this fire, it is here ordained also what should be done with them, the Priest putting on his linen garment and his linen breeches must gather them up and put them beside the altar, then putting these off, and putting on other garments he must carry them out of the camp to a clean place.

Touching the Priests linen garment, Cazkuni saith, that it was the coat, the miter and the girdle spoken of as one, because one was never put on without the other, and all these were linen. This gathering up of the ashes saith Maimonides, was the first service of the Priest every day, and it was done about break of day, at festival times, the third part of the night upon the reconciliation day at midnight, the Priest that took them up first washing himself and then putting on these garments. For the side of the altar, where the ashes were to be laid first, it was the east-side, which was furthest from the Sanctuary, Levite. 1. 16.

And the reason, why he must put these garments off again, and put ou other garments to carry the ashes out, was because those holy garments might not be used, but in the sanctuary, as may be gathered, Exod. 28. and is expressly taught, Ezech. 44. 19. yet Maimonides saith, that even the garments, in which he went out with the ashes, were holy garments, but lesser then the other put off, but herein I do not subscribe unto him, but hold rather with Tostatus and others, that they were common garments, because no mention is made anywhere of other holy garments made for the Priests. For the place where the ashes must be laid, he also saith, that it must be where the wind did not blow strongly to scatter them, neither might strangers gather them up, or any man make use or profit of them. Of the place it is said here, that it must be a clean place, not where any dung, or filth was laid, and this was for reverence towards them being holy relics of the sacrifices. Contrariwise the stones and dust of a leprous house must be poured out in an unclean place, Chapter 14. verse. 40.

For the mystery of carrying these ashes out of the Camp, see Chap. 4. 12. but Borrheus will have the raising of our dead bodies turned into ashes, set forth hereby, and the Ordin. Gloss, the consummation and perfection of our good works presented by Christ our High Priest unto God after death. Hesychius will have by the Priest taking away the ashes every good Christian figured out, for he must put upon him the coat of justice, and the breeches of chastity, & because the removing of the ashes was, that other ashes might be made and come in their place, he will have hereby a daily proceeding in virtue set forth, and that we must not content ourselves with that, which we have already done well. And for the garments put off and others put on, he saith, that they were not divers, the one linen, and the other woolen, but of the same kind, linen, to show, that justice, and other virtues are to be put on, not only at one time, but time after time, and so the ashes setting forth our good deeds are carried out of the Camp, that is, sent before out of this into another world, which is a most clean and pure place, being there always had in remembrance before God, who will reward us accordingly.

That of Origen, applying this change of garments to the Apostles speaking to the perfect in one kind, and to the people in another, may also haply have use here, if by the perfect we understand a more learned audience, and by the people a simple. Or the putting off of these garments and putting on other may, as Willet hath it, figure out two sorts of garments, the mystical under the Law now to be left, off, and the true garment Christ Jesus, to be put on.

And this is the Law of the meat-offering, &c.] This Law is before set down, Chap. 2. but only that it not there shown, what order shall be observed by Aaron and his sons in eating that, which was their part thereof, wherefore the same is here again repeated, that rules for the eating of it might be added.

And here again the first against eating it with leaven hath a ground there. verse. 11. no meat-offering shall be made with leaven: here it is accordingly enjoined, it shall be eaten in the holy place with unleavened bread, in the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, the place also where it must be eaten, being assigned; why leaven eating is forbidden, see before, [Rule 1] Chap. 2. 11.

The second rule is, all the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, it [Rule 2] shall be a statute forever, &c.] These sacrifices are called most holy, as also the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and therefore they must be eaten by the males only and in the holy place, but for some other offerings, there is more liberty given, see this distinction before Chapter 1.

The third rule is, everyone that toucheth them, shall be holy] The Sept. [Rule 3] whosoever toucheth them shall be sanctified, and this, saith Cazkuni, is the meaning, he shall purify himself, before he touch them, or any vessel or thing to be used about them, shall first be sanctified, see the like v. 27. and Exod. 29. 37.

The males only saith Origen, must eat of these sacrifices, not the females, to intimate, that none, who are inconstant, and weak, and divers in their opinions in matter of faith, like women, can feed upon the holy food of the word of God, or, as Hesychius hath it, can argue or discourse touching God, and the deep points of Theology, and as these sacrifices must be eaten only in the holy place, so exercises of Theology must be kept only in the Church, unless as Nymphas Colos. 4. a man maketh his house a Church by being sequestered from worldly affairs to divine.

Touching this, whosoever toucheth them shall be holy] Junius saith, that this is meant of things and not of persons, whatsoever toucheth them, as is also further explained, verse. 27. so likewise Genevensis. But I rather subscribe to the former exposition of Cazkuni, because this is in the nature of a reason, why Aaron's sons only should eat these, and in the holy, viz. because the Lord's will is, that none but the sanctified should touch them, and the Law, verse. 27. is a divers Law from this. Hesychius ascribing the sanctifying to the touching, saith that mystically hereby is meant, if any do but touch the deep things of God, in disputing thereabout, this sufficeth to sanctify them, as to touch the fire, to be warmed, but as he that goeth too near is burned, so he that presumeth to dispute too highly of God thinking to become more glorious falleth into blasphemy, whilst he is not also to pry into the depth of divine things.

This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer in the day, when he is anointed, &c.] Here it is first to be inquired, whether this [Qu. 1] meat-offering of the Priest were to be offered day after day perpetually, as the continual burnt-offering, because it is said, perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half in the evening, or whether once only at the time of his anointing, because it is said, in the day of his annointing? Cazkuni saith, that the High Priest was here enjoined to offer this offering daily from the time of his consecration, as long as he lived, and so likewise the High Priest, that succeeded him from age to age, and whereas it is said, in the day of his anointing, he rendereth it, from the day, &c. and Exod. 2. 23. the same word is used for after. Maimonides also reckoning up the divers sorts of meat-offerings saith, the High Priest brought his mincah from day today perpetually, and the other Priests but once, viz. at the time of their consecration only, as Levite. 8. 26. thus also Cajetan. But Lyranus, Junius, Vatablus, and some others hold, that it was only once to be offered by him, viz. the eight day of his consecration, when in seven days it was finished, so that he was now made fit to offer, as Chapter 8. and it is called perpetual, because whosever was High Priest, at his first initiation into this office must perpetually bring this offering. Willet seeketh to strengthen this by divers reasons, 1. Because it is said, in the day, not from the day, 2. Because there was another continual sacrifice with a meat-offering appointed to be offered daily, Exod. 29. so that one brought by the Priest also would have been superfluous, &c.

But for the first of these reasons, it hath been already taken away, and for the other, it is of no force, seeing there were sacrifices for particular persons some or other daily brought, besides the daily burnt-offering, and yet not superfluous. And indeed it standeth with reason, that the High Priest being made equal to the Congregation in his sin-offering, Chap. 4. should in some sort hold a proportion therewith in a daily meat-offering for himself, as one was daily offered for it morning and evening.

Secondly, another question here ariseth, how it is said, Aaron and his sons shall offer this offering, because it was the offering of the High Priest only? But it is answered, that he offered, and they ministered unto him offering, which also implieth a daily offering, because if it had been but once only, his sons should not have needed to help about it, the offering being so small, the tenth part of an Ephah, or bushel, and that divided into two. Or by saying, Aaron and his sons shall offer it, he meaneth not, that together they shall offer this sacrifice, but Aaron now, and when another being his son should come to be High Priest after him, and another after him, everyone should successively offer this sacrifice, as is further made plain, Vers. 22.

In a pan it shall be made with oyland when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in, & offer the baken pieces, &c.] The word translated pan, signifieth a flat pan, or plate, as was shown Levite. 2. 5. The manner was thus; the High Priest brought with him atenth deal of fine flower, and sanctified it, then dividing it into two parts he made of each part 6. cakes, mingled the flower with 3. logs of oil, taking for this half the oil, and the other half to fry them withal, the cakes being baken he divided each of them into two, and so offered the one half in the morning, and the other in the evening, doubling and breaking every half over again, and putting frankincense upon it, and the cakes thus broken were the baken pieces here spoken of, that must be offered upon the Altar.

The High Priest with these his fried cakes, did most aptly set forth Christ, who was daily fried with afflictions for our sins. Pelican Expoundeth it of his fire of charity, when he hanged upon the cross; and Gregory, of the zeal of ministers. But it is best referred to Christ crying in the heat of his Passions, so also Hesychius, who by the Ephah containing three measures understandeth the blessed Trinity, and by the part brought to be offered, Christ his human nature, suffering partly in the morning, when he was in the hall of Caiaphas, and partly in the evening, when he hung upon the Cross, from the sixth to the ninth hour, and by the parts, into which these cakes were broken, he understandeth the Passions of Christ, coming on by parts.

The conclusion of this Law is, it shall be wholly burnt, for every meat-offering for the Priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten.] Of the reason why the Priests offering must be all burnt, but much of the offerings of the people was to be eaten, I have spoke before, viz. because although he figuratively bare the sins of the people, yet there was none to bear his sins, neither could he bear his own, Ch. 4.

This is the Law of the sin-offering, in the place where the burnt-offering is killed, shall it be killed before the Lord, the Priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it, &c.] Here because in treating of the sin-offering it was not said before where it should be killed, he appointeth now the place, viz. where the burnt-offering was killed, that is, on the north side of the Altar, Chapter 1. 11. but this, say the Hebrews was not full north in the horn thereof, by which it was killed, but north-west, and so did most aptly figure out Christ's Passion on mount Calvary lying on the north-west side from Jerusalem.

Touching the Priests eating of this sacrifice, this was, that he might bear the sin of the offerer, Chap 10. 17. that so he that brought it for his sin might be set free, the burden thereof being laid upon another, viz. the Priest, a figure of Christ, who bare the iniquity of us all. But verse 30. there is a general rule against the eating of any sacrifice, the blood whereof was brought within the Tabernacle, such as were the sacrifices of the Priest, and of the congregation, Ch. 4.

Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy, and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash it in the holy place, but the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden, shall be broken, &c.] Having said verse 25. of the sin-offering, that it is most holy, for which cause the Priests only must eat it, and that in the holy place, now he appointeth, that if anything be sprinkled with the blood thereof, it should be washed, or scoured, or rinsed, or broken, if it were of earth, that is, any drop of blood of this sacrifice being sprinkled accidentally upon anything, to show, saith Ainsworth, that they, who have any part in the blood of Christ, should be sanctified to possess their vessels in holiness. And yet he saith, these Ordinances shadowed out the contagion of sin, from all stain or spot of which we must carefully wash and cleanse ourselves by true faith, and repentance. It seemeth to me, that the washing away of the pollution of sin is set forth hereby, because that, which toucheth the the flesh of this sacrifice, is holy, and by the like reason, that which is sprinkled with the blood thereof; and if holy, then not polluted, and so the washing and scouring it not appointed to get off any pollution, but rather the holiness of this flesh or blood, that holy vessels of whatsoever, or holy garments such as all they wear, which were thus sprinkled, might not afterwards having holiness upon them be used to a profane or common use; and because an earthen vessel could not endure such scouring, neither was it worth the pains, it must be broken to prevent further use of it.

The Rabbins put a difference between sprinkling of blood and putting it into, or upon anything, for in this case washing is not required, because it is said, When the blood is sprinkled, for they go upon the letter of this clause. And they make a distinction hetwixt things apt to receive uncleanness or not, saying, that the one sort must be washed, but not the other. They also say, that scouring of the brazen vessel here spoken of is with hot water, and the rinsing with cold, and for washing of a garment sprinkled with blood, that only the bloody place must be washed, and that so clean, that none appearance of blood may remain upon it.

