Leviticus 18

covering 1 the nakedness of such near relations, as are Iicto mentioned, and murder, &c. Andby chukkim (ordinances, or statutes), such laws are meant as depended only on the pleasure of God; and obliged none but those to whom they were given: such as those about meats, and garments, and leprosy, &c. Against which, lest any ono should object, it is here added, I am the Lord your God. I am the Lord your God.] I, who am your sovereign Lord; and, by redeeming you from the Egyptian bondage, am become, in a special manner your God, have ordained these tilings. Therefore let no man dispute them, or make a question of them, as the forenamed Gemara expounds these words. See Selden, lib. i. de Jure N. et G. cap. 10; p. 122. whero he observes, that the laws called statutes are, in their language, such as depend only on the royal authority. Maimonides gives this as the genefral reason of prohibiting this, and all the following marriages: because the persons here forbidden to be so joined together, are all, in a manner, such as 1 are wont to live together in the same house (for so fathers, mothers, children, brothers, and sisters do), who might easily be tempted to lewdness one with another, if even marrying together were not severely forbidden. And thus. the LXX. translate the words of the foregoing verse i none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, irpbg oIkzTo. capKog, or, as other copies, Trpbg oIkuov aapKvc, to those that are so near of kin, that they usually dwell m the safne t house; as parents and children; brothers and sisters; and the brothers and sisters of our parents. Mahomet, as lewd and impudent as he was, had not the boldness to control these laws; but, in the fourth chapterof his Alcoran, expressly forbids his followers to marry their mothers, their mothers-in-law, &c. and agreat many of the rest which here follow. father’s wife (for she that is born of thy father is thy sister) thou shall not uncover. And With this the Greek and several other versions of the Bible agree, who make the prohibition of the wife’s daughter to end before he speaks of his own sister. And it is. the sense of the principal men among the Karaites, as. he shews, cap. 6. But this is against the constant sense of the Hebrew doctors, who say it. is lawful to many the daughter of a mother-in-law which she had by another husband; for there is no nearness of flesh at all between these two. And therefore, as in the ninth verse, the marriages of all brothers and sisters, in general, are forbidden; so here, more particularly, the marriage with a sister by the same father, though not by the same mother: which was necessary’ to be expressly forbidden; because, before the law, the sons of Noah thought it lawful to marry a half-sister (as we speak) by the father’s side, though not by the mother’s. (Sec Buxtorf. dc Spons. et Divort. p.’ 15, 16.) And this was the ancient law of Solon among the Athenians, that they might marry biionaTplovg, their sisters by the same father, but not 6)ioiii)rp[ovg, their sisters by the same mother; as Job. Menrsius shews in his Themis Attica, lib. i. cap. 18. And if the one of these had not been in so many words prohibited, as well as the other, the Jews might still have continued in that practice, which was usual before the law. (See Sam. Petitus in Leges Atticas, p. 440.) * Some arc of the opinion, that, in the ninth verse, the son of asecond venter is forbidden, to marry the daughter of the first: and here, the son of the first venter, to marry the daughter of the second. And others fancy, that the sister here meant is one that was adopted by his father. Vcr. 12. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister.’] And it made no difference whether she was hig father’s sister legitimately or illegitimately begotten.by his grandfather; as It. Levi Barzclonita represents the opinion of the Hebrew doctors, (Prreccpt. exevii.) Such marriages also w r ere prohibited by the ancient Romans, as $Ir. Seldcn observes in the place forenamed, (lib. v. cap. 11. p. G05.) though before the law of Moses they are supposed to be lawful; for it is commonly thoughtthat his father Amram married his aunt Jochobed, (Exod. vi. 20.) and therefore no wonder it was practised in other countries,* who were not acquainted with this prohibition: particularly at Sparta, where Herodotus saith (in his Erato, cap. Ixxi.) Archidamus their king married Lampito, who was sister to his father Zeuxidamus, Sovroc ai>r$ Atvrux’&w; Leutiehydes (who was father both to her and to Zeuxidamus) giving liter to him in marriage. * She is thy father’s near kinswoman.’] So near, that as ho cpuld not be permitted to marry her, so his son also, who was not but a little farther removed from her, was forbidden to touch her. And by the same reason that a man might not marry his aunt, an uncle might not marry his niece. AVhich, though practised among the Romans after Claudius married Agrippina, till the time of Constantino; yet it was anew thing, as Claudius himself acknowledges in Tacitus,;(" Nova nobis in fratmm filics conjugia," lib. xii. Annal. marriages with our brother $ daughters are new things with vs.) And all he could say for it was, that it wras common in other nations, “ncc lege, ul la prohibita,” and not forbidden by any law. And indeed the newness of it so frightened Domitian, that he would not venture upon it; nor did many use it. Which shews that this law had some foundation in nature; which made those men cautious about such marriages, who had nothing else to guide them. Or, at least, there had been such a long custom against them, in the western part of the world, that men, who were otherwise very bad, would not help to alter it. Ver. 1:). TJioa shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.] There is the same reason for this, as for the former prohibition: the aunt, by the mother’s side, being as near to a man, as his aunt by the father’s. Vcr. 14. Tliou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fatiter’s brother.) This is explained in the next words, thou shalt not approach to his wife: that is, not marry thy uncle’s wife. And therefore much less might an uncle marry his brother’s daughter: as Herodotus tells us Darius married Phrataguna, the daughter of his brother Atarnes, who gave him all his estate with her; and Leoriides, king of Sparta, married Gorgo, the daughter of his brother Cleomenes. See lib. vii. (called Polymnia) cap. 224. and 239. * She is thy aunt.] By such near affinity, that marriage is forbidden with her, as well as with an aunt by consanguinity* (v. 12, 13.) In which the ancient Romans also were very strict, as our Sclden observes in the place abovenamed. And it made no difference, whether he were only espoused to her, or had after marriage divorced her, or w; as separated by death: or whether he was his father’s brother legitimately,* or. spuriously, as R. Levi Barzclonita observes, ^Praecept. excix. and cc. Where he notes, that though the father’s brother’s wife be only mentioned, yet the mother’s brother’s wife is also prohibited. This is repeated xx. 20. man and her daughter.’] If a man married a widow that had a daughter, it was a wicked thing to marry that daughter, cither while her mother lived; or after she was dead. Neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, nor her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness.] To preserve them from this, the Jews added, as a hedge to this law, a prohibition to marry the grand-daughters of such daughters, as R. Levi Barzelonita tells us, (Praecept. ccv.) For they are her near kinswomen.] Of such consanguinity with her (from whom they directly come), as makes it very criminal in him that is one with her to marry them. It is wickedness.] The Hebrew word zimmah imports more than wickedness. The LXX. translate it a<rej3t?jua, im* piety; the Vulgar Latin, incest; others, nefarious wickedness, which is the word in the civil law for those marriages that are contrary to nature. Such were these in some measure, though not in the highest degree. t tm, goats (which were there also worshipped) lay with wotnen. For which he quotes Pindar; as do also Priscianus <md ^Iian, lib. vii. de Animal, cap. 19. as Casaubon there notes. And Herodotus vouches this upon his own knowledge, and saith they did it openly (so d va<puv$6v signifies) when he was in Egypt. His words are these, in his second, book called Euterpe, cap. 46.‘Eytvcro S 1 lv t$ vo/i^ tovti$ ix Efitv tovto rt/>ac* J waits! rpayoc zfifoytro ava^atfSov. This prodigy happened in this part of Egypt (i. e. among the Meudesians) when I was there, a goat had to do with a woman in the view of all. Tovto h tfrt’Sc&v dv0pw7ro)v aVfctro. How long this beastly custom had been among them, none Can tell, but these words import that then it was notorious; and so far from being kept secret, that they rathe* made ail ostentation of it. Which I look upon as an argument that ■this had beeti a very old practice; otherwise they would have blushed at it.

