The harmony of natural and positive divine laws

THE CONCORDANCE OF Natural and Positive Divine LAWS.

PART I.

Containing a Brief Explication of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah, And Reduction of them to the Dictates of right Reason.

CHAP. I.

Of Right and Law in General.

WHat is by the ancient Wise Men of Greece,* 1.1 as well Philosophers as Legislators, call'd some∣times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the La∣tines, Ius; and by the English, RIGHT; may not unfitly be defined to be the Rule, Measure, and Index of what is Lawful, and what Vnlawful.

This is consider'd in a twofold sense, first as it is Obligative or binding,* 1.2 and then it is called also Preceptive or Com∣manded: or secondly as it is only Permissive, and then it is named also Concessive. In the former sense it takes place in those things that are commanded or forbidden, as to give every man his due, not to swear falsly, &c. In the later, it is found in those things whereof the use is neither com∣manded nor forbidden, but yet notwith∣standing permitted; as in the act of Buying, Selling, Manumission, in the conditions of Contractors used to be added to their Con∣tracts, and in others of that kind.

But both these kinds of Right belong, either to all Mankind universally,* 1.3 that is, to all Nations, or not to all. That which belongs to all Mankind, or all Nations, is again distinguish'd into Natural and Di∣vine. The Natural is that which is mani∣fest from the light of mans natural reason, or the right use of his faculty of under∣standing and inferring; elegantly defined by Tertullian (Lib. de corona Militis) to be Lex communis in publico Mundi & natu∣ralibus tabulis Scripta; and call'd by the two best of all the Greek Historians, Thu∣cidides (Lib. 4.) and Polibius (Lib. 2.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, communia hominum jura;

and by Iurisconsults, Ius Gentium Primae∣vum. The Divine, that which hath been ordain'd and declar'd by Divine Oracles, committed to writing in the Holy Bible. And this, as well as the Natural, deserves to be acknowledged to be Ius Gentium Vni∣versale, seu omnium Commune. Because all the Laws of Nature, are the Laws of God Himself; because his Positive or Written Laws are no other but Sanctions or Explica∣tions of His Unwritten or Natural: and because whatsoever is Obligatory in either Natural or Divine Universal Right, either from the Nature of the thing it self, or rather from the auctority of the Author of Nature, is by all men held to be immu∣table. Whence that Maxime so often asserted by Philosophers, Theologues, Jurisconsults; Iura Naturalia esse immuta∣bilia. Which cannot be truly said of Right Permissive, whether Natural or Divine, extending to all Mankind. For that this is variously mutable, according to the judgment of Governors, is manifest to every man of common sense, even from the name Permissive, and from dayly expe∣rience, which teaches that Permissive Right admits Obrogations, Abrogations, Temperaments, and Limitations, i. e. Mu∣tations. Whereas the Obligatory, tho' it

admit indeed of Increments or Additions (namely such by which it may be either more firmly, or more decently observed) yet admits no Mutations, by which its force or vertue may be in the least di∣minished.

From the Additions of Obligatory Right,* 1.4 and the Mutations of Permissive, there hath risen up that other Right, which being of less extent, belongs not to all Na∣tions, or to Mankind Universally, but only to some parts of it, and is wont rightly enough (as being put or founded, whether by God, or by men) to be call'd Positive, and sometimes also Civil, and an additament of right reason natural.

* 1.5 This Positive Right may with good reason be distinguished into that which is proper and singular to some one Nation or People coalescent into a Society; (such long ago was that Patria potestas among the Romans, and that which was in use at Athens, mention'd by Demosthenes (in Orat. con∣tra Aristocratem) and that which is com∣mon to many Nations. Which is again distinguish'd into that, to the observation whereof more Nations than one are at once, equally, and in common obliged: and that under which many Nations live, not at the same time, equally, and from

any common Obligation, but singly and by accident. Of this triple Species of Positive Right the first may conveniently be term'd Right simply Civil, as pertinent to some one City or Commonwealth: The Second, Common Right of many Nations, because of the communion of obligation: The third, Civil or Domestick Right of some or many Nations, because the Obli∣gation under which they are, is only domestick and civil to each of them singly, not common to all. For example, the twelve Tables brought from Athens to Rome obtain'd to be of equal force in both Nations, the Attic and the Roman: But from no communion of Obligation or Conjuncti∣on of Peoples. The Right of those Tables therefore might much more commodi∣ously have been call'd, the Civil Right of these Nations, than simply the Right of Both, because this later phrase indicates a Communion.* 1.6 But as for the Common Right of more than one Nation founded upon communion of Obligation; this likewise is to be parted into two branches: viz. that which is Imperative to many Nations or Peoples, and that which is Intervenient. By Imperative, we mean that Right of Nations, which is or ought to be observ'd by many Nations or Peoples, otherwise

subject to divers Governments and Sove∣raign Powers, from an Obligation common indeed to every one of them, and equal, but deriv'd from the Command either of God or of Man. Such was the Right of the Do∣lopes, Magnetes, Phthiotae, Thessali, and other peoples of Graecia, who by a common Obligation receiv'd from the Command of Acrisius King of the Argives, were under the jurisdiction of the Great Amphictyonic Council at Athens. Such also was the sin∣gular Right of War by God prescrib'd not only to the Hebrews, but to the Canaanites too, with whom they were to make War. For both Nations were obliged though di∣versimodè, by the Authority of the Impe∣rant. And when divers Nations convene in like manner into the same Right, by the Authority and Command of the Pope of Rome, that is to be call'd an Imperative Right of those Nations. But we call the In∣tervenient Right of Nations, that which ariseth, not from an Empire common to many, but from intervenient pact or use of Customs, and is wont to be call'd Ius Gentium Secundarium. Heads of this Right are remarkable in the Right of demanding satisfaction for injury, of proclaiming War, of Embassies, of Captives, of Hostages, of Leagues, of Commerces, and other like

things usually intervenient among divers Nations. For what Right soever, in these things, is made up of the Additions that have come to the Universal Obligative Right of Nations, and of the Mutations that have come to the Universal Permissive Right, among divers Nations; all that, and not more, deserves the name of either Imperative or Intervenient. The rest, 'tis evident, retains the name of the Univer∣sal or most ancient Right of Nations. The Caesarian Right also, which is so much in∣sisted upon in the above-mention'd Heads of Intervenient Right, when they come to be discuss'd by Jurisconsults, so far forth as it agrees with the Universal Right of Na∣tions, whether Natural or Divine, is also to be put under the same name: But so far as the Heads and some Decrees of it, which are not of Universal Right, are made use of from the consent of some Nations, with whom they are in force; it is most fitly to be denoted by the Title of Right Intervenient among those Nations. And in fine, so far as the same Caesarean Right is by some single Nations receiv'd into their Forum or Court of Judicature; it is to be named the Civil Right of some Na∣tions, or their Domestick Right.