For the mystery, Hesychius saith agreeably to that which I spake before, sprinkling with blood is with the Baptism of repentance, wherewith he that is sprinkled is sanctified, the garment sprinkled is the flesh▪ for the flesh is the garment of the inner man, this he saith, must be washed in the holy place, not because it is polluted by sprinkling, for no such thing is here said, but this very sprinkling is called washing in the holy place, that is, the Church. For he that is sprinkled with the Baptismes of pagans is not washed with the Spirit, because he is not washed in the Church, where only the spirit of sanctification is recevied. It is meant then, that he who is sprinkled with repentance should be baptized in Christ's Church, and so be perfectly sanctified. And touching the vessels earthen and brazen, he saih, whereas the one, wherein any of the flesh was sodden must be broken; hereby was shown, that they who are but as earthen base vessels in God's house: (for of divers such vessels it is spoken, 2 Tim. 2.) shall be destroyed, that is, such as because they have been sprinkled in Baptism, think that they shall be saved, although they live in sin shall perish. But they that are as brazen vessels, that is, strongly set to fly sin, when they fall into any pollution of sin, shall be cleansed again by the tears of repentance, and so come to their former estate. To this effect in many more words Hesychius: The ordinary gloss by the garments sprinkled understand carnal men, by the earthen vessels, the weak who must be broken with the terror of judgments, by the brazen the strong, that fall not into sin, who are to be scoured with the heat of the spirit. But this I think is altogether besides the purpose, and that of Hesychius best, or else we may mystically apply it thus: Christ is the sin-offering, and who so toucheth him or is sprinkled with his blood by faith is sanctified, and yet if he be as an earthen vessel, base and wicked in his life and worldly, he shall notwithstanding his faith in Christ perish; but if as a garment, that is, such as through infirmity is defiled, but cleanseth himself eftsoons by repentance, or as a brazen vessel strong by grace to scour and rinse off sin by the tears of repentance, washing in Baptism belongeth unto them, and they have the benefit thereof.

No sin-offering whereof the blood is brought into the Sanctuary shall be eaten, &c.] This is put for an exception to the law of eating the sin-offerings, all others should be eaten but not these, and such were the sin-offerings of the Priest and of the whole congregation, chap. 4. where also the mystery of this hath been touched upon. These sacrifices did most properly figure out Christ, whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary of Heaven, when after his passions he rose again and ascended up thither, and this prohibiting of the Priests to eat of them figured out, that they which still cleave to the Araonicall Priesthood, and to the old rites thereof have no part in Christ, as is intimated, Heb. 13. 10. We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat, that serve the tabernacle. Which is plainly an allusion to this ordinance. Touching the burning of the flesh of these sacrifices here spoken of, this was without the camp it appearing more manifestly hereby, that this was done to figure out Christ, who suffered without the gates of the city, Heb. 13. 12.

CHAP. VII.

HAving done with setting down rules about the sin-offering, here he giveth rules about the trespass-offering, of which chap. 5. This is most holy, must be killed in the same place, and the blood sprinkled about the altar, and as much of it is allowed to the Priests, and the eating of this is restrained to the males as the sin-offering. For these words, this is the law of the trespass-offering, the Septuagint have it, This is the Law of the rams offering of repentance. And accordingly both Hesychius and Brenz, and others understand it of the offering; for that trespass which hath relation to the Lord, chap. 5. 15. 17. chap. 6. 4. viz. the ram; and Hesychius noteth more particularly, because in setting down rules for the sin-offering, chap. 6. nothing is said touching the manner, but here it is said, The blood shall be sprinkled about the altar, and the fat, the rump, the fat concerning the inwards, the two kidneys, and the fat upon them, &c. the Priest shall burn upon the altar; that it is a greater offense that is done against the Lord, then another ordinary sin, and with more ado expiated, and so he expoundeth mystically all these parts offered. But I cannot see, why this trespass offering should more specially be held that of the ram, seeing that all other trespass-offerings shall be let go without their canons as doubtless they are not, but this is a rule for them all, if they be of beasts that have such parts as are here spoken of, but if not, or of birds, recourse must be had to the law touching them, chap. 5. 7. And whereas the things to be burnt upon the altar are here particularly named, but not in speaking of the sin-offering chap. 6. It was passed over there as being unnecessary to be repeated, seeing. chap. 5. all the fat of the sin-offering is appointed to be offered, as in the peace-offerings, in speaking of which all these particulars are also named, chap. 3. where the mysteries of these things are set forth, but touching the trespass-offering, chapter 5. no particular order had been yet taken, and therefore it was necessary to insert it here.

The Priest shall have the skin of every man's burnt-offering,] Touching the skins of burnt-offerings, Maimonides saith, those here spoken of are to be understood of the skins of the most holy things, for the skins of the light holy things were not the Priests, but the owners, nor the skins of the beasts, whose flesh was not offered in sacrifice, nor the skins of the most holy things, to which any pollution happened before they were flayed. Such skins as they had, the men of custody which served in their courses divided amongst them from Sabbath day evening to Sabbath day evening. If any offering were brought for the maintenance of the Sanctuary, and if any goods were sanctified having males amongst them, the Priests had not their skins, but they were sold for the reparation of the Sanctuary. But the skins being allotted to the Priest, Hesychius understandeth both worldly goods and patience, because Job 2. 4. It is said, Skin for skin, meaning riches, which as a skin did then compass Job about, and patience incompassing him, when he had lost all: for men ought to give of their worldly goods to the intelligible Priest, and for his sake patiently bear any sufferings, that is, for Christ's cause.

Brenz saith, that a special provision was here made that the Priest should have the skin, both to show that he taketh care for the payment of all even least duties to his Priests, and also that his providence to such mean things, is much more extended to the bodies of men, his servants which are of far more worth before him, then the skins of sheep and oxen. Ainsworth will have the skins here, and for the covering of the tabernacle, and those skins put upon Jacob's hands to signify Christ's righteousness wherewith we are covered by faith; but these skins are the Priests, that is, Christ's, not ours. I prefer that of Brenz, God will see that his ministers shall not be abridged of their least due.

And all the meat-offering baked in the oven, and fried in the pan, &c. 10. And every meat-offering mingled with oil and dry shall the sons of Aaron have one as much as another. Touching the divers ways of preparing the meat-offerings enough hath been said already: but here because it is spoken of some mingled with oil, and some dry, the question is, what be the dry meat-offerings?

Junius answereth, that they were of flower without any liquid thing, as oil, or wine, or incense, such as the meat-offering for sin described, chap. 5. 11. so likewise Genenensis. The ordinary gloss saith, that by the meat-offering with oil, the offering of the rich is understood, by the dry, the offering of the poor, but this is not so full, whereas it is said of the meat-offering baked, &c. verse. 9. that it shall be the Priests, that offereth it, this clause saith Maimonides, is added to show, that if any Priest by reason of any uncleanness is unmeet to serve at the time of offering, he must have no part in that offering, although he purified himself in the evening; and for the matter of parting, it was for those that served the same day, one of them had as much as another. A child of the Priests had no part, nor a woman, although they might eat of some of the same sacrifices, but any of the sons of Aaron although he were blemished, had his part, chap. 21. 22, And amongst those that parted, the high-Priest was not counted, but took what he pleased thereof, so Maimonides. But it seemeth rather, that there was a distinction of the meat-offerings, those for sin being the Priests only, that offered them, as v. 7. but the rest being divided, so Pelican, Vatablus and Cajetan. Rab. Solom. and Lyranus determine it otherwise thus, each Priest had his day to offer in, and then the sacrifices of that day belonged to him only, and his family. Touching the distinguishing of the Priests into courses. each one attending in his course, see 1 Chron. 24. But for one upon his day, week or month, then to take all seemeth to be against this law of equal division, because sometimes more sacrifices might be made, and sometimes fewer. It is to be held therefore rather, that an Arithmetical division was made from time to time according to the number of their families.

Mystically by the Priests thus sharing in the sacrifices, the faithful who are Priests unto God, are set forth, each one having part alike in Christ, for his salvation, and none being suffered for want to perish.

And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, if it be for a thanksgiving, he shall offer unleavened cakes, &c. verse. 13. besides the cakes, he shall offer forhis offering unleavened bread, &c. Having set forth the sacrifices of peace-offerings, chap. 3. now because something more was to be supplied touching them, he speaketh of them again, distinguishing them into two sorts 1. For thanksgiving called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. For a vow, v. 16. called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a vow or voluntary. For the first, the things supplied here, are. 1. That a meat-offering should always be added to a peace-offering, and that of unleavened cakes, of which see chap. 2. 2. Besides the leavened cakes, unleavened bread must also be brought, for the reason hereof see before, chap. 2. 11. 3. All the flesh of the peace-offerings must be eaten the same day, and none of it left till the morning; and the same rule saith Sol. Jarchi, was to be followed in eating the cakes and bread. For the reason why it must be eaten the same day, the like is appointed for the pascall lamb, Exod. 12. 10. hereby was intimated, thar we must not delay, but make hast to feed upon Christ by faith, to keep God's commandments, and to give him praise for his benefits, Psalm 119. 60. Psalm. 95. 7, 8. Heb. 3. 12, 13, 15. so Ainsworth. And Theodoret addeth, this hast was made, that they might be forced to give part to the poor.

But what is meant by saying, of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave-offering to the Lord, and it shall be the priests? To this Lyranus answereth, that one of every kind before mentioned is meant, which the priest had, and the offerers the rest, so likewise Cajetan and Ainsworth. But Origen and Vatablus are for one only out of all. But forsomuch, as the breads brought were of divers kinds, it is more probable, that one of each kind must be offered, or else to what purpose were they brought of divers kinds, if three were kept back and only one presented before the Lord, and so it would be doubtful of which kind one must be taken? Besides the words will bear this construction, one out of the whole oblation, that is, one of the cakes, wafers, fried cakes and loaves, of each sort one, or else it is not one out of the whole oblation.

But if his sacrifice be a vow, or voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day and the morrow, but the remainder of the flesh the third day shall be burnt with fire.] Because a disjunction is here made, vow or voluntary offering, it is collected by some, that there were two sorts of peace-offerings, besides the offering for thanksgiving, which was a third. That of thanksgiving was for some benefit received, the votive for the performance of a vow, and the voluntary merely out of devotion, for that these two last were different kinds, appeareth both by the divers appellations, and by the disjunctive particle, or; Thus also the Heb. Can. There is this difference betwixt a vow and a voluntary offering, that which is vowed, must be performed, although it be lost or stolen, for the vower is bound still, till he hath brought another like unto it; but if voluntarily he hath promised an offering, and it be lost or stolen, he is not bound to mak it good. Again, a man is said then to have vowed, when he hath said, Loe, upon me be a burnt-offering, or a meat-offering; or the price of this beast be upon me for a burnt-offering or meat-offering: but he that saith, the price of his beast, or this beast be a burnt-offering, &c. maketh a voluntary offer-ing. But they say, that he who voweth, or voluntarily promiseth, is not bound, unless his mouth & heart accord; as if he intendeth to say, upon me be a burnt-offering and saith a peace-offering, this is nothing. Both for vows and volūtaries it is not necessary, that a man pronounce ought with his mouth, for if he hath fully determined it in his heart, although he saith nothing, he is indebted. To vow also an offering for sin or trespass is nothing, because he is bound to bring this. Lyranus and Borrheus, that an offering of thanksgiving is for a benefit obtained; but for a benefit desired, a voluntary offering, or a vow, thus making these two all one. Cajetan differing from all, saith, that these two last indeed are two kinds, but the offering of thanksgiving is to be referred to one of them. But the divers order set down for the eating of the flesh of these sacrifices in two days, whereas the other must be all eaten the same day, showeth, that it was a divers kind of sacrifice from these. I rest in the treble disjunction before spoken of.