Leviticus 18:1

jCjLND the Lord spake unto mioses, saying. It is not said, when theLord delivered these laws to Moses; but it is likely after the other, and before those that follow.

Leviticus 18:2

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them. They were all concerned in these laws about marriage; and therefore they are directed to the whole body of the people: who received them, I suppose, by their elders and heads of the tribes, to whom Moses delivered them, and charged they should be communicated to every family and household. (See xvii. 2,) I am the Lord your God.] I have a right to give you /laws (being your sovereign, upon more titles than one), to which all human customs must yield, though long practised, and spread every where in the world. This reason is mentioned six times in this chapter; and oftener in the next. (See ver. 4.)

Leviticus 18:3

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherem ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do. The manners of these two countries (of Egypt, wherein they had dwelled a long time; and of Canaan, wherein they were going to settle) they were in the greatest danger to imitate: especially in taking the liberty of making such marriages as they saw practised among them, against which they are here severely cautioned. But though these words seem to have a particular respect to those marriages, yet Maimonides extends them to all their other practices, for which they could see no reason: magic being in much use among them, in dressing their trees, and ploughing their ground, and such-like common things: in which they had a respect also to the disposition of the stars of heaven, which led them to the worship of them; as he shews at large in his More Nevoch, par. iii. cap, 37,, R, Levi Barzelonita also extends these words to the customs of all other nations, (Prascept. eclxii.) which he that observed was to be beaten. But the doings, or customs, which Moses here speaks of, seem to be those that follow, ver. 6, 7, &c. as appears from ver, 24, &c. And the other customs of those nations, about their clothes, and cutting their hair (which the forenamed author mentions), are forbidden in other places.. Neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.] The Hebrew word chukkoth, which we commonly translate statutes, and here ordinances, seems to import that the incestuous mar r riages here mentioned were allowed by the laws and constitutions of those countries; which made their wickedness the more intolerable, (ver. 24.)