From this consideration of the nature, various notions,* 1.7 and differences of Right, we may easily be able to distinguish be∣twixt those two things, which many lear∣ned Writers confound, using the words Right and Law promiscuously. For from the Premisses it may be collected, that Right consisteth in liberty of doing or not doing: But Law obligeth to do, or not to do, and therefore Right and Law differ as Liberty and Obligation, which about the same thing are inconsistent.

Hence we may define Natural Right,* 1.8 to be the Liberty, which every man hath of using, according to his own will and pleasure, his power to the conservation of his Nature; and (by consequence) of doing all things that he shall judge to be conducive thereunto: Understanding by Liberty (what that word properly signifies) Absence of external im∣pediments.

And Natural Law,* 1.9 to be a Precept, or General Rule excogitated by reason, by which every man is prohibited to do that which he shall judge to tend to his hurt, harm, or wrong.

By Nature all Wise men understand the Order,* 1.10 Method and Oeconomy instituted and established by God from the beginning or Creation, for Government and Conser∣vation

of the World. All the Laws of Na∣ture therefore are the Laws of God: And that which is called Natural, and Moral, is also Divine Law: as well because Rea∣son, which is the very Law of Nature, is given by God to every man for a rule of his Actions; as because the Precepts of living, which are thence deriv'd, are the very same that are promulged by the Divine Majesty for Laws of the Kingdom of Hea∣ven, by our most blessed Lord Iesus Christ, and by the Holy Prophets, and Apostles; nor is there in Truth any one Branch of Natural or Moral Law, which may not be plainly and fully confirm'd by the Divine Laws delivered in Holy Scripture: as will soon appear to any man who shall atten∣tively read and consider what our Master Hobbs hath with singular judgment writ∣ten in the 4th. Chapter of his Book de Cive: where he confirms all the Laws of Nature by comparing them singly with Divine Precepts given in the Old and New Testa∣ment. Whoever therefore desires clearly to understand the Reasonableness, Equity, Justice, and Utility of Moral Laws, and the true Causes of the Obligation under which he is to observe them, in order to his Felicity, as well in this life, as in that which is to come; ought most seriously

and profoundly to consider the Divine Laws or Precepts recorded in that Collection of Sacred Writings call'd the Bible. Which I, though of Learning inferiour to so Noble an undertaking, and subject by the Nature of my Profession and Studies to various Distractions every day, yet re∣solve with my self to attempt, according to the Module of my weak understanding, not for Information of Others, but for my own private satisfaction.

CHAP. II.

God's Sovereign Right to Dominion over all things in the World.

THat God is by highest Right Sove∣raign Lord,* 1.11 and Monarch of the Universe, having in himself most absolute power both of Legislation, and of Iurisdicti∣on; is sufficiently manifest even from this, That He is sole Author and Creator of the World and all things therein Contain'd, and doth by His most wise Providence per∣petually Conserve and Sustain them. And that He only can relax or remit the Obliga∣tion under which His Subjects are to ob∣serve the Laws by Him given for their

Regimen; and to whom He pleaseth par∣don the Violation of them: is no less manifest from His very Supremacy. So that it belongs not to the right of any Mor∣tal Ruler, either to command what God forbids, or to forbid what God commands. The reason is, because, as in Natural causes, the Inferiour have no force against the effi∣cacy of the Superior; so it is in Moral also. Upon which reason St. Austin seems to have fixt his most discerning Eye, when teaching that the Commands of Kings and Emperors, so far as they contradict any Divine Command, cannot impose an Ob∣ligation to Obedience; advances to his conclusion by the degrees of this Climax or Scale.

If the Curator commands some∣what, it is not to be done if the Procon∣sul forbids. Herein we contemn not the Power, but choose to obey the Higher. Again if the Proconsul bid one thing, and the Emperor injoin the contrary, without doubt you must give obedience to the Emperor. Therefore if the Emperor exact one thing and God another; what is to be done? God is certainly the greater Power: give us leave, O Emperor, to obey Him. From the same reason that most wise Emperor, Marcus Aurelius also said, the Magistrates judge private men;

Princes the Magistrates, and God the Princes:

And Seneca the Tragedian,

Quicquid à vobis minor extimescit, Major hoc vobis Dominus minatur: Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.

For his sense is, Deum esse supra omnes sum∣mates hominum,

Regum timendorum in proprios greges, Reges in ipsos imperium est Iovis.

This Monarchy of God is double,* 1.12 Natu∣ral and Civil. By the Natural, is to be understood the absolute Dominion which from the Creation he hath exercis'd, and at this day doth exercise over all men Na∣turally or by right of His Omnipotency. By the Civil I understand that which in the Holy Scriptures is most frequently named The Kingdom of God, and which is most properly call'd Kingdom, because constitu∣ted by consent of the Hebrew Nation, who by express pact or covenant chose God to be their King: He promising to give them possession of the land of Canaan, and they promising to obey him in all things. But this Kingdom being by Divine Justice, for the disobedience and many rebellions of that

perverse people, long since extinct, they now remain in the same state of subjection with all other Nations, namely under the Natural Empire of the Universal Monarch God.

But (what is worthy our more serious re∣mark and consideration) tho the Common∣wealth of the Hebrews,* 1.13 the form of whose Government may be most properly call'd a Theocraty (for, the Supreme Ruler and Pre∣sident was, not Moses, but Almighty God Himself) hath been, so many Ages past, dissolv'd: yet the most excellent Positive Divine Laws, principally those compre∣hended in the Decalogue, upon which that Empire was founded, have lost nothing of their Sanction and Original force, but still continue Sacred and Obligatory, not only to the posterity of the Hebrews, but also to all the Sons of Men of what Nation soever. Which the Learned Cunaeus hath (de rep. Hebraeor. cap. 1.) with singular judgment observ'd in words of this sense.

The Laws of other Nations, inventions of humane Wit, are enforced only by penal∣ties, which by time, or through the sloath of Governors, lose their terror: but the Iewish Ordinances, being the decrees of the Eternal God, not weakned by ei∣ther continuance of time, or softness of

the Judges, remain still the same; and when the Ax and the Scourge are no longer fear'd, mens minds are neverthe∣less kept in awe by Religion.