But why might the flesh of these sacrifices be eaten the same day, or the [Qu.] next day, and if any remained, till the third day, be burnt with fire, but that of thanksgiving must all be eaten the same day? Lyranus answereth, because a man is more bound to serve and praise God for a benefit received, then for one hoped for, and therefore he must not so long in spending the sacrifice brought for praise, but eat and impart it all, to such as need, the same day.

Brenz taking these days for festival times, wherein men eat and drink together more liberally, saith, that they were enjoined to spend no more time, but one day or two at the most in his service, least if they had been unlimited, their holy feasting should by continuing more days have been turned into licentiousness and excess. But this is only a reason in general for a day or two, but not of the difference betwixt the time of the one feast, and of the other.

Hesychius holding, as was said before, that Cajetan doth, that the voluntary sacrifice, was of the same kind with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, laboreth to prove, that there is no difference about the time of spending the one and the other, because today and tomorrow signify both alike, the short time of this life, wherein we must feed, that is, work what may avail for our salvation, for when the third day cometh, there will be no time of working, but of destruction by fire to such as have not wrought. And upon this he insisteth with many more words, and allegations, but in vain, because it is absurd to go about to prove a thing limited to a day, and for which there is liberty two days, all one. If I may give my conjecture, I think, that this distinction of time is made, because men did more often receive benefits from the Lord, for which they were to bring the sacrifice of praise, but more seldom tied themselves by vow or promise, to bring a sacrifice, and therefore, least too many days should be spent in in the year about a duty so obvious, there was but one day only allowed for that, and two for this.

For the mystery, I assent unto Hesychius, Brenz, and others that Christ's Resurrection upon the third day, was here pointed at, because he said, I walk today, and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected, and the end of the world, that shall be by fire, after the short time of this world, for what remained to the third day must be burnt with fire, because the time of this world is but two days as it were, one from the creation to Christ, the other from Christ's incarnation to the consummation. All must be consumed in a day or two, that is, they should continue to offer carnal sacrifices under the Old Testament, but Christ the Redeemer being come, there must be none more offered, if there be, God will judge it, when he shall come in flaming fire. And we must feed our souls with Christ the bread of life and his holy word a day or two, that is, whilst we have time in this life, for if it be neglected, there will be no spiritual food to be gotten hereafter, as the foolish Virgins having neglected to get oil into their lamps, could not after the Bride-grooms coming, get any to light them into the marriage-chamber, but were forever shut out. There may also a civil reason be rendered, why the flesh must be all eaten in a day or two at the most, because in those hot parts it would not well be kept any longer at sometimes from putrifying, so Philo Judeus.

And if any of the flesh of his sacrifice of peace-offering be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him, that offereth it, &c.] Here are two penalties upon him that burneth not the remainder of this flesh upon the third day, to prevent the eating of it. It shall not be accepted, or imputed, but if it were an offering upon a vow, he is bound to offer again, if voluntary, it is but lost labor. 2. It shall be an abomination, Heb. Pigul, which word is used only here, and Levite. 19. 7. Esa. 65. 5. Ezek. 4. 14. and not in any other place. Aquila rendereth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a thing to be rejected, which word is also used, 1 Tim. 4. 4. And because he hath committed abomination, he shall bear his iniquity, that is, whosoever eateth of it, the offerer shall bear this, although he himself eat not upon the third day, because through his negligence it was not burnt, as is commanded, to prevent the eating thereof. What it is for a man to bear his iniquity, is further expressed, Levite. 19. 8. viz. to be cut off, so in Talmud Babyl. If one hath but a purpose then to eat thereof, but as much as an Olive, he shall be cut off, and Maimonides saith the like of eating so much as an Olive thereof groundging upon Levite. 19. 8. But touching the purpose of eating at that time he setteth forth most fond things, saying the purpose of eating, polluteth only, if it be either in the killing, receiving of the blood, carrying it to the Altar, or in the time of sprinkling it upon the Altar, but not, if such a purpose be in the time of flaying, cutting it in pieces, &c. and he expoundeth the purpose, not of the Offerer but of the Priest. Moreover he addeth, that the purpose of offering it by a wrong name also polluteth it, as by the name of a burnt-offering, when it is a peace-offering, or the purpose to burn or eat it out of the holy place. Yea he proceedeth further, and plainly contradicteth the Lord, saying, that the offering being made in due manner, and the blood duly sprinkled, it is accepted, although some of the flesh remaineth upon the third day, because Levite. 17. 11. it is said, the blood upon the Altar maketh atonement for the soul. But the Lord saith expressly here, it shall not be accepted, if ought of it be eaten upon the third day.

And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing, shall not be eaten, it shall be burnt with fire, and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat of it.] Here besides the uncleanness before spoken of, which is by keeping it till the third day, there is another uncleanness also set forth, by touching any unclean thing, and and a third in the eater, if he had any uncleanness upon him, verse. 20. or had touched any uncleanness, verse. 21. for in either of these cases to eat of the holy sacrifices was a cutting off, but any man that was clean might eat of them. This shown that to the pure all things are pure, but to the impure and the unholy, the purest service of God is turned to abomination, as Prov. 15. 8.

As holy flesh is made unclean, saith Origen, by touching a thing unclean and might not be eaten of the unclean, or of such as touched any unclean thing, so hereby was set forth, both that divine doctrine is corrupted with Heresy, and that he is unfit for instruction, that is unholy, or a companion of the unclean, that is, of the wicked.

This saith Maimonides, was a general rule for all holy flesh becoming unclean by any means, it was to be burned, if the uncleanness happened to it in the sanctuary, it was forthwith to be burnt there, if without the sanctuary, it was to be burnt without, but the remainder of these light holy things the owners burnt in their own houses, but this is to be understood of houses in Jerusalem, where only holy flesh was to be eaten: for if a man had carried any morsel thereof out of this city through forgetfulness, he must return again to burn it there, and the like course was followed touching the meat-offerings. There were divers other things also, that were burned, and what holy things becoming unclean were not burned, were buried as that which died alone, and the untimely birth. &c.

Touching the flesh, of which it is said, all that were clean, should eat, this is to be understood of the flesh no way polluted, and Solomon. Jarchi noteth, that this is added, lest it should be thought because of those words, Deut. 12. 27. Thou shalt eat the flesh, that the owner only might eat thereof, for any that were not unclean might eat together with him also, whereas an unclean person eating of it is threatened with cutting off; Maimonides saith, if he hath washed himself, although the Sun be not down, before he eateth, he shall not be cut off but beaten, because all his uncleanness was not upon him. For a man unclean that eateth, he saith also it is to be understood, if he eateth presumptuously, he is to be cut off, but if ignorantly, he must bring his offering appointed chap. 5. what the uncleannesses of men be, the touching whereof maketh unclean, see chap. 13. and 15. and 23. v. 3, 4. For the cutting off here spoken of, some think that it was not a cutting off by death inflicted, but by separating him from the congregation, as Vatablus going upon the words here used, He shall be cut off from his people. But others better, of cutting off by death, and if men knew not of it, by God's judgment, but Burgensis is only for cutting off by God, and rooting out, Junius for cutting off from the people of God in another world. But this is too hard a censure, and that of separating him only too easy for a fault committed presumptuously.

Hesychius will have the unclean eating of holy flesh mystically to set forth hypocrites, for even their virtuous works are abominable before God forsomuch as they do them out of an impure mind to get praise of men, and they shall be destroyed, therefore they are in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. And as for touching any uncleanness, he saith, the uncleanness that defileth, set forth hereby is the sinful cogitation of the mind; for from within out of the heart come evil thoughts, and these defile a man, and because a man with such thoughts is like unto a beast, he, in whom these thoughts are, is an unclean beast; the uncleanness whereof is here spoken of, he that hath to do with such, and chiefly with wizards, and witches, whose studies are all sinful, when he doth anything pertaining to salvation, it shall be counted sin in him, and he shall be cut off from salvation therefore.

Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, sheep, or goat, &c.] From hence to v. 27. is a law against eating fat or blood. The same law was set down before, chap. 3. 17. but because most briefly there, it is here repeated again, and some explication is added, but of this enough hath been said already upon chap. 3. 17.

He that offereth a peace-offering, shall bring his offering to the Lord, with his own hands shall he bring the offerings made by fire, the fat with the breast, and the breast shall be waved, &c.] The Lord having appointed the offerer to bring his offering, chap. 3. 3, 4, 5. but not particularly determined the parts, which he was to bring with his own hands, he now repeateth that again, and expresseth fully both what he should offer with his own hands and how, and what parts of his offering should go to the Priest, v. 31. 32, 33, 34. For the manner of doing these things, see before, chap. 3. 3, 3, 4, 5. Touching the wave breast, and the Heave shoulder here appointed to be Aaron's and his sons, see Exod. 29. 26, 27. the heaving or lifting up of the shoulder towards heaven shown both that all the good things which we enjoy come from God in heaven, and that we should in all things tend thitherward. And the waving of the breast to and fro, saith Pelican, figured out the preaching of the Gospel over all the parts of the world. And this is said to be a Statute forever, whereby these parts are given to the Priests, meaning till the coming of the Messiah, when all sacrificing should cease, as being ordained to typify him out.

This is the portion of the annointing of Aaron, and of the annointing of his sons, &c.] That is, of Aaron and his sons, because they are the anointed Priests of God. Lyranus expoundeth it, this is their obiation in the day of their annointing, but this is contrary to v. 36. Origen and Hesych. will have nothing else meant, but mystically that the Priests ought to be endued with wisdom set forth by the breast, and virtue set forth by the shoulder. But how then are these commanded to be given them by the children of Israel, verse. v. 36. 2.

This is the law of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, &c. Here is the epilogue or conclusion about sacrifices of all sorts, and the sacrifice of consecration is numbered amongst the rest, although not before mentioned in this book, because it was appointed also in the same place, Exod. 20. and is by and by to be put in practice, ch. 8.

Whereas it is said, that the Lord commanded to offer their oblations in the wilderness of Sinai. this is not to be understood, as if all these sacrifices were to be made there, for if they offered not many sacrifices after this in the wilderness anymore, but it is meant that in the wilderness of Sinai the charge was given them touching all these sacrifices.

CHAP. VIII.

IN this chapter Aaron and his sons are consecrated, and the tabernacle and the altar, as was appointed, Exod, 29. and 30. where all things both touching their garments, ch. 28. and the ceremonies of their consecration are largely expounded, so that the reader having recourse thither may be sufficiently informed touching all; whereas verse. 27. Moses is said to have put the offering upon the hands of Aaron and his sons; Comestor saith, that hereby they had power given them to take the offerings of the people partly to be sacrificed to the Lord, and partly for their own use. Cajetan thinketh, that the consecration of Aaron and his sons was at the time of consecrating the tabernacle, Exod. 40. because all this being there appointed, it is said, verse. 16. that Moses did all things according to the commandment of the Lord, and the time is precisely set down to be the first day of the first month, v. 1. But Osiander, and after him Willet are for the contrary, because it is set down here, and therefore it is most probable, that it was not done till now; and because it was necessary, that they should first be instructed in all sacrifices, before they were consecrated to the office of sacrificing, and instructions touching most sacrifices they had none till that in ch. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. &c. they were delivered unto them. But the first of these arguments is weak, for even after the setting down of things touching burnt offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, ch. 1. 2, 3. the same are undertaken again, ch. 6. 7. that they might be more fully set down, and the defects that were before might be supplied. And therefore to describe the consecration of Aaron and his sons more fully which was before, but briefly mentioned might well according to the course of this book be again undertaken in this chapter. And for the other argument, if they had instructions in these 7 days of the consecration, touching sacrifices long after to be offered in the land of Canaan it was time enough: yet when I consider, that the setting up of the tabernacle, and of all the appurtenances thereof is described as done, Exod. 40. 17. &c. I think that between that and this consecrating, all hitherto set down in this book was spoken the same day, and the tabernacle and altar, and Aaron and his sons were anointed, and all things also in this chap. 8. set down, because after 6 days more, during which time the consecration of Aaron and his sons lasted, it is said, ch. 9. Upon the eighth day Aaron was appointed to make other oblations, as being now perfected. And hitherto of this eighth chapter, that I may not after the manner of many other Expositors make this book swell with repeating the same things again, which is a thing, that in all my writings I still labor to decline.