Leviticus 18:4

Ye shall do my judgments, and keep my ordinances, to walk therein. Frame your lives according to the laws and rules which 1 give you to observe; and not according to their wicked practices, which, were grown into customs and precedents. The Gemara Babylonica, mentioning these words, saith, it is a tradition of their doctors, that by mishpat im (which we translate judgments), are to be understood such natural laws as all mankind are bound to observe, though there were no written commands for them: such as those against idolatry, and those about un^

Leviticus 18:5

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments. Observe the laws beforementioned. For the word we here translate statutes, is the same with that translated ordinances in the foregoing verse. Wliich if a man do, he shall live in them.’] -Not be cut off; but live long and happily, in the enjoyment of all the blessings which God promised in his covenant with them. lam the Lord.] Who will faithfully keep my covenant, and fulfil ray promises, (Exod. vi. 3.)

Leviticus 18:6

None of you. In the Hebrew the words being isch, isch (as much as to say, man, man), that is, no man; the Talmudists take it as if he had said, neither Jew nor gentile. For all mankind, they say, are comprehended under these laws about incest. Nay, the very Karaites (or those who adhere only to the Scripture, and reject a Talmudical exposition) are of this mind, as Mr. Selden observes, lib. i. de Uxore Heb. cap. 5. But the Talmudists themselves do not all understand this matter alike. For some of them think all the gentiles (at least those who were under the dominion of the Israelites) were bound to refrain from all incestuous marriages; to which death is threatened by the law. But others of them think they were concerned only in those six things which were unlawful before the law of Moses was given. (See Selden, lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 1. and cap. 11. p. 596, &c.) But the ancient Hebrews give a good reason for all these laws, as Grotius observes, lib. ii. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 5. sect. 13. n. 2." Shall approach.] Some of the Jews have been so rigorous, as to expound this word, as if it bound them not to have any familiarity with the persons afternamed, (R. Levi Barzelonita; Prsecept clxxxviii.) which is against all reason and natural affection. The plain sense is, they should hot approach, or come near to them, for the end afterward mentioned; viz. to uncover their nakedness. Nay, this very phrase is used for the same thing, Gen. xx. 4. without the addition of uncovering their nakedness. Any that is near of kin to him.] It must be confessed, that these words near of kin do not sufficiently express the full sense of the Hebrew phrase; nor axe they of a determinate signification: for a man may be near of kin to a woman, who is not the remainder ofhisjlesh, as the Hebrew phrase is: that is, so near of kin to him, that nothing comes between them. This is properly the nearness of flesh here spoken of; she that is immediately born of the same flesh that a man is, or she out of whose flesh he is born; or she that is born out of his. flesh that is, in plainer words, a man’s sister, mother, or daughter. These are a man’s own immediate relations; which the Karaites call the foundation and root of all that is here forbidden, as Selden notes, lib. i. Ux. Hebr. cap. 2. For the sake of whom the rest here mentioned are prohibited, having a iiearness of flesh to them, viz. his father or mother’s sister; his granddaughter, and his niece. For the best explication of this phrase, is the express particulars mentioned by God him* self in this place. To uncover their nakedness.] To have carnal knowledge of her, as the Scripture modestly speaks in other places. For nakedness in the holy language signifies the secret parts, which natural modesty teaches all civilized people to cover; and not to reveal them to any but those whom they marry. Therefore not to uncover the nakedness of the persons here named, is properly, not to take them in marriage; and much less to have knowledge of them without marriage. Answerable to this is the name of a virgin whom the Hebrews call alma, which is as much as covered, clothed, or veiled: because those parts were never exposed to any one, but those to whom they were espoused and joined in marriage. I am the Lord.] By my authority, who am your sovereign, and the sovereign of the world, these laws are enacted: and I will punish those that break them.