And as the Stability of these Laws given by Moses, whom God had consituted His Represen∣tative and Vicegerent in the promulgation of them, to the People of Israel, is by Cunaeus rightly referr'd to the Eternity and Immu∣tability of the Divine decrees: so is it Law∣ful for us to assert the Vniversal Extent of them from this reason, that the Divine Law of the Decalogue is an Explication of the Law Natural written in the mind of e∣very individual man from the beginning; though we must at the same time acknow∣ledge, that the very giving the same in Precept to the Iews, added a new Sancti∣on and Obligation to the former; so that the Iew doing the contrary, not only offended in doing an act simply vitious, but also in doing an act strictly for bidden; because (as St. Paul speaks Rom. 11. 23.) by the trans∣gression of the Law he dishonoureth God.

That this different Obligation of Laws Natural and Divine may be yet more clearly understood,* 1.14 we observe, that the determi∣ning of human actions ariseth, either from their own Nature; as to Honour and Wor∣ship God, is due; to lye, unlawful of it

self: or from the Positive Divine Law. Those of the former sort are referr'd to the Law Natural: Those of the Latter are such as have been prescribed by God, some to single persons, namely to Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Moses, and other servants of God: among all People, to Israel alone God pre∣scribed many Positive Laws pertaining to their Religion, which was the same with their Politie. To all mankind, some things were commanded for a time; as the obser∣vation of the Sabbath, presently after the Creation, as many of the most Learned think; the Law of not eating bloud, or the strangled, after the floud: Others to last for ever, as the institutions of Christ, concerning Excommunication, Baptism, the Supper, &c. if there be any more of that kind. So that one and the same vitious action is more or less offen∣sive to God, according to the determina∣tion of it to be so by Positive Law, or by meer light of reason, i. e. by Law Natural. Because though both Laws be Divine, yet the Obligation of the former is double, of the later single.

Having thus,* 1.15 Briefly indeed, but plain∣ly asserted Gods Right to the Monarchy of the whole World; distinguish'd His Natu∣ral Dominion from His Civil; defined what

is Law Natural, what Positive Divine; and shewn the difference betwixt that and this, as to their Obligation: it seems to me, that I have not only prevented all such erroneous conceptions, which otherwise might arise, either from Ambiguity of the words, Right, Dominion, Government, Law, and Obligation; or from Confusion of various Notions of single things: But also laid the Corner Stone as it were, of the little structure I propose to my self to erect, in order to the stronger defence of my mind against allurements to do evil, i. e. to vio∣late any of God's Laws. For in this illaborate exercise of my pen, I have no other end or design but this; to investigate and examine the perfect Concordance betwixt the Laws of Nature, and Positive Divine Laws, princi∣pally those of the Decalogue; to the end that being at length fully convinced of the double Obligation incumbent on me not to transgress any one of the latter sort, I may in the little remnant of my days do my best devoir to live more inoffensively both to∣ward God, and toward Men. For certainly who is throughly conscious of the justice, equity, and decency of Religious Duties, will be so much the more solicitous to perform them: because the more the understanding is illuminate by the rays of Truth and

Evidence, by so much the less prone it is to be imposed upon by the specious pretexts of Passions, and by consequence the more apt to direct its Handmaid the Will in the right way to Felicity; which consists in the Knowledge, Love, and Veneration of God.

As for Method; the work in which my thoughts are at present versed, will be in bulk so little,* 1.16 I need not be over curious what Form to give it; the Materials so few, I need not be solicitous in what Order to range them to the best advantage. With∣out affectation therefore of ornament from either of those two things, and without farther amusing my self with variety of distinctions (many times of more subtilty than use) I will content my self with tracing, as faithfully as I can, the foot∣steps of Time, or (to speak a little more plainly) reciting and considering the va∣rious Moral Laws, whether meerly Tradi∣tional, or Written, given by God, first to Noah and his little Family, when soon af∣ter the Deluge they began to replenish the Earth with Inhabitants; and then to Mo∣ses, when he constituted and established the most Admirable Common-wealth of the Hebrews, in the same order in which they are said to have been delivered; and

breifly comparing them singly with the Laws of Nature; it being (as I just now profest) my chief scope in this Disquisiti∣on, to find the Concordance betwixt these and those.

CHAP. III.

Of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah in general.

I Begin from the Moral Laws,* 1.17 which, ac∣cording to the Tradition of the Talum∣dic Masters, were given to Noah and his Sons soon after the Floud, and which are thence named Praecepta Noachidarum. Which before I recite, three things not al∣together unworthy to be noted, for our more facile understanding of their authori∣ty and extent, are to be Premis'd. The first, that by the Patronymie Noachidae, the Rabbins unanimously understand all Na∣tions besides the Hebrews, who affect ra∣ther to be call'd Abrahamidae, from the Fa∣ther of all the Faithful, Abraham. The second, that the same Rabbins, firmly be∣lieving, and confidently teaching, that there hath been no Age wherein these Pre∣cepts have not obtained; therefore take

them for the Natural and Common Right of all men. Whence we may receive a glimps of Light whereby to discern, both what they thought of the Religion of the Ancients before the Law, and upon what condition it was lawful for Strangers to re∣side in the Land of Israel, after the Law. For, while the Hebrews were sui juris, i e. lived under no Laws but those of their own Republick, within their territory no dwel∣ling was permitted to any Idolatrous Gen∣tile. But the Stranger, who in the pre∣sence of three men, had taken upon him∣self the seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah, and promised to observe them, was held to be Proselytus Domicilii; and tho' he were neither Circumcised, nor Baptized, might nevertheless, as a Sojourner, dwell among the Hebrews. The third, that tho' in the Mishna or Collection of ancient Traditions made by Rabbi Iehuda, surnamed Haka∣dosh, the Saint (who lived under the three Antonins, Pius, Marcus, and Commodus, and finish'd his Syntagme of the Mishna in the Year 120. from the destruction of the Temple, but of the Christian Aera 190.) there be no memory of these Precepts: yet in the Babylonian Gemara or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Comple∣ment, compos'd by Rab. Ase, about 400 years after the former, they are not only men∣tioned,

but with sacred respect commended to Posterity; so that even our Prince of Anti∣quaries Mr. Selden, thought it a task well worthy his diligence, and admirable Lear∣ning, to explicate and comment upon them in his seven Books de Iure Naturali & Gen∣tium; tho' he had found the Masters them∣selves embroil'd in a kind of Civil War about the number of them, some accounting but six, others seven, others eight, and others again adding two or three more. As appears from the Gemara it self, where (ad titul. Sanhedrin. c. 7. sect. 5.) is found this list of the Precepts.* 1.18 Traditur à Rabbinis, septem Praecepta imperata esse Noachidis; de Iudiciis, de Maledictione Numinis, de Cultu Extraneo, de Revelatione Turpitudinum, de Sanguinis effusione, de Ra∣pina seu furto, de Membro animalis viventis. R. Chanina dixit etiam, de Sanguine vi∣ventis: R. Chidka etiam, de Castratione; R. Simeon etiam, de Magia; R. Eliezer etiam, de Heterogeneorum animalium ad∣missione, arborumque insitione. And from Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (vulgarly Mai∣monides and Rambam) who saith, that the six former were delivered to Adam; that of abstaining from any member of a living Creature, to Noah; that of Circumcision, to Father Abraham; in Halak Melakim, c. 9.