CHAP. IX.

ANd on the eighth day Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the Elders of Israel. And he said unto Aaron, take thee a young calf for a sin-offering, &c. The 7 days of their consecration were now ended, and so they were fully sanctified to the Priests office, wherefore they are now appointed to begin to offer. This number of 7 was also much respected for other things, children were not circumcised till 7 days were past, viz. upon the eighth, the young of beasts might not be offered in sacrifice till the eighth day, Levite. 22. 27. and persons that were unclean by leprosies and issues after healing, were not clean again, till 7 days ended, Levite. 14. 8, 9, 10. ch. 15. 13, 14. Numb. 6. 9, 10. in all which as Ainsworth well noteth, Christ rising upon the eighth day was figured out, in whom we are sanctified, and made fit now as Priests upon this day specially to offer the sacrifices of our devotions to the Lord. And of the Priests sanctifying in 7 days, and offering upon the eighth day, it is also spoken long after, Ezech. 43. 36, 27.

But upon the comparing of this place with that Numb. 7. 10. where the Princes are said to have offered 12 days, each one upon his day a sacrifice, [Quest.] and this is said to have begun in the day, that the altar was anointed, a great question ariseth how this could be that Aaron's and his sons consecration should be in 7 of these days, and so many sacrifices more offered also seeing till the Priests consecration finished, they could not offer, not assist Moses in offering, and the task was too great for him alone to offer so many sacrifices both for Princes and Priests, and to perform all other ceremonies in so short a time. But this is easily answered, although the Princes brought their offerings upon the first day, yet it is not said that they were offered then, but to each Prince is by the Lord appointed a day, verse. 11. which it is most probable began not till after the consecration of the Priests ended, and the sacrifices offered which are here spoken of, that so ministers enough being ready for this service, they might be able to perform it, which otherwise could not have been done. But Vatablus and Tostatus will have the Priests and the Princes sacrifices to have been offered upon the same days. Rab. Salom. and Lyranus hold, that the Priests were consecrated 7 days before the setting up of the tabernacle spoken of, Exod. 40. and the annointing of the altar, Numb. 7. and then upon the first day of the first month began the offerings of the dedication. But this is against the express words of the Text, Exod. 40 God commanded Moses to anoint Aaron and his sons, &c. The same day, that he commanded the setting up of the tabernacle, whereas they say, that there were two times of erecting the tabernacle, one before that spoken of Exod. 40. which was day after day for 7 days, during which time it was again taken down every night, and another more stable, after which it was not taken down, till they removed the camp. It is merely imaginary, neither doth it agree, because Aaron and his sons during the 7 days of their consecration were not to depart from the tabernacle day or night, Exod. 29: and therefore the tabernacle was not taken down every night.

During this time, Junius and Oleaster hold, that by the eighth day here, is not meant the eighth day of the month, but the eighth from the bebeginning of their consecration, which was some part of the first month of the second year, and that the Princes offering was not begun, till the second day of the second month, because, Numbers 1. 1. Upon the first of that month the numbers of the people were taken, and the Levites were numbered, and their offices appointed unto them, and after this were those oblations for the dedicating of the tabernacle made. But against this lieth an exception which cannot be answered, viz. that the Princes offered the same day that the altar was anointed. For if it be said, as it is by some that the annointing of the altar by Aaron is meant after that he was consecrated, it is not only besides, but against the Text, Numb. 7. 10. wherefore I see not how any other way this doubt may be cleared, but as I said at the first, following Willet therein; unless we shall say, that by the day of annointing the altar is meant the day of making an end to consecrate it and the tabernacle and the Priests, for look what was done the first of the 7 days of their consecration, the same was done upon every of the other six, also Levite. 8. 34. The last of these days then most probably the Princes brought their offerings for the dedicating of the tabernacle now fully consecrated, and then the day following which was the eighth day, when Aaron had offered a sin-offering for himself and for the people's the oblation brought by them began to be offered. As for the placing of the relation of that dedicatory offering after things done the first of the second month, it is certain that Moses was nothing careful to place all things in due order, and therefore some things done before that, Numb. 1. 2, 3, &c. might be placed after; and for this of the dedication of the tabernacle in special, to intimate that it was set down out of order, and belonged to another place, he denotes the day, Numb. 7. 10. The day when the altar was anointed.

Touching the sacrifices, with which Aaron being now fully consecrated was commanded to begin. For calf in Hebrew, it is a youngling the son of the herd, that is, a young bull of the first year, as Exod. 29. and by the ram is meant one of the second year. This calf is said in Targum Jonathan and other Hebrews, to have been offered for his sin about the golden calf; whereas some except against this, that Exodus 29. a calf is appointed to be offered in his consecration before that sin, which was not committed, till Exod. 32. there is a difference in the appellation, for there it is called a bullock.

But whether it were offered for that sin in particular, or for his sins in general, it was doutlesse done to show, that Aaron now consecrated was still a sinner, and had need to offer first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, and that there is no acceptation of any man before God but in Christ, the all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins. Whereas Tostatus hereupon inferreth, that God would have Aaron doubtful always of the remission of his sins, and likewise all men living here, howsoever they have been sanctified: so also Lorinus. But here is no ground for this doctrine, but only that he which is in the state of grace, and hath attained the greatest assurance, hath still need to offer up his prayers for pardon, and the confession of his sins daily, this being a duty inseparably annexed unto grace, and assurance both for further confirmation, and because the best whilst they live here, are still always subject to fall into sin. And for doubting we are nowhere exhorted to it, but to be confident and assured through Christ. He that heareth my words, saith Christ, and believeth in me hath passed from death to life. Whereupon Saint Augustine; I have heard the words of the Lord, I have believed and passed from death to life, I come not to judgment, not by my presuming, but by his promising.

And to the children of Israel thou shalt say, take ye a kid of the goats, and a calf and a lamb, &c.

In preparing to offer these sacrifices, the Scholast. history saith, that Moses caused the terrene fire to be removed, and so both Aaron's and the people's sacrifices were all laid on without fire, to be consumed with fire expected to be sent down from heaven, verse. 24. whereas verse. 10. 14. &c. it is said, Aaron burnt them upon the altar, before this miraculous sending down of fire, the meaning is nothing else but that he laid them to be burnt; so Genenens. and Vatablus, and therefore the Septuagint translate the word burnt in every of these place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Tostatus will have it spoken by anticipation; Cajetan saith that he burnt them leisurely, till the fire came from God and consumed them all at once. Radulphus, that when the fire burning before began to burn more vehemently it was perceived, that fire came out from the Lord, but these are detractions from the miracle. Some Hebrews say that the fire spoken of v. 24. came down likewise before at the time of the Priests consecration, and then again, but this is incredible, because but one only spoken of.

If it be demanded why not only a sin-offering and burnt-offering must be made for the people, but also peace-offerings which were not offered for [Qu.] the Priests?

One Serranus answereth, that peace-offerings being for thanksgiving for good increase of things, that were for sustenance, it properly belonged to the people to offer these. But the better reason, as I take it, is, because the Lord did not propound here to have all the offerings appointed to be offered by the Priests and by the people, offered at this time, but for an initiation as it were, to this holy business, one of each kind for either of them the sin-offering, burnt-offering, peace-offering and meat-offering, which were all the kinds before described, seeing the sin and trespass-offering were in a manner all one. Now because of the peace-offerings, specially in the meat-offerings did rise the Priests living in regard of the parts of them which they had when they were brought by the people, it was fittest to show by practice the Priests right herein, that not the Priest, but they should bring these: for it is not to be thought, but that a Priest as well as a laick might bring peace-offerings for thanksgiving for the fruits of the earth, wherein they had their share. The reason why God would have all these kinds of offerings made at this time, is generally held to be, that the practice of the things in this book commanded in the worship of God might not be wholly put off till their coming into the land of Canaan, but now at the least be once performed before, that the ordinance might not then seem to have been in vain. For after this they offered no more, till they came into that blessed land, Amos 5. 25. and this is mentioned again, Acts 2. 43. Upon which place yet I have shown that most probably some offerings were made, but they were few, and not so duly, as afterwards partly through their corruption in serving other gods, and partly for the want of wood and other things requisite to maintain continual sacrificing, and partly because of their uncertain removes.

But why is a goats kid, and a calf, and a lamb, appointed singularly to be brought for the people? [Quest.]

The scholast. history saith, that a calf or a bullock was for the congregation, a kid for a ruler, and a lamb for a private person, as was appointed before, chap. 4. and chap. 5. and a bullock and a ram for a peace-offering, chap. 3. It is most probable, that a beginning being now made of sacrificing according to the laws before going for the people, the Lord appointed all these particulars, that one of every sort before mentioned might now be offered together, that in no part the law might be left undone; whereas the offerings made by the Princes, Numb. 7. are each of them far greater, the reason may be because their offerings were voluntary, in which case they might offer what they pleased, but these are enjoined, and therefore no greater burden then needs is impased; so Tostatus.

For today the Lord will appear unto you.] This is spoken of here to Aaron, and v. 6. to the people. 1. To show the necessity of bringing these sacrifices, that they might be sanctified against this time. 2. That they might with the more alacrity bring them, being assured of a sign of God's gracious acceptance. 3. That all might rest assured, when the fire should come out to consume their sacrifices, that it came not by chance, but was sent of God.

And all the congregation drew near and stood before the Lord.] Before Moses is said to have spoken to the Elders, verse. 1. but now they having told all the people, because the business in hand concerned them all, they all draw near, that is, some to the door of the tabernacle and the rest pressing as near as they could, for they were so many, that the Court could not contain them all. Josephus saith, that they came and brought many offerings of the same kind, but this is improbable, because one only of each kind was now appointed.

This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded, &c.] For thing, Hebr. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 word, whereupon Hesychius will have the mystery in the Lord's supper alluded to, which is in words; and Lorinus the second person of the Trinity, who is called the Word, John 1. but the phrase is ordinary, word for thing, as Exod. 18. 22. &c.

And Moses said unto Aaron, go to the altar, and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself, &c.] By the altar here is to be understood the altar of burnt-offerings, as also in all other places, where the altar is spoken of without any distinction, here he must first make atonement for his sins, before he entered into the holy place where the altar of incense was.

But why doth Moses bid him go to the altar, when as he was now perfectly consecrated to the Priesthood, and therefore might go of himself? [Qu.]

To get him the more authority, when as by Moses, God's spoksman he was thus initiated to his office. Whereas he is bidden to make atonement, [Answ.] the vulgar Latin hath it, Pray for thyself and for the people; whereupon Hesychius inferreth, that Christ likewise who was figured out by Aaron, when he bare our sins, prayed for himself. But the word in Hebrew is Chapper, of Caphar to anoint, linire, from whence cometh lenire to appease, and therefore the Septuagint render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to propitiate for thyself, the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for thy house, and in saying for thy house, he meaneth doubtless for himself and his sons, for these sacrifice was for the Priests, that God being reconciled unto them, they might be fit to offer for the people, and to make atonement for them. For he, to whom God is not propitious in respect of his own sins, cannot acceptably mediate for others. Whereas touching his own sacrifice it is said, Make an atonement for thyself and for the people, and then it is added, and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them. Tostatus understandeth, that Aaron in making his own offering prayed as for himself, so for the people, but Junius better, being thus prepared for it, make an atonement for the people, which how it was done, these words do show, Offer the offering for the people, and make an atonement for them.