Leviticus 18:7

The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, thou shalt not uncover. It is commonly thought by interpreters, that the particle, we translate or, is here as much as that is, (for so it signifies in some places, particularly 1 Sam. xxviii. 3.) So that the latter part of the verse is only an explication of the former, and makes them but one prohibition, against a man’s marrying his mother. And this, indeed, tho next words seem to imply, she is thy mother; who bare thee, and therefore not to be taken to be thy wife, much less to be otherwiso known by thee. But we may as well think, that the nakedness of the father and of the.mother are both here mentioned, to shew neither tho daughter might many her father, nor the son his mother; and consequently, that in all the following particulars, women were concerned just as men were; • though the men be only mentioned. And under the name of father and mother are comprehended grandfather or grandmother, or other progenitors before them. She is thy mother, thou shalt not nncover her nakedness.] This is the very first prohibition; it being a going back in nature for a man to marry his mother. Which, though it was practised in those days by the Canaanites, and Egyptians, and by the Persians also, in aftertimes, and, some other eastern countries, yet in tho western part of the world (as Mr. Selden observes) such marriages were nunquam non execranda, execrable in all ages, (lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 11. p. C01, &c.) Such were the marriages of CEdipus with Jocasta, of Nero with Agrippina, Pelopeia and Thyestis her father, of whom iEgistus was born; which every body detested. (See Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. ii. cap. 5. sect. 2.) For the law of nature was against such marriages, notwithstanding tho practice of persons, nay whole nations, whom God gave up to wa$ri drtfiiac (as St. Paul shews), dishonourable affections, for their other sins; especially for their forsaking him, and falling to idolatry.

Leviticus 18:8

The nakedness of thy father’s ivife shalt thou not uncover J. That is, of a step-mother. Such was the incest of Reuben with Bilhah, (Gen. xxxv. 22.) and of Absalom: with the wives of his father David, (2 Sam. xvi. 21, 22.) and of Antiochus Soter with Stratonice; who, abhorring, from such a conjunction, was taught that all things were: honest that pleased the king. But the thing itself is so hateful,. that the very naming it is a condemnation; and therefore it is all one with the prime natural law, which; prohibits the conjunction of parents and children. " For she that is one flesh with my father (as a. great, man speaks), is as near to me as my father, and that is as near, as my own mother. As near, I mean, in the estimation to0 law, though not in the accounts of nature; and, therefore,, though it be a crime of a less turpitude, yet it is equally forbidden, and is against the law of nature, not directly, but by interpretation," (book. ii. chap. 2. Ductor; Dubitantium, rule iii.n. 29.) It is thy father s nakedness.] He. having, known her, it was not permitted the son to have her also. Nay, the Jews say, if the father had only espoused her, it was not’ lawful foT the son to have her to wife; or if. he had divorced her, it was not lawful for the son to have her, even, after he was dead. (See R. Levi Barzelonita, Praeeept. exci. Buxtorf. de Sponsal. p. 16, 17.)

Leviticus 18:9

Hie nakedness of thy sister J. As the nearness of flesh (mentioned ver. 6.) above a man, is his mother; and below him, is his daughter: so, on the side of him, is his sister. The daughter of thy father.] Though she were begotten by his father of another wife, not of his mother; yet he might not marry her. Or the daughter of thy mother.’] Born of her by another husband, not by his father. JVJiether she be born at home, or born abroad.] Be legitimately born in wedlock; or illegitimately, out of wedlock; as the Talmudists expound it: see Selden, lib. v. de Jure N. ct G. cap. 10. p. 591. where he observes, that though the Egyptians (as Philo and others report), with such-like nations, thought the marriage of brothers and sisters to be lawful, and it was practised also in Greece; yet the greatest men in the western countries condemned such marriages; which some of the Greek philosophers also disallowed: and Euripides himself, called barbarous, vol. i. even when it was practised.. Insomuch, that in after-ages, this wicked custom was quite abolished; and that before Christianity was well settled among them. ForSextusEmpiricus saith, that in his time it was utterly unlawful: see there, cap. xi. p. 603. 605, &c. where he shews the Romans always abhorred such marriages; nay, it was late before the Persians took up this abominable custom, after the example of Cambyses: who being in love with his own sister, as Herodotus relates, (in his Thalia, cap. xxxi.) and having a mind to marry her, which was never practised hefore in that country; he commanded the royal judges (as he calls them), who were the interpreters of the laws, to advise whether he might lawfully do it, or not: who, to please him, and yet not seem to give an illegal opinion, answered, vofiov ov$£va HizvplaKuv og kbXbvu ade<pey &vvoi- Kiuv d&Xipebv, &c. That they could find no law ivhich per- 1 mitted a brother to marry a sister: but there was a laiv, that the Persian kingmight do even what he xyould. (See Grotius, lib. ii. de Jure Belli et Pads, cap. 5. sect. 13.) Even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.] It shall be? unlawful to thee to marry any of the forenamed sisters. For though the marriage, of brother and sister was necessary in the beginning, when God created but one man and one woman, by whose children the world was peopled;’ yet, when it was so> there was great reason that it should be made utterly unlawful, as many have. demonstrated; particularly Bishop Taylor, in his Ductor. Dubitantium, book ii. chap. 2. rule iii. n. 24, 25, &c. " For now it is next to an unnatural mixture (as he speaks), it hath something of confusion in it, and blending, the very first partings of nature, which makes it intolerably scandalous and utiivei* sally forbidden; for if it werenot, the mischief would be horrible and infinite."