But the Major part of these Learned Com∣mentators upon the Mishna give their suf∣frages to no more than seven. Of those therefore, supposing them to be Genuine and Universal, I choose to speak in this Treatise: preferring these two that belong to Religion or Divine Worship, to the rest which concern the mutual Offices or Duties of Men.

CHAP. IV. The first Precept.

Of Extraneous Worship or Idolatry.

BY Extraneous Worship,* 1.19 the Ancient Egyptians seem to have understood and detested only whatsoever [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] their Parents had not taught them; as may be collected from that Prayer, or Apology rather, used by them at funerals, transla∣ted from the Egyptian tongue into the Greek by Euphantus, and from him transmitted to Posterity by Porphyrius in Lib. de Abstinen∣tia 4. sect. 10. For in this Apology, one of the Overseers of the Obsequies, persona∣ting the defunct, and speaking in his or

her name, pronounces among many other these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Ego enim Deos, quos mihi pa∣rentes commonstrarunt, piè colui quamdiu in hoc saeculo vixi. But the Hebrews thereby understood, that the Worship of any Crea∣ture whatsoever, as well of Angels, and bodies Celestial or Terrestrial, as of Images or Idols, was strictly prohibited. For, to acknowledge and worship one God, and him the true God, was to them, as it is now to us Christians, the fundament of Religion. This difference betwixt the Egyptian and Hebraick Religïon, even Ta∣citus treating of the Iews (Hist. l. 5.) clearly enough observes in these words; Corpora condere, quàm cremare, è more Aegyptio; eademque cura; & de Infernis persuasio. Coelestium contrà: Aegyptii ple∣raque animalia, effigiésque compositas vene∣rantur; Judaei mente solâ, unumque Nu∣men intelligunt; profanos, qui Deûm ima∣gines mortalibus materiis in species homi∣num effingant; Summum illud & aeter∣num, neque mutabile, neque interiturum. Ita∣que nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis sunt.

From the times of Abraham,* 1.20 Idolatry was held by the Hebrews to be of all crimes the greatest, and to be fled from as the worst of plagues: but that which is inter∣dicted in the Decalogue and other Laws, seems to have respect to the manifold Idola∣try of the Egyptians. In the parts of lower Egypt, the highest honour and veneration was given to a sort of Buck-Goats with long shaggy hair, call'd Seirim: and the Isra∣elites placed there, were grown so mad with this Mendesian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they needed a special interdict to restrain them. Which they receiv'd in this form (Lev. c. 17. v. 7.) They shall no more offer their Sa∣crifices [Pilosis] unto Devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. Where not only our Translators, but Maimonides (in Mo∣re Neboch. part 1. cap. 36.) by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, understand Devils appearing to their Votaries in the shape of Hee-Goats with long hair. The same Rabbi (Doct. Perplex. lib. 3. cap. 46. pag. 480.) saith moreover;

Of the Zabians there have been some, who worship'd Daemons, and believ'd them to have the form of Male-Goats, and thence call'd them also Sei∣rim, i. e. Goats.

Which foolish and ri∣diculous opinion was in Moses's time dif∣fused far and wide; as appears from the

above recited Prohibition, non sacrificabunt ultrà sacrificia sua Lasseirim, hircis, i. e. Daemonibus ita appellatis: and was the true cause why the eating of such Goats was Pi∣acular among the Zabians, by which name he understands chiefly the Mendesii, People of a Province in Lower Egypt.

To enumerate all the various kinds of Idolatry used by the Egyptians in the time of the Israelites servitude under them,* 1.21 would require a large Volume. For not contented to adore all the Host of Heaven, by an Idolatry common to them with many other Nations; they were then grown so impiously devout, that they form'd to themselves Deities of all sorts of Animals, four-footed Beasts, Fowls, Fishes, Ser∣pents, Insects, not excepting Plants, Trees, and Herbs. So that it was not without reason that Moses, solicitous to ex∣tirpate the reliques of Idolatry out of the hearts of the infected Israelites, at once, and by one Universal Antidote; gave them this Command (Deut. c. 12. v. 2. & 3.) You shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye shall possess, served their Gods, upon the high Mountains, and upon Hills, and under every green Tree. And you shall overthrow their Altars, and break their Pillars, and burn their Groves

with fire, and hew down the graven Images of their Gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Yea more, he made it unlawful for them either to enter into a League of what kind soever with any people serving Idols intra solum Israeliticum; or to have conversation, or commerce with them. (Exod. cap. 34. ver. 15. and Deut. cap. 7. ver. 2.)

Before the Law,* 1.22 Iacob the Patriarch erected [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cippum, statum] a pillar, (Gen. 35. 14.) and Moses, before the Ta∣bernacle was built, rais'd an Altar, and twelve Titles (Exod. 24. 4.) But lest from these conspicuous examples occasion might be given to Idolatry, the Law for∣bid such things also. (Levit. 26. 1.)

But these Laws, peculiar to the Israelites, did not per se oblige a Noachid or stranger; to whom living without the Hebrew Terri∣tory, it was lawful to raise such Pillars, Altars, Monuments, &c. at his pleasure; provided he did it not in Cultum Extraneum: within the Promis'd Land, lest from such example encouragement might be taken for Idolatry, it was no more permitted to the Stranger, than to an Israelite, either to set up a Statue, or plant a Grove, or make Images, or do any other thing of that kind, no not meerly for ornament sake;

as Mr. Selden hath truly observ'd (De Iure Naturali & Gentium lib. 2. c. 6.) The Rabbins hold a Humane Image protuberant to be unlawful: but not that which is made in plano, flat, or in concavo, in a hollow. Of Caelestial bodies neither pro∣minent, nor plane made for ornament, were lawful; but made for teaching or learning, as in Diagrams Astronomical, and the like, they were permitted. Other figures, as well an Israelite, as a Noachid might form as they pleas'd.