Here and in the words following to v. 22. is shown how Aaron offered these sacrifices according to the rules prescribed, Levite. 4. where the mystical meaning of everything hath been shown; only Levite. 4. 7. it being appointed, that some of the blood of the Priests sacrifice for sin, should be carried and put upon the horns of the altar of incense, it may seem strange that no such thing is done here: but Tostatus resolveth it, that no particular sin being now offered for, but his sins in general, there needed not so many ceremonies at this time. But this seemeth to be no reason, it is better then which Ainsworth and others have, that till he had prepared away by his first-offering, he had no access into the holy place, where the altar of incense stood, whereas he is often said to have burned the things offered, it is to be understood, that it is not meant that he burnt them, but laid them ready for the fire, that God would send to burn them, as hath been shown, v. 3.

And Aaron lifteth up his hand towards the people, and blessed them, &c.] By hand here both his hands are to be understood, and therefore the Septuagint render it hands. Rabbi Menahem saith, that it is said hand, in the singular number, because the right hand, the lifting up whereof is specially pointed at here, is meant, as being lifted up higher then the left. How Aaron used to bless the people, is shown, Numb. 6. 24. The lifting up of hands was a gesture fit then to be used, but the blessing lay in the words which he used. Hands must be lifted up in blessing, and in praying, 1 Tim. 2. 8. Psalm 28. 2. and praising God, Psalm 134. 2. and 141. 2. and in swearing, Gen. 14. 22. because he is in heaven who only can effectually bless, whose benediction is a benefaction, and from whom our help cometh, which we seek in prayer, and by whom we desire to have our oaths testified unto. The Priest was appointed to bless the people, Deut. 10. 8. 2 Chron. 39. 27. and herein he was a notable figure of Christ, in whom all the nations of the earth are blessed, and of whom it is said, God sent him to bless us, Act. 3. 26.

The blessings which we have by Christ, are by Brenz specially reckoned up to be five. 1. The pardon of all our sins. 2. The grace of adoption. 3. The gift of the Spirit. 4. The acceptation of our obedience, though imperfect. 5. The turning of all things to our good: Then Aaron came down from the altar; this is spoken because he stood upon the footstall of the altar when he offered, which was higher then the rest of the ground, so Targum Jonathan.

And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle, and came out and blessed the people, &c.] This going in of Aaron was to offer incense, as is appointed, Exod, 30. 7, 8. and Moses went in with him to direct him this first time, so Sol. Jarchi, who also addeth, that Aaron having made an end of all the offerings, seeing that the glory of the Lord yet appeared not, he was grieved, and went into the tabernacle with Moses to pray, and Moses having there prayed, they came out again, and then the glory of the Lord appeared.

The former of these that Moses went in with Aaron to teach him, how to offer incense, and if there were any other thing for him to be instructed in touching the Priests office, as most probable is held also by Junius, Lyranus and Borrheus. But for Aaron's or Moses his grieving, that fire was not yet sent as arguing a mistrust, is not to be held, but that they might go in to pray for the appearing of God's glory, is not to be denied. This going in after sacrificing did most aptly figure out Christ his going into heaven after the offering of himself to death for us, and because when they came out again, they blessed the people as Hesychius hath it, that blessings are sent from heaven upon the people by the Priests blessing of them.

But why do Moses and Aaron now bless the people again, seeing Aaron had blessed them before? [Quest.]

Some think that it was not a second blessing of them, but the same approved and confirmed by Moses. But it was plainly a second blessing of [Answ.] them for their dismission. Aaron blessed the people first, that at the entrance of his office of high Priest, he might not be defective in any duty that belonged unto it, and now again Moses and he blessed the people together, when they were come out of the tabernacle, as coming with a doubled blessing, to show that there was a blessing to come by Christ, who came out of the heavenly tabernacle, that is far greater, then that of Aaron. And unto this blessing, when they came out, it is alluded, Psalm 118. 26. We bless you out of the house of the Lord, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people; that is, some sign of the Lord's glorious presence was seen, and then the fire came out there-from, as in the next verse; so Junius and Hesychius, more particularly there was some such appearing of the glory of the Lord, as Ezekiel saw over the cherubims, or as in the time of Solomon, a cloud, and then fire sent out; yet some will have the appearing of God's glory to be none other, but by the coming of the fire upon the sacrifices. But they are spoken of as two distinct things, and therefore it is rather to be held that a cloud or some such sign first appeared, and then the miraculous fire.

And there came a fire out from the Lord and consumed the sacrifices, &c.] This fire Pelican thinketh to have come from heaven, but it is not said so, but from the Lord, viz. who now appeared in the tabernacle, and therefore it is better to hold, that it came out of the Tabernacle from the cloud, the sign of God's presence; so Junius, from the ark of the testimony. August. That of Josephus, whom Radulphus followeth herein is against the Text, that it came from the altar, and sacrifices, and if it had been so, the miracle had not been so apparent, because fire had been put upon the altar in offering the sacrifices before. Hereby the Lord shown both his acceptance of the sacrifices offered, and of the offerers, and confirmed his appointing of Aaron for his Priest, and his son after him. How this fire thus miraculously kindled was preserved and kept continually burning, see before chapter. 1. 7. and the ordinance, that it should be kept always burning, chapter 6. 12.

There may be five causes noted of sending miraculous fire upon sacrifices. 1. To confirm the ordination of the legal Priesthood, that it was of God, as in this place. 2. When there was a confusion in matter of Religion, that the true might be confirmed as in the days of Elias, 1 King. 18. and of Gideon, Judge. 6. 20. 3. For approbation of the temple built by Solomon, 2 Chron. 7. 1. 4. To give assurance of God's reconciliation with his people after a great judgment, as in the days of David, 2 Sam. 24. 5. To assure a true heavenly apparition, that the marvelous thing promised might be believed, as in the days of Manoah, Judge. 13. 19. For although in Manoah's sacrifice this be not expressed, yet it is held to have been so by Josephus, Calvin, Genenes. &c. And it is held also that Abel's sacrifice, Gen. 4. was consumed with fire from heaven.

How the devil imitated God herein, when he was not restrained, we may read in Solinus, who saith, If the god were present and approved the sacrificing, the green wood had a fire kindled in it, and it was burned by the god to whom it was sacrificed, no man putting fire to it. So Solinus of a place near the hill Vulcanus. But these were only sacrilegious imitations amongst the heathen of the religious relations of sacrifices amongst the Hebrews, as Augustine speaketh, lib. 32. contr. Faust. c. 17. of this holy fire, which came from the Lord, the Hebrews relate 5 admirable properties. 1. That it went not out, although fuel were wanting, as when the camp removed from place to place, and at other times Josephus saith, it was preserved by the Priest laying on but two sticks only every morning. 2. The rain falling upon it could not quench it, nor any water, to prove which is produced, that 2 Machab. 1. where it is said that this fire being hid in a pit in the time of the captivity, there was at their return found thick water, which being taken and sprinkled upon their sacrifices, the fire kindled. 3. being wrapped up in a purple clothe, when the camp removed, it burned it not. 4. It took away the strong smell of the sacrifices being burnt herewith. 5. It was kept continually upon the altar and went not out, till the Babylonish captivity; yea Lyranus and Tostatus are for the continuance of it, until the passion of Christ.

Touching the first of these, if it would have burnt always, or at any time without fuel, what needed that ordinance, Levite. 4. 12. of putting wood upon it every morning? Yet at times of removing when this could not be done, God was able to keep it unextinguished, and there were some natural means by raking it up in the embers, and all the time of their being in the wilderness, the same power could preserve it with a very little wood.

For the second, that rain falling upon it could not extinguish it, is probable, because it was in the court of the tabernacle in the open air.

For the third, there was no need so to carry this fire, but rather in some vessel fit for the purpose which indeed might be wrapped over with a purple cloth and the cloth not burnt, yet that relation, 2 Machab. 1. and so of the continuance of this fire afterwards seemeth to be fabulous, because none of the Hebrews write of this, but contrariwise that these five things were wanting after their return out of Babylon, the pot of Manna, Aaron's rod, the ark, the tables of stone, and the holy fire, see before, chap. 1. 7.

For the fourth, happily it was so, and for the fifth, it is probable, because the Lord appointed that it should be continually burning, chap. 6. 12. If it be demanded, how this can be justified to have been so in the wilderness, where for many years together they offered no sacrifices, I have said somewhat to this already upon verse. 3. of the mystery of this fire, see before, ch. 12. By Pelargus it is applied to the spirit always present to the Church, of which Christ saith, I came to send fire upon the earth, so Radulphus.

CHAP. X.

ANd Nadab and Abihu took either of them his censer, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord wbich he commanded them not.] If it be demanded, at what time this was done? It is most probable, that it was done upon the same eighth day, in which the sacrifices before spoken [Quest.] of, chap. 9. were offered, because v. 19. it is said, This day have they offered their sin-offerings, and burnt-offerings.

Some think that it was not now, but at another time, but without all ground. When the sacrifices before spoken of were ended, it is likely at the time of the evening sacrifice, these two sons of Aaron being the eldest, went in to offer incense upon the golden altar, but took not fire from the altar as they should have done, but other fire; it may be from the fire used to boil meat there.

If it be demanded, how they can be thought to have sinned so greatly herein, seeing no command was yet given, what fire should be used? [Quest.]

I answer, it is enough, that they did thus not being commanded, as is [Answ.] here noted. Aaron their father still waited, till that by Moses he was commanded to go to the altar, and he went not into the tabernacle but with Moses directing him so to do Wherefore it was a great sin in these his sons, that they presumed to go in unbidden, and took what fire they thought good not waiting for direction. For that herein lay their sin as well as in taking common fire, appeareth, because, chap. 16. 1, 2. Aaron is appointted upon this occasion, how to come into the most holy place that he might not die, and is taught whence to take his fire for incense, verse. 12. namely, from the altar of burnt-offerings.

Note, that it is a most dangerous thing, as to sin against an express commandment of the Lord, so to offer any service unto him without his [Note.] direction.

And there went out a fire from the Lord, which devoured them, and they died before the Lord. These two were the eldest and the most honorable of the sons of Aaron, as we may see, Exod. 24. 1. in that they only with their father and 70. Elders are appointed to come up to the Lord, yet having sinned, they are not spared from death, to show that there is no respect of persons with God, but everyone shall be punished, those that are nearest to the [Note.] Lord, as well as they that are further off, if they sin against him. They sinned by fire, and by fire perished, as a fire came from the Lord before in mercy, so now a fire is sent in judgment, and hereupon it is said; Our God is a consuming fire, so fire was sent upon Corah and his rebellious company, Numb. 16. But when these two are said to have been devoured hereby, nothing else is meant, but that it slew them. In Targum Jonathan, it burnt their souls, but their bodies were not burnt; for verse. 5. they are said to be carried in their coats out of the camp. They died before the Lord, that is, in the tabernacle where God dwelt; the like is said of Uzzah being smitten with death when he stayed the ark with his hand he died before God, 1 Chron. 13. 10. before the ark, 2 Sam. 6. 7. and it is noted they died childless, Numb. 3. 4. 1 Chron. 24. 2.

If the question be, because the Rabbin saith, this fire devoured their [Qu.] souls, whether they perished for this their sin everlastingly?

It is answered by many, that it is most probable God had mercy upon [Answ.] their souls, both because their bodies remained unconsumed, which may be taken as done in favor, as to the Prophet slain by a Lion, but his body not torn, and because Moses appointed them for honor to be carried out in their Priests garments, as Tostatus thinketh, and it is most agreeable with charity so to think of them. And the same is the opinion of Philo, because they are said to have died before the Lord, and the Lord saith, I will be sanctified in them, howsoever these are too weak grounds to prove it.