Leviticus 18:10

The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.* This law concerns a man’s grand-daughter, by> his son or his daughter, whether legitimately or spuriously begotten,, as R. Levi Barzelonita expounds it, (Prsecept. exciii.) Who adds, in the next precept but one, this isanother prohibition, thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter; which (saith ho) is not expressly mentioned in this law, because it was not necessary. Foramah’sf* grandchildren, either by. sons or daughters, which are more remote, being forbidden, there was no need to say it was unlawful for him to marry his own daughter. For theirs is thy own nakedness.] They have their original from thynakedness; For which reasonsome of the Jews extended this to those descendants which were still farther off, as a hedge to this law. So R. Levi calls it, in the place forenamed. The ancient Romans also (as our Mr. Selden shews) were very strict in restraining the marriage’ of men with their nieces, cither by their brothers or sisters/ and with others mentioned in the following laws of Mose£> lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gentium, &c. cap. 11. p. 605, &c.

Leviticus 18:11

The nakedness of thy father’s ivife’s daughter, begotten of thy father (she is thy sister), thou shalt not uncover Iter nakedness. This prohibition, seeming to be thc r s&me with that, ver. 9. some of the Hebrews have expounded this concerning the daughter of a mother-in-law begotten by another father. For the vfords may be thus translated, as Mr. Selden observes the order of them will bear, (lib.i. de Uxore Heb> cap, 4.) Tlie nakedness of the daughter of thy

Leviticus 18:15

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son’s wife, &c. Though only espoused to him; and therefore much more when solemnly married; as the same R. Levi explains it, Precept, cci. where he hath the same observation as before; that if she was afterward divorced, he might not marry her: and that it is probable the wife of a bastard son is prohibited; for he is his son; though a child by a slave, or a stranger, is never called a man’s son.

Leviticus 18:16

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife, &c. Unless he died childless; for in that case the next brother was bound to marry her, (Deut. xxy. 5. see Buxtorf.de Spons. p. 25. and Grotius in Matt. xiv. 4.) Much less might a man marry his brother’s daughter (as was before noted), who was nearer to him, and of his own flesh. Which was so much abhorred by the ancient Romans, that Claudius Caesar durst not celebrate his marriage with Agrippina, till he had got a decree of the senate for it, " Quo justse inter patruos, fratrumquc filias, ntiptisectiam in postcrum statucrentur:" which made the marriage of uncles with their brother’s daughters to be lawful for thefuture: which hitherto had been without example. So Tacitus relates in the forenamed book of his Annals, (cap. 5.)- where he saith, notwithstanding this decree, there were none found, but only one man,, who desired such matrimony;, and most thought he did it to gain Agrippina’s favour: " Nequc tamen repcrtus est, nisi unus, talis matrimonii cupitor," &c-