Of the same respect is that interdict (Deut.* 1.23 7. 26.) Non inferes quidpiam ex idolo in domum tuam, Thou shalt not bring (as our Translation renders it) an abomination into thy house: which the Iewish Masters thus interpret. To have, use and enjoy an image made only for ornament, was Law∣ful, the same being part of domestick furni∣ture: but one made by a Gentile for wor∣ship sake, was not to be admitted into promiscuous use with other utensils; nor was it permitted, either to possess, or to sell Victims, Oblations, Vessels, instru∣ments consecrated to idolatrous uses. Nor was any thing, whose use had been inter∣dicted, to be retain'd; but either burned, or broken in pieces, and thrown into the Air, River or Sea: nay the very ashes or

coals thereof were an abomination. But an Idol it self, if melted or broken in pie∣ces and applied to common uses by a Gentile, before it came into the possession of an Is∣raelite, might be kept, and among other utensils commodious to life used: because the liquation, comminution, and appli∣cation thereof to common uses by the Gen∣tile, was a manifest Resecration or Solu∣tion of the Religion of it: and the Idol be∣ing once resecrate, all furniture and uten∣sils belonging to it, are so too. But what∣soever has not been made by Man, as a Mountain, Fountain, River, four-footed Beast, and other Terrestrial things, the works of Nature, tho' worship'd as an Idol; the use and possession thereof was not prohibited. A Grove or Tree planted by a Gentile for Worship, or only to sha∣dow, or adorn an Idol was so abominable, that to an Israelite, it was unlawful either to shelter himself from heat, cold, rain or wind under the boughs of it; or to pass through it, if there were any other way; or to eat the Eggs or Young of Birds build∣ing their nest in the branches of it; to bring home the wood for building, in∣struments of agriculture, or fewel, or to eat any bread or meat dress'd with fire made of the wood; or to wear cloth wo∣ven

with a shuttle of the wood; or to make use of the ashes. And yet the use of herbs growing there, was not unlaw∣ful; because the soil it self was unpolu∣ted. Now of all these things, whatever was unlawful to an Israelite to do, or pos∣sess; the same was equally unlawful to a Pro∣selyte of the House. And this is a Summary of the most learned Rabbins exposition of this first Precept against Extraneous Wor∣ship or Idolatry.

CHAP. V. The second Precept.

Of Malediction of the Most Holy Name, or Blasphemy.

SO agreeable is this Interdict to the Law of Nature or Light of Reason,* 1.24 that even the old Egyptians themselves, tho' overspread with the Leprosie of Po∣lytheism, acknowledged themselves under a most strict Obligation punctually to observe it: as may be inferr'd from hence, that Hermippus, in the life of Pythagoras, whose doctrines were all deriv'd from Egypt, among many other Statutes of that Sect

concerning the Soul's purification, &c. sets down this for one; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to abstain from all Blasphemy.

To the Israelites God expresly gives the same. (Lev. 22. 32.) Keep my Command∣ments and do them;* 1.25 I am the Lord; ye shall not prophane my Holy Name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel. Now among the Hebrews, a more diligent observation of the Law is call'd Sanctification of the Divine Name: and on the contrary, to perpetrate any thing against the Law, is call'd Prophanation of it; as Mr. Selden hath out of the Princes of their Rabbins judiciously remark'd, de Iure Natur. & Gent. lib. 2. cap. 10. The more notable Interdicts of Idolatry, Ho∣micide, Unlawful Coition, were not to be violated, tho' to avoid the danger of imminent Death: for of a less danger no account is made. In time of publick per∣secution, life was not to be redeem'd by violation of any Law. At another time, it was sufficient to violation of the Law, to obey the person impellent by menaces of Death, rather than to be kill'd; at least if the act turn'd to the emolument of the impellent: as where work was to be done for him upon the Sabbath, or if ten or more Hebrews were not present. To a

sick man it was lawful to eat things prohi∣bited, to deliver himself from death. Far∣ther, a sin against more establish'd customs or manners and humane society, tho' not against the Law, is a Prophanation of the Holy Name. Nor is such Prophanation in any case observ'd to have been fully remit∣ted to any man before the very moment of death; according to that of Isai. cap. 22. ver. 14. This iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pollu∣tion or Prophanation of the Divine Name, seems to be call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Apostle, (Rom. 2. 24.) but is not that which is in∣terdicted to the Noachid here in this second Precept; and Naaman the Syrian cleans'd from the Leprosie (2. of Kings c. 5. v. 18.) is brought for an Example. The difference is clearly shewn by Mr. Selden (de Iur. Nat. & Gent. lib. 2. cap. 11.) whose words therefore I here faithfully translate.

The Blasphemy or Malediction by this Precept forbidden,* 1.26 is that most Horrible Wickedness [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Execration of the Divine Name, when any reproach and audacious contumely is openly and malici∣ously thrown forth against God; such as was cast forth by those most impious miscre∣ants, the son of Shelomith (Levit. 24.) and Rabshakeh's (Kings 2. ch. 18. v. 30.)

Also when the Divine Majesty is understood to be knowingly and proudly denied, from the consequence of any Act or Profession: as when any man, not from Ignorance, but out of Malapertness and Pride, profes∣seth and endeavors to perswade others, that Idolatry is to be imbraced; this man, tho' he hath himself worship'd no Idol, denies God by consequence, and is to be held a Blasphemer. And against this most execrable impiety is turned the edge of that Sacred Law (Numb. 15. 30.) But the Soul that doth ought presumptuously, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] with an high hand, whether he be born in the Land, or a Stran∣ger [ex Proselytis, tam Domicilii quam Justiciae] the same reproacheth the Lord; and that Soul shall be cut off from among his People. Upon which Law Maimonides commenting (More Neboch. pa. 3. c. 41.) saith;

No man so sinneth, but he into whose Soul another opinion, that is re∣pugnant to the Law, hath crept. The Scripture there speaks also de Cultu Extra∣neo, because that is opposite to the very foundation of the Law.

So that a Bals∣phemer is equal to an Idolater, both deny∣ing the fundamental Principle of all Religi∣on. Other sins committed from error, or ignorance, or force of concupiscence or

pravity of manners, were to be expiated by certain Sacrifices, or corrected by other sorts of punishments: Idolatry and Blasphemy always to be punished by Exci∣sion or cutting off, to be inflicted by Divine Vengeance; but Blasphemy also by stoning, (Levit. 24. 16.) And these explications of the Hebrew Doctors seem to me suffici∣ent to evince the equal Obligation of these two Precepts concerning Divine Worship, and common to the Noachides with the Is∣raelites. I proceed therefore to the rest, which concern the mutual offices of Men.