Touching their sin, some Rabbins go too far, saying that they were drunken when they did this, and so snatched up fire after the manner of drunken men, not regarding from whence; and therefore it was afterwards ordained, that the Priest when he ministered, should drink neither wine nor strong drink, but this is most unlikely, because they were so full of employment all that day, that they had no time to sit drinking unto drunkenness.

If it be demanded, whether the Lord was not too severe in laying so great [Quest.] a punishment upon so small an offense?

It is answered, 1. The offense was against God, and woe is to him, [Answ.] that doth the work of the Lord negligently; see also 1 Sam. 2. 23. 2. It was about sacrifices, which were figurative of spiritual things, so that to err never so little herein was greatly against God's honor, as is said, 1 Sam. 2. 30. 3. It was in the beginning of laws making about sacrifices, and at the first it is necessary, that transgressors should be most severely punished for terror to those of future times. And as in the beginning of the legal service Nadab and Abihu were smitten, so in the beginning of the Evangelical Ananias and Sapphira, that all might afterwards be more afraid to offend.

Touching the mystery in the strange fire offered by Nadab and Abihu, for which they were thus punished, Most hold, that strange and corrupt doctrine, or corruption in the service of God is set forth hereby, which is most dangerous to the author thereof, and therefore it is by all means to be taken heed of.

Ambrose expoundeth this strange fire of lust and covetousness: Rupertus applieth it to the Jews, going upon the signification of the words, Nadab willful, and Abihu, my father, for they pretending, that Abraham is their father are willful in their adhering to the ceremonies of the Law, thus bringing in strange worship. Some by their being suddenly smitten with death in the beginning of their Priesthood understand the abrogation of that Priesthood, that one everlasting might be brought in by Christ. We may well hold that both corrupt doctrine and worship is set forth hereby, and the mortality, as I may so speak of the ceremonial law.

Then Moses said unto Aaron, this is that which the Lord hath said, I will be sanctified in all that come near unto me before all the people, &c.] Here a great question is made, in what place it is said thus? Hesychius and Lyranus say, Exod. 19. 22. Let the Priests, which come to the Lord, be sanctified. Augustine saith, it is spoken of, as said before, but was not said till now, as God is said to have known Moses by name, Exod. 32. 12. which was not spoken before. Some say it hath reference to Exod. 29. I will sanctify Aaron and his sons, and Junius to Levite. 8. 35. Some think that it was spoken, but not written, as many other things, John 20. 30. But I prefer that of Augustine, this is that which the Lord hath upon this occasion said unto me, or as Calvin hath it, may be gathered in general from the many precepts given before of going according to the rules prescribed in the Priests executing of their office: For the meaning of the words. I will be sanctified, is as much as if he had said, I will be known to be a just and holy God, by executing judgments upon such as presume to swerve from mine Ordinances in anything, as is explained, Ezech. 28. 22. and Ezech. 38. 16. 23. So Jerome. in Ezech. 28. expoundeth it, and Augustine, Sanctificatio Dei poena peccantium. But as in judging those that sin, the Lord is sanctified and glorified, so in being gracious to those that obey him, Ezech. 20. 41. and we are said to sanctify the Lord when we serve him in holiness, 1 Pet. 3. 15.

And Aaron held his peace, that is, acknowledging it to be a just judgment of God upon his sons, suppressed the passions, into which he would have been otherwise like to break out of his natural affection towards them, and spake no rebellious word. And Oleaster noteth that Joshua in speking to the Sun, stand still in Gibeon, used the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is here used, so that he held his peace, is he stayed from further vexing himself, or stirring of his paternal affections.

And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron, and said, come near and carry your brethren from before the Sanctuary; Of Uzziel the brother of Amram Aaron's father, see Exod. 6. 18. 20. 22. His sons the Levites are appointed to carry these dead men out, and not at any Priests their brethren, because such as were chief ought not to defile themselves for the dead, Levite. 21. 4. and the high Priest might not go in to any dead body, verse. 11. and therefore Aaron their father could not bury them. Touching the name of brethren given unto these, it was according to the Hebrew phrase, whereby cosens were called brethren.

So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the Camp.] This was so done, because they used to bury out of the camp, as afterwards out of their cities, Luc. 7. 12. And this they did partly, that contagion might be prevented, partly to avoid legal pollution, and partly that the burial might not be profaned by trampling upon it, and the heathen followed the same custom, but that amongst the Romans to avoid contagion they burned them, and it was not lawful for the Flamen to go to a place where a grave was, or to touch a dead body, or to wear a dead man's shoes, or to hear funeral music, for fear of being defiled; whereas we bury now in the Church or Church-yard.

Tostatus thinketh that this is done, that by seeing the graves of the dead, men might be put in mind to pray for them, but it is rather to be put in mind of our own mortality, and of the resurrection to come, when we see Christians dead bodies laid up with such care and solemnity, as being things of price; for to pray for the dead is to no purpose, see before, Gen. 49. 29. whereas they are said to have been carried out in their coats; Lyranus, Hugo and Tostatus hold that they were also buried in them, and in all the rest of their Priestly garments, and thereupon that a custom hath been rightly taken up to bury Priests in their priestly garments. But neither is it said, that they were thus buried, and if so, yet it is no grounding of a custom hereupon, seeing other Priests were not buried likewise, for then the high Priest should chiefly have been thus honored, but that he was not is evident, both because his garments were appointed to his eldest son after him, Exod. 29. 29. and accordingly Eleazar, when he was ready to die, put them on, Numb. 20. wherefore it is no benefit, but a groundless superstition thus to bury, and if Nadab and Abihu being smitten in their garments were thus taken and buried, because they were thought now unfit for use in the sanctuary, they do blind-foulded acknowledge, as it were, in this superstitious custom that they are successors of these men, who provoke God by their strange and corrupt doctrine, as they by strange fire. And Tollet himself confesseth, that the Jews used not to bury men propriis vestibus, in their proper garments, as the manner in Italy is nowadays.

And Moses said to Aaron and his sons, uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes, lest ye die, and wrath come upon all the people, &c.] The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated uncover signifieth either to uncover or make bare, or to let the hair be free to grow, and to neglect cutting of it. According to the first the Septuagint render it, ye shall not put off the miters from your heads; and according to the second the Chaldee, ye shall not let your locks grow. Lyranus and Rickelius follow the first, as if the meaning were, that they should not thus express their sorrow and mourn for their dead, by neglecting to pole their heads, as men in sorrow have used to do, as Joseph and Mephibosheth. Others contrariwise, that it is meant they should not uncover their heads by shaving them. And according to this all the people are forbidden to make bald their heads for the dead, Deut. 14. 1. and that this was a custom amongst the heathen.

Herodotus testifieth saying, the Egyptians at the funerals of their friends let the hair of their heads grow long, but shaved their beards, but other Nations shaved their heads. Hesychius followeth the Septuagint, ye shall not put off the miters from your heads; and Junius and Calvin, Ne nudate capita, make not bare your heads. Now although in sorrowing men used then to shave their heads or beards, as so men are said to come in sorrow to Jerusalem with their beards shaven. Jer. 41. 5. yet not shaving and making bald is here forbidden, but making bare by uncovering, which was a sign of one mourning, as we may see in the Leper, Levite. 13. 45. and therefore it is expressly forbidden to the high Priest, Levite. 21. 10. and when shaving the head, which is also forbidden to the Priests, Levite. 21. 5. is spoken of, other words are used, Ye shall not make baldness upon your heads, nor shave the corners of your beards. So likewise, Ezech. 44. 20. The Priests shall not shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long, but they shall only poll them.

For uncovering the head also by putting off the miter is Augustine, saying, hereby is intimated, that mourners do contrary to the custom of ornament, because when others are covered, they go uncovered. But now it is a custom to cover in mourning, and so David of old in mourning went with his head covered, when he was forced to fly from Absalom, and this may be supposed to have been a covering of head and face, as mourners go nowadays. Of shaving of heads, because not meant here, I will speak no more, till I come to chapter 21. 5. And this is an argument, that uncovering by shaving is not here meant, because there that is forbidden to all the Priests, but uncovering to Aaron only verse. 10. and here to him and his sons.

But what is this, that is further enjoined, Nor rend your clothes: that this was another expression of sorrow for the dead, see Levite. 13. 45. Levite. [Quest.] 21. 10. Gen. 37. 34. Maimonides observeth here, because the Priests were forbidden to rend their clothes, that others in mourning for the dead ought to rend them, and this must be done standing, as 2 Sam. 13. 31. the King is said to have risen up, and rent his garments, and not behind, or on the sides, but before and above, not beneath, and the upper garment only, and but an hand breadth. And this rending, is not only for the dead either Prince, father of the Synedrion, congregation or dear friend, but also when God is blasphemed, Esa. 36. 22. or the book of the Law burned, Jer. 36. 23. or the city of Jerusalem or Sanctuary destroyed, Jer: 51. 5. For the reason why they might not mourning for the dead rend their garments some think because the Heathen used so to do, others because rending of garments proceedeth from a furious and turbulent motion of the mind, which doth not become Priests. But these are invented reasons, the true reason is laid down in the Text, verse. 7. For the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you, which oil did set forth the spirit of joy and gladness, unto which mourning, as contrary to it is straitly forbidden, and all signs thereof. And for this cause the high Priest might never uncover his head, or rend his garments for any being dead, Levite. 21. 10. because the anointing oil was upon him. Other Priests indeed might mourn for some dead being very near unto them, Levite. 21. 1, 2. but even amongst others he that was a chief man, as Eleazar and Ithamar, of whom it is here spoken, were, might not mourn, verse. 4. it being called a defiling of themselves so to do, of the chief amongst the Priests, see 1 Chron. 24. who and how many they were in David's time. The inferior sort then might mourn for a brother, &c. but not the chief.

This time the Priests consecration being newly ended, and sacrifices having been offered for sin, was a time of joy, and of setting up religion in a magnificall manner, as Calvin speaketh, and therefore not to be overcast with the Priests mourning. Moreover, the forbidding of them to mourn as others now that they served in the tabernacle, and departed not thence, was, lest that holy service would be interrupted, mourning being counted a legal polluting, as was said before, and a Priest polluted being in such a case that he cannot serve, till he be again cleansed.

Lastly, this seemeth to have been done in a figure of the future state of the saints in heaven, to show that there shall never be any mourning, but continual joy to all those that dwell in the heavenly tabernacle. For the reasons before alleged, if they had been forbidden to rend their garments, because the heathen did so in their mourning, the rest of the people should have been forbidden also to do thus, which they were not: and that rending garments in mourning did not stand with the dignity of a Priest is confuted, because most excellent men have done thus, as Joshua, Jephthah, Job and Elishah. It followeth, Lest ye die, and lest wrath came upon all the people. It may seem strange, that the Priests erring, wrath should come upon all the people, but this, as Tostatus hath it, is spoken because of the near relation betwixt the Priest and the people, his sin becoming theirs by their consenting to it, or not resisting it, and theirs becoming his, if committed by his negligence. 2. Because if the Priests had now given way to passion and mourned, they must have intermitted their duty in sacrificing, which was the way to turn God's wrath from the people, and so in their ceasing to sacrifice for a time, the people should have lien open to God's wrath. 3. Because there would have been danger in the absence of the Priests, of the people's not carrying themselves so religiously towards sacred things, as is intimated, Numbers 1. 53. and consequently of wrath to come upon them therefore.