Leviticus 18:17

Tliou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a tco-

Leviticus 18:18

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister. There are a great many eminent writers, who, following our marginal translation [one wife to another], imagine that here plurality of wives is expressly forbidden by God. And they think there is an example to justify this translation in Exod. xxvi. 3. where Moses is commanded to take care the five curtains of the tabernacle were coupled together, one to its sister (as the Hebrew phrase is), i. e. one to another. And so the Karaites interpret this place; that a man, having a wife, should not take another while she lived. Which, if it were true, would solve. several difficulties: but there are such strong reasons against it, that I cannot think it to be the. meaning. For as more wives than one were indulged before the law, so they were after. And Moses himself supposes as much, when he provides a man should not prefer a child he had by a beloved wife, before one by her whom he hated, if he was the eldest son. Which plainly intimates an allowance in his law, of more wives than one. And so we find expressly their kings might have, though not a multitude, (Deut. xvii. 17.) And their best king, who read God’s law day and night, and could not but understand it, took many wives, without any reproof: nay, God gave him more than he had before, by delivering his master’s wives to him, (2 Sam.xii. 8.) And, besides all this, Moses speaking all along in this chapter of consanguinity, it is reasonable (as Schindlerus observes) to conclude he doth so here: not ofonewoman to another; but of one sister to another. There being also the like reason to understand the word sister properly in this place, as the words daughter and mother in others, (ver. 17. and xx. 14.) where he forbids a man to take a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her mother, as Theodoric Hackspan judiciously notes, Disput.i.de Locutionibus Sacris, n.29. (See Selden, lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 6. and Buxtorf. de Sponsal, p. 28, 29.) The meaning therefore is, that though two wives at a time, or more, were permitted in those days, no man should take two sisters (as Jacob had formerly done) begotten of (he same father, or born of the same mother, whether legitimately or illegitimately, as the forenamed R. Levi expresses it, (Praecept. ccvi.) Which, though it may seem to be prohibited before, by consequence and analogy (because the marriage of a brother’s wife is forbidden, ver. 16.) yet it is here directly prohibited, as other marriages are; which were implicitly forbidden before. For, ver. 7. the marriage of a son with his mother. is forbidden: and ver. 10.. the marriage of a father with his daughter….. To vex her.] There were wont to be great emulations, and jealousies, and contentions, between wives (some of them being more beloved than others, and also superior to them), which between two sisters would have been more intolerable, than between two other women: who not being ff a consanguinitate, aequiore animo sub codem marito, aetatem una agant," (as Petrus Cunasus speaks, lib. ii. de Repub.. Heb. cap. 23.) of the same consanguinity (as two sisters are J, might live with more equal and quiet, minds under the same husband. The Vulgar Latin understands this, as if Closes forbade them to make one sister their wife, and the other their concubine; which could not but beget the greatest discords between them. In her life-time.] From hence some infer, that a man was permitted to marry the sister of his former wife, when she was dead. So the Talmudists; but the Karaites thought it absolutely unlawful, as Mr. Selden observes, „(lib. i. dc TJxore Heb. cap. 4.) For it is directly against the scope of all these laws, which prohibit men to marry at all with such persons as are here mentioned, either in their, wives’ life-time, or after. And there being a prohibition (ver. 16.) to marry a brother’s wife, it is unreasonable to think Moses gave them leave to marry their wife’s sister. These words, therefore, in her life-time, are to be referred, not to the first words, neither, shalt thou take her, but to the next, to vex her, as long as she lives. Chaskuni refers it to both the sisters, according to the Targum, and makes this the sense; lest they should both be afflicted widows as long as they live: for nobody.would marry either of them, being defiled by such an incestuous conjunction, for which God cut off their husband., In this the ancient Christians were so strict, that if a man, after his wife died, married her sister, he was. by the tenth canon of the council of Eliberis, to be kept from the communion five years..

Leviticus 18:19

Also thou shalt not approach to a ivoman. No, not to his own wife, as the forenamed R. Levi expounds it, (Praecept. ccvii.) though all other women also are comprehended, even their Canaanitish slaves, as he observes……..■;.’:., As long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.] Which was seven days, (xv. 19.) All the laws about marriages unto this place, seem to have a special regard to the wicked customs among the Egyptians; who, above all other people, were then polluted with such incestuous mixtures. And now he proceeds to direct them to abhor the customs of the Canaanitcs; who were polluted more than other nations with adulteries, and offering their children to Moloch, and the rest of the foul crimes which follow. For against the practices of these two nations, the Egyptians and the Canaanitcs, Moses cautions them, (ver. 3.) and accordingly first mentions the doings of the Egyptians unto this place; and theu those of the Canaanites in the following verses.