CHAP. VI. The third Precept.

Of Spilling Blood or Homicide.

THat this Precept also was contain'd in the Moral Discipline of the Ol•• Egyptians,* 1.27 is evident from the precedent Apology of the Overseer of the Obsequie•• in Sacred use among them, in which he•• in the name of the defuntct, makes thi•• profession, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Of other men I have kill'd none. And to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Noachid belongs that of Gen. 9. 5. I wi••••

require your blood of your lives. Which is to be understood of incruent or bloodless Ho∣micide also of what kind soever. Some in∣terpret it of Suicide or Self-murder. Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed: not by judgment pronounced in Court, but by Natural Right of Talion, or like for like. And this Interdict is renewed in the Decalogue, Thou shalt do no Murder; and elsewhere more than once in the Mosaic body of the Law.

Philo the Jew (de Leg. special. Praecept. 6.* 1.28 & 7.) saith, the Exposing of Infants is a∣mong many Nations, by reason of their native inhumanity, a vulgar impeity. To the Hebrews it was expresly forbidden, ei∣ther to extingusih a Foetus in the Womb, or to expose Children. And Tacitus could say, (Hist. lib. 5.) Augendae multitudini consu∣litur. Nam & necare quenquam ex gnatis ne∣fas. Egyptians also, if we believe the Re∣cords of Diodorus the Sicilian, the best of Antiquaries, (lib. 1. p. 51.) were obliged to nourish all their Infants, for increase of Mankind, which highly conduceth to the Felicity of their Countrey.

Voluntary or wilful Murder was,* 1.29 ex fo∣••ensi sententiâ, to be punish'd by the Sword: but Philo Iudaeus (de Leg. special. p. 617.) saith, the Murderer was to be suspended or

hanged upon a Gibbet. He that killeth any Man, saith Moses (Levit. 24. 21.) shall be put to Death. Ye shall have one manner of Law, as well for the Stran∣ger (or Proselyte, of Iustice, not of the House) as for one born in your own Coun∣try. For so the Masters understand this Text: And as for the punishment of this sort of Homicide; they have some diffe∣rences betwixt the Gentiles living within the Territories of the Israelites, and the Natives and Proselytes ritely circumcised. Again Moses saith (Numb. 35. 21.) the Revenger of blood shall slay the Murderer, when he meeteth him [without any place of Refuge.] Now the Right of the Revenger of blood, in the Territories of the Is∣raelites, belonged no less to the Gentiles and Proselytes of the House, than to the Hebrews themselves, but whether it ob∣tained among the Noachides before the Law, or among the Egyptians, is uncertain: but that Name seems to derive it self, not so much from the Mosaic Constitution, as from a Custom more Ancient. However, most cer∣tain it is, that the Revenger of Blood was the next Heir of the Slain.

Homicide by chance,* 1.30 or error, had right of Sanctuary. Of which Right, or Cities of Refuge, the Sacred Law hath ordain'd

many things (Numb. 35.) and the Ma∣sters deliver many necessary to the Inter∣pretation of the Law. To a Gentile, the Priviledge of Sanctuary did not appertain; he was Obnoxious to the Revenger of blood: nor to a Proselyte of the House, in the casual slaughter of one Circumcised; but he enjoy'd the Right of Asyle, when he had by chance slain another of his own kind or quality; as Mr, Selden hath curi∣ously collected (de Iur. Nat. & Gent. l. 4. ••. 2.) Who in the next Chapter proceeds to the Interpretation of divers other Nice∣ties concerning this Precept, from the Com∣mentraries of the Iewish Masters of greatest estimation and authority.

Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy Neighbour,* 1.31 saith Moses (Levit. 19. 16.) that is, thou shalt not stand Idle, when danger of Death is imminent over one of thy own Kind, Stock or Nation; but shalt help to deliver him. The force of an Aggressor with purpose to kill, also of a Buggerer, of an Adulterer, of an In∣testuous Person, was to be hinder'd, tho' with loss of life, that they might not com∣mit sin. And such Wicked Force was also ••o be punish'd by Private Force; if it could ••e done, by blows (not Mortal) or by ••utting off a Member; if not, rather than

fail, even by killing. If an Israelite shall have delivered an Israelite, or his goods, into the Power of a Gentile, whether by fraud or by force: it was Lawful either to slay him, or to give him up into the power of a Gentile, that he might not betray or deliver up others in like manner. To kill an Israelite a Prevaricator (i. e. a Wor∣shipper of Idols, or a Sinner in Contempt of the Divine Majesty) as also an Epicure∣an (i. e. an Apostate denying the Holy Law and the Prophesies) it was Lawful to any other Israelite to kill him, either in Publick with the Sword, or by Strata∣gem. For by his Prevarication and Aposta∣cy, he is depriv'd of the Title and Privi∣ledge of a Neighbour, i. e. he hath ceased to be an Israelite. By fraud to Circum∣vent a Gentile an Idolater, to his destructi∣on, was not Lawful: and yet notwithstanding the Law doth not command to deliver him from imminent death, seeing he is not a Neighbour.

Other kinds of Homicide there were,* 1.32 permitted to private men. A Thief in the Night breaking into a House Inhabited, might be impunely slain. Which is also in the Platonick Laws, and in those of the twelve Tables. In Child-birth, it was Lawful, for the Mothers preservation, to

extinguish the Foetus in her Womb: but not vice versâ. For Worshipping the Calf, three Thousand were slain, not Twenty-three Thousand as the Vulgar. From the notorious Example of Phinehas the Son of Eleazar (Numb. 25. 11.) was deriv'd Ius Zelotarum, the Right of Zelots, by which it was lawful for private Men led by Pious Zeal, whensoever an Israelite, openly and before at least ten Israelites, violated the Sanctity of the Divine Majesty, Temple, or Nation, to punish the wickedness in the same moment by beating, wounding, and even by slaying the Offender persevering in his sin. By this receiv'd Right of Zelots, Mattathias (Macchab. lib. 1. cap. 2. v. 24.) kill'd a Iew going to sacrifice after the Grecian rite: and our Lord Iesus Christ himself, as a private Person, by whipping drove out Money-Changers and Buyers and Sellers Violating the Sanctity of the Tem∣ple, without reprehension; because they had prophanely made the House of Prayer a Den of Thieves: and his Disciples refer'd this fact of their Lord to Zeal of thy House. Under pretext of the same Right, the Iews in their Assembly ran upon our Lord Himself as guilty of Blasphemy, and smote him on the Face with their hands: and a Servant of the High Priest struck him pre∣sently,

because he seem'd, by an irreverent answer, to have violated the Sanctity of the High Priest. In fine, under the same pretext, St. Stephen was stoned to death, and a Conspiracy undertaken against St. Paul; and at length in the Iewish War sprang up from the same root a power of horrid Villanies and dire Mischiefs.