How God being provoked by one hath punished all, see Jos. 7. 2 Sam. 24. and of the Priests standing, as a shield to keep God's wrath away, Numbers 16. 46, 48. or the meaning may be, the Priests dying by God's hand, as they should, if upon this occasion they rent their garments, this would prove a coming of wrath upon them, in that they were taken away, who only could make atonement for them in respect of their sins, which they were prone daily to commit.

But why is death threatened to the Priests if they should do thus? [Quest.]

Not only for the reason before rendered, but because in their refraining, [Answ.] God would have them give approbation to the justice of his proceedings against their brethren, doing in God's quarrel, as the Tribe of Levi, of which they were, which said of brethren and children, I know you not, that is, in the quarrel about the golden calves. But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel bewail the burning, which the Lord hath kindled. The people, who were not restrained for the like reason, that Aaron and his sons were, might bewail this lamentable accident, yea they are appointed so to do, that God's judgment through a general mourning might make the deeper impression in them, and so being the longer remembered strike terror into all to make them walk in reverence and fear.

And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tabernacle, lest ye die.] This is spoken, not to debar them from coming out of the Sanctuary; for the 7 days in which they were restrained, viz. the 7 days of their consecration were ended before, and this was the eighth, although Augustine expoundeth it as spoken of in those days, but this meaning is, that they should not intermit their Priestly office by going out to mourn, and so to pollute and to make themselves unfit for this service; so Calvin. Hesychius, who is only for a mystical sense here, saith, it is meant, they should not go out of the door of knowledge by teaching strange doctrine, as before he applied the uncovering of their heads by putting off their miters to the falling from the true doctrine, touching the divinity and humanity of Christ. But I let these things pass, as far fetched.

And the Lord spake to Aaron saying, do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons, when ye enter into the Tabernacle, &c.] Baal Hatturim, and other Rabbins hold, that Aaron's sons who perished by fire, had been drunken when they went in to offer incense, and therefore this law is here given; so likewise Lyranus and Cajetan, but this hath been before rejected. It is more likely that God took occasion upon that rash action of theirs to make this Ordinance against drinking that, which hereafter might trouble the senses, and make other Priests for want of due discretion, to run headily into the like offense, and that this is the end of this law is further intimated.

That ye may put difference between that which is unclean and clean, and teach the children of Israel, &c.] For this a man, whose brain is filled with the fume of wine cannot do, wherefore the Rabbins have a Canon, wherein they say, as a man may not enter into the Tabernacle for drunkenness, so neither the Priest nor other Israelite may teach when he is drunken; yea, if he hath but eaten Dates to the troubling of his senses a little, grounding upon this verse. 11. Maimonides. This prohibition of drinking wine was not of all times, but when they entered into the Tabernacle, because now specially it stood them in hand to be sober.

The Hebrew Canons are here contrary to the Text, for therein it is said, that they might not now drink above the fourth part of a log or half pint, and that must be mere wine and not mixed, and forty days old at the least, and it must be drunk at once, but these were devices of the Rabbins, for all wine drinking is now absolutely forbidden, as is further taught also, Ezekiel 44. 21. The entering of the Tabernacle here they understand of that space in the Court betwixt the Altar and the Tabernacle, according to which Ezekiel 44. 21. hath it When ye enter into the inner court. Origen and Hesychius, When ye come to the Altar, for it was as necessary, that they should be sober when they came to serve about the sacrifices, as about the offering of incense, &c. The word Sicra, here used signifieth not only strong drink, but any kind of inebrieating liquor.

And hereby, as all hold, the Lord would teach sobriety to all his Ministers, [Note.] and to fly drunkenness, and a delight in wine and strong drink, as 1 Tim. 3. Then the Priest might drink none at all during the time of their service when their courses came, of which see 1 Chron. 24. for they were under the pedagogy of the law, but now drink a little wine, saith Saint Paul to Timothy, for thy stomachs sake, &c. We may drink wine, of what calling soever we be, but excess ought to be shunned, chiefly by Ministers, as making them unapt to teach the truth, Esa. 28. 7. Prov. 31. 5. and scandalizing them amongst the people.

And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes, &c. Hereby it appeareth that the Priests did not only teach in a dumb manner by figures, in the acting of which the legal service lay, but by a lively voice with discretion and judgment, and this God imposed upon them as a duty. And according to this it is said, The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge, &c. and Priests, that applied not themselves to teach, are inveighed against, as dumb dogs by the Prophet. And if any in the ministry having [Note.] a charge of souls satisfy themselves with reading only, or saying Mass with the Popish, they are under the same censure. For the Priests teaching, see also Deut. 33. 18.

Now whereas at the beginning of this Passage it is said, the Lord spake [Quest.] unto Aaron, a question is made, why he spake now immediately to Aaron and not by Moses, as at other times?

Some answer, that it is to be understood, by the ministry of Moses. Some, that it was because this was sublimius mandatum, a charge of an higher nature, but neither rightly; for if the ministry of Moses had been used herein, it would doubtless have been expressed as at other times, and if things of an higher nature were spoken to Aaron rather then to Moses, it must follow, that Aaron was in greater favor then Moses, which all know to be false. Here was a fault committed by Aaron's sons, touching which Moses having spoken, now the Lord for further confirmation of his words, and that Aaron and his other sons might be more wary for time to come, speaketh immediately to Aaron, as afterwards when Aaron and Miriam were too blame; he spake to them both. Other reasons are rendered by some, as that God did thus to comfort him in his grief, as Cajejetan, or to demonstrate him to be a Prophet, as Tostatus, or that this directly concerned the Priests, and therefore God gave the charge to Aaron the chief Priest, being now entered upon his office, as Willet. But I rest in that which I have already said, God spake, as in an extraordinary case, two of his sons being slain, to imprint the charge tending to prevent the like mischief hereafter more deeply in their minds.

Take the meat-offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord, &c.] The History of this lamentable accident of the destruction of Nadab and Abihu being ended, together with the law against drinking wine upon that occasion, Moses now returneth to prosecute the matter before said to be in hand, chap 9. 17. for there an handful of the meat-offering of the people was burnt, and touching the remainder nothing had been said hitherto, Wherefore of that it is here spoken Aaron and his sons are appointed to eat it in the holy place, that is, in the Court of the Lord's house without leaven. For this see a Law before, Levite. 6. 16. but this being the first sacrifice offered for the people, Moses directeth Aaron and his sons to put that in execution now which was before enacted; so likewise they are bidden, verse. 14, 15. to eat the wave breast and the heave shoulder, as being their part appointed before, Exod. 29. 27. in which places the meaning and the mysteries of these things have been already set forth. Only touching this shoulder and breast, something more is set down here, which was before wanting, viz. that Aaron's whole family might eat hereof, both sons and daughters, whereas the males only might eat of the meatoffering, and these might be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem in a clean place, the other in the Court of the Tabernacle only, as Brenz hath well noted. Of this repetition of the same things Pelargus addeth another reason, because through the judgment and trouble hereby that happened, it might be put out of their minds: and Willet another for their comfort, lest they should think God so displeased with them now, as that they might not eat of his sacrifices.

And Moses sought diligently the goat of the sin-offering, and behold it was burnt, &c.] This goat was that sin-offering for the people spoken of chapter 9. 15. of which it is there said, He slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first, that is, as the bullock, verse. 10. for himself, burning the flesh and skin without the Camp, verse. 11. but this he ought not to have done, seeing the flesh of all sin-offerings for the people was to be eaten by Aaron and his sons in the holy place, and so they were to bear the sins of the people, Levite. 6. 26. wherefore it being now done otherwise, Moses was angry, and told Eleazar and Ithamar Aaron's sons that survived what they should have done, that they might beware of the like erring hereafter.

The cause that moved Moses to look so diligently to these things at this time was the judgment already executed for an error committed by Aaron's other two sons, fear danger towards them that remained for going from the directions of the Lord. And for this cause, I take it, he was angry not with Aaron, but with his sons, by whose ministry most probably the goat had been so contrary to God's Ordinance burned. Solomon Jarchi saith, that for reverence to Aaron he turned his face from him to his sons, when he was angry.

Tostatus, he had respect to his great grief, for his two sons already lost, and therefore would not add affliction to the afflicted. But the first is followed by Saint Augustine, and is most probable, the ministry and attendance upon that sacrifice belonged to Aaron's sons, and therefore the error was chiefly theirs. Touching the goat here said to be sought for, it was so plainly spoken of chapter 9. 15. that I cannot but wonder at Rabbi Solomon's conceit, that there were three goats offered at this time, one for Naasson, the first of the 12. Princes, another because it was the first day of the month and a third at the consecration of the Priests, one of which is here meant, neither do I less wonder at that of Tostatus, who although he misliketh this, yet he is as far wide in holding Gamaliel's goat, who was the eighth of the Princes that offered. And whereas it is said to have been burnt, chapter 9. 15. seemeth to be so plain, that this was done as Aaron's own sin-offering had been done by, verse. 10, 11. that I cannot but think that of Tostatus again about this as strange, viz. that through the negligence of the Priests it was consumed by the fire where they sod and dressed flesh for themselves, for flesh cannot be burnt up by seething: and as strange is that of Augustine, that Aaron burnt it by divine inspiratian, and of Cajetan, that seeing his sons destroyed by fire, he cast it into the fire, and of Procopius, that it was burnt with the same fire, wherewith Nadab and Abihu perished.

Calvin and others pass over this burning of the goat, as if it had been all laid upon the altar, because Aaron and his sons, as Brenz hath it, being now in havinesse had no joy to feast with it. But it was certainly done through forgetfulness in Aaron's sons, who though they had heard from Moses how everything was to be ordered, yet coming to put it in practice, they did like forgetful scholars burn this, as they had done their own sin-offering.

Behold the blood of it was not brought within the holy place, ye should indeed have eaten it, &c.] It was a rule given in general, Levite. 6. 30. No flesh may be eaten, the blood whereof hath been brought into the Tabernacle, &c. But of other sin-offerings the Priests must eat the flesh, verse 26. and such was this goat, as we may see, Chapter 9. and therefore Moses taxeth the contrary being done at this time, as a fault from this rule.

And Aaron said to Moses, behold they have this day offered their sin-offering and burnt-offering, and such things have befallen me. If I had eaten the sin-offering, today should it have been accepted, &c.] They, that is, the sons of Israel have offered, so Targum Jonathan, the peace-offering and meat-offering which were also offered, are not mentioned, but understood.

The things, which he said had befallen him were both the death of his sons, and to be charged now in his other two sons for not eating the sin-offering, but burning it, so Junius, and thus he saith he did in effect acknowledge himself guilty of the same negligence and perturbation of mind, because he speaketh in the plural numher, as not meaning that one accident only of God's judgment upon his sons. But the Targum Jerosolym, great sorrow hath befallen me this day, for that my two sons are dead, and I mourn for them, and Tostatus likewise confuting Lyranus, that expounded it of the error about the goat committed. And although he meant the death of his sons only, he might well speak in the plural number such things, because that one judgment filled him with many sorrows. And the words following spoken in way of justifying this fact at this time, If I had eaten, should it have been accepted, seem to make for this Exposition. He pleadeth the sorrowful case, in which he was, that would have made it unpleasing before the Lord, if they had eaten. The Law requireth them that eat before the Lord to rejoice, and when they brought their sanctified things, they were to say, I have not eaten of it in my mourning, and a like passage there is, Hos. 9. 4. where the eating of sinners is compared to the bread of mourners, as Ainsworth amplifieth it.