Leviticus 18:20

Moreover, thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbours wife. While he lived with her: for this was to commit adultery. To defde thyself with her.] This signifies the foulest impurity, as appears from ver. 20. and was punished with death, (xx. 10.) Microsoft ® [chap. xvni.’ T*;21. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed.] i. e. Of their childreiij as it is explained Deut. xviii. 10. This was a spiritual adultery, and therefore here mentioned. Pass through the fire to Molech.] It is certain that Moloch was particularly worshipped by the children of Amnion, (at least in future ages, 1 Kings xi. 7.) but seems to have been the name of many of the heathen gods, and the same with Baal: both of them signifying dominion. This appears by comparing Jer. xix. 5. with xxxii. 35. But more especially it signifies the sun, the prince of the heavenly bodies, (see Vossius dc Orig. etProgr. Idolol. lib.ii. cap. 5.) as the queen of heaven was the moon, (Jer. vii. 18.) Now it is evident, by several passages in Scripture, that the ancient pagans (whom the Israelites were prone to imitate) not only made their children )>ass through the fire, but also offered them in sacrifice unto Moloch. The former I take to be forbidden in this law; the latter in xx. 3. where giving their children to Moloch is pi ohibited under a severe penalty, of being put to death for that crime: whereas there is no penalty annexed here to their making them pass through the fire. Which I take therefore to have been a less crime than the other; though an iJolatrous rite, practised by those who abhorred the cruelty of offering the very life of their dear children to Moloch. Instead of which, this rite was devised, of making them pass through the fire (for though the word^re be not here in the Hebrew text, yet it is understood by all, and expressed Deut. xviii. 10.) by way of purification, and lustration, as they called it; and >y this means to dedicate them to the worship and service of Moloch. And therefore, being a rite of initiation, whereby parents consecrated their sons and daughters to their deities; we never find it mentioned in Scripture^ but only concerning children (not concerning men and women), whom the Israelites arc forbidden to* dedicate in this manner; which was, in truth, to alienate them from the Lord God of Israel. Now, that this was practised among the ancient pagans as a rite of initiation, appears particularly in the mysteries of Mithra (see Suidas upon that word); and continued long among the Persians, if we may believe Benjamin Tudelensis, in his Itinerarium, p. 214. (See G. Schickardi Tarich, p. 12G, &c.) And this very phrase, make to pass unto (for the word fire, as I said, is not here mentioned), signifies as much as ad partes ejus transire, to be addicted to any one; like that phrase irpoaipx*^* 11 Tf? ^ £f?> ° comeunto God, (Heb. xi. (>.) And so this Hebrew phrase is used Exod. xiii. 12. and may very well be thus understood here, for devoting, or making over their children unto Moloch. For the heathen thought their children Unclean, and obnoxious to the anger of their gods, and consequently in danger to be taken away from them, if they were not thus expiated, as Maimonides tells us, (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 37.) And, on the contrary, they fancied, (as li. Levi Barzelonita observes, Praeccpt. ccviii.) that if only one of their children were thus consecrated to Moloch, all the rest were blessed, and should be prosperous. For ho very nicely takes notice that the Israelites arc forbidden to make any of their seed to pass through the fire: it not being the manner, he saith, to make them all pass. But the idolatrous priests (to make the’pcdple more willing to this service) cunningly persuaded them, that if any one child was offered to Moloch, it procured a blessing upon all; and if there was only one child in a family, thev laid no obligation on thfe parents to do this. The manner of doing it, at this distance of time, cannot certainly be known. Some say their parents carried them through two fires upon their shoulders. Others, that they were led between them by their priests: and so R. Levi in the place beforcnamed; " The father delivered the child to the priest, in the name of the idol; just as it is said concerning legal sacrifices, (xv. 14.) < he shall give them to the priest.’" Others think that the priest, or somebody else, waved the child about in the very flame, while men and women danced round the fire; nay, leaped through the flame. And Joh. Coch. observes, upon the title Sanhedrin, cap. 7. n. 7. that some aro of opinion, the children thus dedicated did not walk, but dance through the fire: which being an emblem and representative of the sun, plainly signified such children were consecrated to that deity. And this comes nearer to the Hebrew phrase, as we translate it, that they did not pass between fires, but through the fire. But which way soever it was done, whether they waved the child through the very fire, and presented it to Moloch, before whom the fire was kindled, or led it between two fires; when they had so done, the priest restored the child to the father again. And in some such way Ahaz made his son " to pass through the fire, according to the abomination of the heathen," (2 Kings xvi. 3.) which cannot be meant of his burn ing him: for Hezekiah his son outlived him, and succeeded in his throne. (See Theodoret in Kings iv. quaest. 47. Maimon. de Idol. cap. G. sect. 14. n. 4 — 7. and Vossius’s notes; with Simeon do Muis in Psal. cvi. 37.) Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God:] By offering their children to Moloch, they in effect rejected and disowned (as I before observed) the Lord God of Israel: which was to pollute his name, by giving that honour, which was due to him alone, unto another God: for he gave them children; who were therefore to bo devoted to none but him. I am tlie Lord.] The only sovereign of the world; who will severely punish the transgressors of this law.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. A detestable wickedness; condemned by all nations, though practised by some lewd persons among them. Insomuch that the apostles of Christ make mention of it with the greatest abhorrence, (Rom. i. 27. 1 Cor. vi. 9. 1 Tim. i. 10.) For not only several of the Roman emperors were infamous upon this account, but some also of the Greek philosophers. This prohibition is repeated, according to Maimonides, in Deut. xxiii. 17. whom our translation follows; there shall not bo a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. But OnKelos interprets that place otherwise.

Leviticus 18:23

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast, &c. i. e. Of any kind whatsoever. Some arc apt to say, what need was there of such prohibitions? when it is so monstrously unnatural, to mix with creatures of a different species from us, as all beasts arc. But such persons do not understand, that this was not only practised in Egypt, (against whose doings he cautions them, ver. 3.) but was also made a piece of religion: women devoted to the worship there used, most filthily submitting to the lust of their sacred goats. So Strabo tells us, lib. vii. p. 802. that at Mendes, where they worshipped Pan, Tpayot ivravOa yvvat^l fityvvv-

Leviticus 18:24

Defile not yourselves in any of these things. This seems to relate particularly to the sins beforementioned, ver. 20—23- (See ver. 26.) For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you.] The seven nations that inhabited the land of Canaan, (mentioned in many places, particularly Deut. vii. 1.) were so overrun with these filthy vices, that God could not bear with them, but ordered them to be destroyed for this very reasoh. Which was a sufficient caution to the Israelites, who came in their room, to keep themselves from such impurities.’