From this Universal Interdict of Homi∣cide,* 1.33 what we read of Abraham's readiness to immolate his Son Isaac, seems very much to derogate: and some there are, who think it to have been lawful to the Hebrews, from the Sacred Law de Anathemate, of a thing vowed or devoted, by vo∣luntary Consecration, to devote to death their Sons and Servants whom they had in their power; and they affirm, that Iephtha offer'd up his devoted Daugh∣ter in Sacrifice. Yea Iosephus (Antiq. l. 5. c. 9.) professeth himself to be of this opini∣on: but hath been clearly convicted of Error therein by his Rival in the search of the Iewish Antiquities, our incomparable Selden; who (de Iur. Nat. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 11.) from Rabbi Kimchi's commenta∣ries, and the very words of the Sacred Text, concludes most rationally, that Iephtha, in accomplishment of his Vow,

built a house for his Daughter in a solitary place, and brought her into it; where she remain'd during life secluded from the Sons of Men, and from all secular affairs; and it was a Statute in Israel, that the Daugh∣ters of Israel should yearly visit her, to condole her perpetual Virginity. The Fa∣ther indeed is said to have deplored the cru∣elty of his Vow, and rent his Garments for sorrow: but not because he thought him∣self thereby bound to immolate her, but because he had cut off all hope of Issue from her. So that she seems to have been rather the first Nun in the World, not an Exam∣ple of a Right granted, by the Law de Anathemate, to the Iews of consecrating or devoting their Children to death. For Humane slaughter was by no Right of the Hebrews permitted, unless in case of legi∣timate punishment, and of just War: and then too the very Act of Killing was in it self reputed so hateful and impure, that it required solemn lustration of the Actor, by virtue of this Command (Numb. 31. 19.) Whoever hath kill'd any Man [Malefactor justly condemned, or Enemy in War] and whoever hath touch'd a dead body, let him be purified, as well ye as your captives.

CHAP. VII. The fourth Precept.

Of Uncovering Nakedness, or Vnlawful Copulation.

OF Matrimony both the Original,* 1.34 and the necessity are derived from the very Creation. Male and Female created He them; and God Blessed them, and said to them, be fruitful, and mul∣tiply, and replenish the Earth. Which was repeated to the Sons of Noah soon after the Deluge. From Natural Right, was interdicted Coition with Mother, with Step-Mother, with Anothers Wife, with a Sister of the same Venter, with a Male, with a Beast saith Mr. Selden (de Iure Nat. & Gent. lib. 5. cap. 1.) To the Children of Adam indeed it was of absolute necessity not to observe the fourth branch of this Natural Inter∣dict, because the Males had no other Females, with whom to conjoin them∣selves, besides their Uterine Sisters: but all the rest have at all times been

unlawful.* 1.35 Nevertheless, after Mankind had been sufficiently multiplied, even till the Law was given, the Germane Sister, i. e. of the Paternal blood only, was not interdicted to the Brother. Abra∣ham saith of Sarah, in truth she is my Sister. For she is Daughter of my Father, tho' not of my Mother; and she became my Wife. And thence they collect, (that I may repeat the words of Clement of Alex∣andria, Stromat. 2.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That Uterine Sisters ought not to be taken for Wives. Also Solon the Athenian permitted the Marriage of Sisters begotten by the same Father, not those born of the same Mother; as Philo Iudae∣us (de Spec. leg. p. 602.) delivers. And he had reason, more perhaps than he or any man else then understood. For if the curious Observations of Dr. Harvey, De Graaf, Swammerdam, and other Anatomists of this our Age be true (as doubtless they are) the Father contributes much less to the generation of the Foetus, than the Mo∣ther doth. He gives only fecundity to the Egg, in and of which pre-existent in her Ovary the Foetus is formed: she gives the seminal matter, the Augmenting Nourish∣ment, the cherishing Warmth, and the se∣cure Closet in which it is conserved and

brought to perfection. And therefore the Consanguinity betwixt Brothers and Sisters of the same Womb seems to be Naturally greater than betwixt those born of divers Mothers, but of the same Father: and by consequence, the Interdict of Marriage to those, is founded upon more of Natu∣ral Right. But this reason being occult to Solon, I am inclin'd to think, that in making this Law against Marriage of Bro∣ther and Sister Uterine, either he follow'd the example of the Hebrews, or had re∣spect to this Proverbial saying, the Mo∣ther's is still the surest side.* 1.36 To which the Lacedemonian Lawgiver seems to have given no belief at all. For he on the con∣trary (as Philo the most Learned Iew hath recorded in the place just now cited) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, permitted marriage to Vternine Brother and Sister, not to those of the same Father: persuaded perhaps, that the Se∣minal Principle deriv'd from the Father is more Energetick, than that proceeding from the Mother, in the Work of Form∣ing Organizing,* 1.37 Augmenting, and Perfecting the Faetus. But among the Egyptians, by a con∣stitution or custom different from all these here mention'd, it was

free to the Brother to marry the Sister either of the whole or the half blood, El∣der or Younger, or Equal; for sometimes Brother and Sister are born Twins. And this licence in process of time descended al∣so to the Grecians. For the Example drawn form Isis, obtain'd among the Macedonians. Arsinöe had Ptolomeus (thence named) Philadelphus, both Brother and Husband. Yea, to honest this incestuous use by yet more illustrious Examples, they say, the Gods themselves affected such Marriages, as most Divine;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Sic & Deorum sacra Connubia confecta sunt, saith Theocritus (Idyll. 18. v. 130.) and Ovid (Metam. l. 9. v. 498.)

—Dii nempe suas habuere sorores; Vt Saturnus Opim junctam sibi sanguine duxit; Oceanus Tethyn, Iunonem Rector Olympi.

So that even from hence we may un∣derstand, that the Deities of the West were traduced from Egypt. Hence al∣so we understand, why Philadelphus and Arsinöe, by a kind of second Marriage [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of Deification, obtain the Title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Brother and Sister Gods, in Coins and Marbles.