And hereupon Canons are made amongst the Hebrews, that an inferior Priest being in his service about the Sanctuary, and hearing of the death of a friend, whom he ought to mourn for, should forthwith cease from his service, because he is now a mourner and his service, if he should persist therein, would be polluted; but the high Priest upon the like occasion serveth still, and his service is not profaned, Levite. 21. 12. but the bread or holy things of the Sanctuary he might not eat, according to the saying of Aaron. Maimonides. But here is little ground for these rules, if we understand the speech of Aaron most rightly, which I take it, is thus. They, that is, my sons have offered their sin-offering, and burnt-offering, (for because he mentioneth these two only, which were offered for the Priests, and not the meat-offering, and peace-offering, which were amongst the sacrifices for the people, it is more probable, that their sacrifices were hereby meant, and not the people's.)

They have offered, which is the special means of coming to be favourably accepted, and yet I have found by lamentable experience, that I have not been accepted although herein we have gone according to the Ordinance of the Lord, for in token of his anger he hath slain my two sons for the error, wherein he took them, if then in the greater duty I have not been accepted, if I should have eaten the goats flesh as the Lord appointed, which is the less, should I now in this time of his wrath have been accepted before him? No, it is not probable; and therefore although his Law hath been by oversight transgressed in burning the goat, I hope he will pardon it to me and my sons, seeing they, with whom God is angry are unfit, till he is again pacified towards them to meditae for a reconciliation in respect of the sins of others, which is the end of the Priests eating the sin-offering of the people, as is expressed, verse 17.

And as for the mourning inwardly, which is a bar to eating of the sacrifices, this was not yet ordained, but afterwards, as the places alleged show, and therefore Aaron could not mean, that this mourning hindered him now from eating, and if this had been the cause, and there had been a Law already for it, Moses would not certainly have been angry with his sons, or expostulated about it, seeing if they could not eat, because polluted by sorrow, the sin-offering not being for the eating of any others, must needs have been burnt, because that which was not eaten the same day must according to God's Ordinance be burnt.

And to the seconding of that, which I have said, tendeth that of Ambrose, Aaron ate not now, because he did poenitentiam agere, and of Cajetan he did wisely not to eat being under so great wrath of God.

And if so, that question made by some, why God punished the two [Quest.] eldest sons of Aaron so severely, but not the two younger being in as great an offense for going contrary to God's Ordinance, falleth to the ground, because although they faulted also, yet as things fell out, there was some good reason of their fact.

But admitting that their sin were alike, yet God will glorify his mercy [Answ.] in sparing some, as his justice in punishing others; and it is not to be doubted, but that he had respect unto his own election of Aaron and his sons to be his Priests, not to extinguish quite the Priesthood again so soon by taking them away for their fault also.

If it be demanded, why Moses challenging the sons of Aaron, he [Quest.] answereth, and not they?

It may be said, that Aaron found, that the thing reproved touched him chiefly, because he was the chief Priest, and his sons in that, which they had done did but minister unto him, and therefore they for reverence of their father being present forbearing to answer, he answereth, both for himself and them, so Lyranus.

And when Moses heard it he was content.] That is, seeing, that there was some necessity at this time of refraining from eating, he stood no more upon the exact rule of the Law, against which it had been burnt, because ceremonial Laws upon some necessary occasions have been broken, and sin hath notwithstanding not been imputed, as in the case of David's eating of the show-bread, and giving to those that were with him, and of Hezechiahs admitting some to the Passover, which were not cleansed according to the Law, but healed by the Lord. Borrheus thinketh, that he bare with Aaron now in misery out of human commiseration.

And Calvin, because he found the fault to be less, then he supposed. I cannot think with Lorinus, that he deferred, because of his present grief to admonish him further of this sin, till afterwards, for it is said, It was good in his eyes, Hebrew, that is, he was satisfied, seeing by reason of the case, wherein the Priests now were, it could not have been otherwise, although it cannot be denied, but that they had faulted by oversight in burning the goat, as their own sin-offering.

CHAP. XI.

THese are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts, that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, and cheweth the cudd, &c.] In giving these Laws, Ainsworth noteth, that God speaketh to Moses and Aaron, the Magistrate and the Priest, because both must teach, and see to the practice of them. And of this we have examples, 2 Chronicles 29. 5. chapter, 30. 18. touching the Magistrate, and Ezekiel, 44. 23. touching the Priest, and Numbers. 9. 6. touching both jointly. But this reason holdeth not always, for God sometimes speaketh to them both together, as chapter 13. When no reason can be rendered thereof, and sometime to Moses alone in things, that must come under the judgment of the Priest, as Chapter 14. And whereas they are bidden to speak these things to the Children of Israel, it may rightly be noted, that the Gentiles were not bound hereby, but only the Israelites, so Solom. Jarchi.

These are the beasts: The word translated beasts in the first place here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 living things, in the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beasts or cattle. But as in our English translation, so in the Septuagint, they are rendered both alike beasts. But the first word indeed setteth forth all living things, whether beasts, fishes, fowls or creeping things in general, the next the fourfooted beasts of the earth only.

Parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed. This word cloven footed is added for further expression, to show that the foot parted both above and beneath, and not above only is meant. For some beasts have partitions in their feet above, but beneath they are joined together by a skin, as the feet of Dogs, Hares and Conies, these although they be divided, yet because they are not cloven quite through, are not the beasts to be eaten of, as is further expressed, v. 26.

The beasts, that are cloven footed and chew the cudd, are reckoned up to be ten only, Deuteronomy 14. 4, 5. These were the only clean beasts and none else in the world, yea, as the Rabbins note, if any unclean beast by ingendering with a clean brought forth the young cloven footed, and chewing the cud, this young was notwithstanding unclean, because it came of the unclean, and was not of the beasts kind here described. Maimonides.

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat of them, that chew the cud, or divide the hoof, as the Cammel which cheweth the cud, and divideth not the hoof, he shall be unclean to you, &c. The distinction between beasts clean and unclean is not now first made, but long before, as we may see, Genesis 7. 2. Where I have shown that most probably Adam was at the first instructed herein by God, and he taught the same to his sons after him, and they to their children from generation to generation: but now it being a time of expressing all things by writing, this Law is also expressly set down. So that to eat of the clean only, and to shun eating of the unclean was a thing required at the first of all people's, but now this difference being neglected generally in the world, the Lord, having chosen the Israelites peculiarly to be his people, enjoineth it unto them, leaving the rest in that confusion, to which they had degenerated.

If it be demanded, how any living thing came to be unclean, seeing God [Quest.] made all things at the first very good?

It is answered by some, that this distinction came in after the fall of [Answ.] man, they were all at the first very good, but now some only as wholesome for nourishment are allowed, as clean to be eaten, others not so wholesome are forbidden as unclean. Yet even these are not unclean in their nature, but in their use: that is, men do naturally abominate to eat of them, although by custom some Nations have made it familiar to them to eat hereof, as Brenz saith. But what abomination it is to nature, to eat of a coney, or an hare, &c. I cannot see, and the flesh of some things forbidden is also wholesome and good for nourishment. WHerefore I rather assent to Hesychius, that some living things were appointed to be avoided as unclean only in a mystery or figure, and yet in the particularizing of them, I hold that some respect was had to this, that those which were least wholesome or nutritive were forbidden: from whence we may infer with Brenz, that even our bodies and present life are a care unto God, and therefore our souls much more.

If it be demanded, what the mystery or figure was? I answer, as the [Qu.] things, about which these Laws were made, are divers, so the mysteries were divers, of which yet before I speak, the Reader shall understand, that some insist only upon natural reasons of allowing or forbidding them.

As that the beasts, which chew the cud and divide the hoof, are neither too moist, as those that have no hoofs at all, nor too dry as those which have hoofs, but not divided, and they that chew the cud, are of a temperate constitution, and therefore fittest for meat. Some yielde this reason, the solid hoof and undivided is a sign of ferity, and such as have the hoof divided but chew not the cud, do eat filthy things, as the swine. But these, and whatsoever natural reasons else can be brought, do come short of the true reasons of these prohibitions: for the heavenly Physician seeketh medicines for his sick not by the juice of herbs, but by the mysteries of his Word, saith Origen. It is not likely that God herein took care so much for the body, but for the soul. By beasts then mystically are to be understood people's, as was in a vision shown to Peter, Acts 10. 12. the clean figured out the Jews, and the unclean the Gentiles, betwixt whom God by these constitutions made a distinction, as is expressed, Levite. 20. 25, 26. and by beasts men are also set forth in divers other places, as Esa. 11. 6, 7, 8. Ezech. 34. 31. Zeph. 3. 3. Matth. 7. 15. Now these beasts in special, which are here described, are allowed as clean, and the other forbidden as unclean, partly because they are of a better and more temperate constitution, then those, to show that the Israelites the Church of God are more excellent in God's account by his grace, then other heathen people, to which effect almost Junius speaketh, and partly because divers heathens had some of the beasts here mentioned for unclean in greatest account and sacrificed them to their gods, as Swine, Lions, Asses, &c. As Aquinas saith, and on the contrary side the Egyptians held it abomination to kill or sacrifice Sheep and Oxen; therefore to show how much they abhorred from the evil manners of these, God would have his people to kill and eat, and sacrifice Sheep and Oxen, and eschew the other as abomination, and to show by their abominating of such meats, that God did likewise abominate the heathen, as unclean; so Brenz.

And lastly, the beasts appointed to be eaten as clean did set forth virtues to be ensued, and the unclean vices to be abhorred by all the people of the Lord, and because when God would have Peter afterwards to go amongst the Gentiles to preach, he shown this by bidding him kill and eat, we may rightly gather, that the Lord would hereby have his to understand, that they should have no communion with vicious and wicked men: And Brenz addeth yet another reason, that we might take notice of our natural uncleanness, seeking to be purged, because if men were not unclean nothing should be unclean to them. And these Laws were also made to exercise obedience. More particularly then by the beasts chewing the cud, and parting the hoof are to be understood men meditating upon the Word of God, and exercising themselves therein, Psalm, 1. for the word is the food of the soul, Amos 8. 11. and must being tried be kept. 1 Thes. 5. 21. Mal. 4. 4. 1 Corinth. 11. 2. and men discerning rightly the will of God by his Word, distinguishing aright betwixt the Law and the Gospel, and walking with a right foot therein, Galat. 2. 14. so Ainsworth, and before him Calvin, and the ancient fathers Tertullian, they divide the hoof, who make the journeys of their life by the sure footing of innocence; and Augustine, the divided hoof belongeth to manners, and chewing the cud to wisdom. The divided hoof, saith Irenaeus, doth set forth the Father and the Son, to whom we must go by faith, lib. 5. cap. 8. Righteousness, saith Clemens Alexandrinus, is bifida, or of a divided hoof, because it sanctifieth both here, and in the world to come. The divided hoof, saith Thomas Aquinas, setteth forth either the Father and the Son, the two Testaments, or the two Natures of Christ. But Origen will have the discerning betwixt this life, and that which is to come, understood by dividing, and the calling of things back to a spiritual sense, by the chewing of the cud. Hesychius and Rupertus contrary to all others, will having eructing by good works understood by chewing the cud, and dividing between the letter and the spirit by the divided hoose.

I think it best to hold to that of meditation meant by chewing the cud, and to this of distinguishing rightly betwixt the letter and the spirit, the Law and the Gospel by parting the hoof, unto which may be added to distinguish betwixt the good and the evil, to embrace the one and eschew the other, as in effect was first said.

So then here is intimated, that if we would not be unclean beasts, but [Note.] clean, we must both meditate upon the Word daily, and in our actions put a difference betwixt the good and the evil, not walking indifferently in either of them, and betwixt the literal and spiritual sense of the word, lest cleaving to the letter of the Law only we err with the veiled Jews, and other Heretics. If we either meditate upon the word only but walk not accordingly, or distinguish only between good and evil, but exercise not ourselves in the word, we are judged as unclean, as if we neither meditated nor distinguished at all: because in our exactest walking there are errors from which we are not sanctified, but by the Word, John 17. 17.