Leviticus 18:25

And the land is defiled. To make the Israelites the more abominate such doings, he represents the very land, in which they dwelt, as sensible of the foul wickedness of the inhabitants; who were a loathsome burden to it, which it could not digest. Therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof upon it.] I am about to punish them upon that account. And the land itself vomiteth oat its inhabitants.] A most eloquent figure, expressing the excessive loathsomeness of their wickedness: which made their own country riauseatethem, and throw them out, as our stomach doth liieat that offends it. The same expression is used, ver. 28. xx. 22. Rev. iii. 16. Theodoret expounds this word by j38cXvcrcr£(v, which signifies their expulsion, as an execrable people. And, indeed, the word vomit in Scripture is used for that which is most detestable and abominable, (Isa. xxviii. 8. Jer. xlviii. 26. Habak. ii. 10.)

Leviticus 18:26

Ye slidll therefore keep my statutes and my judgments. These laws I have given you. (See ver. And shall not commit any of these abominations^] From this word abominations, which the nations God cast out to make room for them, are said to have committed, ver. 27, some conclude, that every one of the foregoing marriages, mentioned in this chapter, are in their own nature sinful; the nations who had no positive law to forbid them, being cast out for such pollutions. But the mere force of this word will not warrant such a conclusion; because several things are called in this book an abomination, which have no moral turpitude in them; but were made so by God’s positive laws, as Mr.Selden observes (lib. v. de Jure Nat. ct Gent. cap. 11. p. 598.) from Lev. xi. 10. 20. 41, 42. where several sorts of creatures are forbidden to be eaten, as abominable: and-tho sacrifice of a bullock or a’ sheep that had a blemish, is said to be an abomination, (Deut. xvii. 1.) not from the very nature of the thing; but from the prohibition which God had made against such offerings. It is most reaSdnable, therefore, to refer the abominations here spoken of to those foul things mentioned in the latter end of this list, (ver. 20—23.) and to those in the beginning, (ver. 7 — 9, &c.) For lying with one!s mother, or mother-in-law, or sister, was always an abomination^ But we cannot say the same of every one of the rest (the law itself following, or rather requiring, in one case, the marriage of a brother’s wife), which were made an abomination by the law 1 now given to the Israelites. ■ Neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you.] That is, any proselyte who had embraced their religion. (See xvii. 8.)

Leviticus 18:27

For all these abominations have the men of the land done, ^which were before you, &c. He admonished them to beware of these abominations, by the example of those who were utterly undone by them. For God is no respecter of persons; but would punish them in the same manner, if they did the same things.

Leviticus 18:28

That the land spew not you out also, &c. As it did at last, (Jer. ix. 19. Ezek. xxxvi. 17.) -

Leviticus 18:29

For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls tltat commit them, shall be cut off from among their people. The multitude of the, offenders shall not keep off the punishment; but they shall suffer by the hand of the judges, or by the hand of God, if they neglect their duty. (See Gen. xvii. 14.)

Leviticus 18:30

Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinances. Live by all these rules which I have now given you.,- That ye commit not any of these abominable custotois; which were committed before you.] By observing every one of these laws, they were kept at a distance from those greater abominations, mentioned in the beginning, and in the latter erid of these prohibitions. The positive laws (or ordinances) now added, being in the nature of ah antemutate, or an outwork; to stop their proceeding to the higher crimes, which were against the law of nature. I am the Lord your God.] As theirLord, he had authority to make these laws: and as their God, they had particular obligations to observe them. Nay, it was a singular token of his love to them, that he prescribed these law’s of chastity and modesty: that thereby he might preserve them a holy people to him, pure and free from those abominable filthinesses, and those indecent conjunctions, that were practised in the world. For, as the ancient rule was, “semper in omnibus conjunctionibus, non solum quod liceat considerandum est, sed et quod honestum est:” in all marriages it is always to be considered, riot merely what is lawful, but ivhat is honest and seemly. Which is more true in the Christian religion, than in any other: for thereby marriage is advanced, to represent the unity that i3 be-, tween Christ and his church. And besides, in contracting marriage, We are ri6t only to have regard to our own conscience (as Joh. Brentius wisely observes, upon the forenamed rule of the ancient law), but to succession also, arid to inheritances. And therefore, “id agendum, quod etborii viri honestum judicant; et a legitimo magistrate permittitur:” that is to be done, both which good men judge to be hottest, and is allowed by lawful governors.