Among the Persians,* 1.38 from the late ex∣ample of Cambyses, the like Marriages were introduced; as Herodian (l. 3. c. 31.) hath transmitted to Posterity.

Antiochus Soter languishing with Love of Stratonice his Step-Mother, obtain'd her, even by his Fathers consent, for his Wife; by an example sufficiently rare: as Lucian (de Dea Syria) observes. But this Matrimony was not unlawful by the Right of the East, rather than by that of Greece. In a word all kind of Incest, Adul∣tery, yea [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Sodomy it self were by some of the Ancients, and those too Renowned for Wisedom, accounted among things indifferent. Concerning which Sextus Empiricus (l. 3. c. 24.) deserves above all others to be con∣sulted.

As for the Hebrew Constitutions concern∣ing Matrimony,* 1.39 the various degrees of Consanguinity, in which it was interdict∣ed to the Israelites to Marry, are either expresly set down by the Writer of the Books of Moses in the eighteenth Chap∣ter of Levit. or may be from thence by easie and familiar reasoning inferr'd; as the Prohibition of Wedlock with the own Daughter may be by an argument à majo∣ri ad minus, inferr'd from the Interdict of

contracting Matrimony with the Wifes Niece, &c.

The Custom of Marrying the Wife of the Brother deceas'd without issue,* 1.40 seems to be of remotest Antiquity. For Iuda the Patriarch said to his son Onan (who died before the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt) go in unto thy Brothers Wife, and [jure Leviri] marry her, and raise up Seed to thy Brother (Gen. 38. 8.) And this Right Moses long after by a singular Law confirm'd (Deut. 25. 5.) Which our Immortal Selden occasionally considering (Vxor. Ebr. l. 1. c. 13.) observes, that some of the Masters hotly contend, that the cause and mystery of this Marriage of the surviving Brother with the Relict of the Brother defunct, is to be fetch'd from the opinion of a Metempsychosis or Transmigra∣tion of the Soul: which tho' commonly fathered upon Pythagoras, was of much higher Antiquity, and born in Egypt. Where also this jus Leviri obtain'd,* 1.41 from their antique Laws deriv'd down to the times of the Emperor Zeno. Who (in Iustiniani Cod. l. 5. tit. 6. leg. 8.) saith;

The Egyptians therefore by matrimony conjoyned to themselves the Widows of their Brethren, because they were said to remain Virgins after the former Hus∣band's

death; for they thought, that when the Man and Wife had not con∣join'd bodies, the marriage seem'd not contracted, according to the mind of some Law-makers.

From the reason then, which the Egyptians render of this Law, it appears plainly, that among them the Nuptial Contract was not per∣fect without carnal knowledge. Nor was it indeed otherwise among the He∣brews before the Law: but after, from the Civil Right of that Nation, Con∣sent alone sufficed to contracting Matri∣mony.

Before the Law,* 1.42 Women unmarried among the Hebrews might freely per∣mit the use of their Bodies to whom they pleas'd: and of the Egyptians Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhon. l. 3. c. 24. p. 152.) saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the same was esteem'd Honourable by many of the Egyptians. This the Law expresly prohibits (Deut. 23. 17.) There shall be no Whore of the Daughters of Israel.

Before the Law,* 1.43 the Matrimonial pact remain'd firm and stable, so long as both Parties continued in consent: but was, either Party renouncing, dissolved. Among the Athenians, the man had jus ejiciendi Vxorem, and the Woman jus relinquendi

Maritum; as Pollux (l. 3. c. 3. sect. 5.) records. The Law of Moses introduced the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Bill of divorce, that the matter might be brought before the Judges the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Wifes dereliction or leaving of the Husband, was long after induced by Salome, Sister of Herod the Great, in favour of her Sex; as Iosephus (Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 11.)

Before the Law,* 1.44 Lamech, Abraham, Iacob, Esau, enjoy'd the pleasure of variety in many Wives: which was permitted also by the Law. Elkanah had two, David more, Solomon Seven Hundred Princesses, besides Three Hundred Concubines, tho' it were forbidden to the King to multiply Wives, beyond the number (say the Masters) of Eighteen. Iust so many Wives Rehoboam had (2 Chron. c. 11. v. 21.) and Io∣sephus (Antiq. l. 8. c. 3.) calls them Le∣gitimate Wives. Of this License of Poly∣gamy among the Hebrews, Maimonides (in Halach Ishoth c. 14.) hath this Me∣moir.

It is lawful to Marry many Wives, even a Hundred, either all at one time, or one after another; nor hath the Wife married before, any power of hin∣d'ring the Husband herein: provided he be of Estate sufficient to maintain them all in Food and Raiment, according to

their Degree and Quality; and of strength of body sufficient to pay to each one her conjugal debt,

i. e. once in a week at least to each, nor to run upon the score above a month with any one. Con∣cerning the Oeconomy of these Ancient Poly∣gamists, and how they preserved peace and quiet in their Families, or Seraglio's ra∣ther; Epiphanius (Haeres. 80.) hath this brief Remark; Tametsi quidam è Patribus duas & tres Vxores habuerunt, non tamen in una domo Vxores fuerunt. They kept them in several houses, or several apart∣ments at least, to prevent jealousy. By the Law of Moses, the High-Priest was obliged to take a Wife in her Virginity, (Levit 21. 13.) and because a Wife, in the singular number, the Masters, thence conclude, that he ought to have but one.

Besides that singular Law (Deut. 21. 10.)* 1.45 by which Liberty was indulged to an He∣brew Souldier of lying once before Marri∣age with a Captive Gentile; the Hebrews had no Right at all given them, either of Coition, or Matrimony with Strangers, not yet admitted into Iudaism: nor was the same right granted to all Proselytes of Marriage with Hebrews. After Cir∣cumcision was instituted among the He∣brews,

before their entrance into Egypt, the Sons of Iacob say to Sichem (Gen. 34. 14.) We cannot do this thing, to give our Sister to one that is Vncircumcised: for that were a reproach to us. Of the Gentiles, Moses saith, Thou shalt not Contract Assini∣ty with them: thy Daughter thou shalt not give to his Son, nor shalt thou take his Daughter unto thy Son (Deut. 7. 3.) Which Law extends, not only to the Seven Na∣tions there named, but also to all Uncir∣cumcised Nations whatsoever. Of the Circumcised, the Law Inroll'd (Deut 23. 7.) decrees far otherwise. Now the Egyp∣tians were Circumcised, so were the Idu∣means by Esau (call'd also Edom) and the Ishmaelites by their Father Ishmael, whom Abraham himself Circumcised. With the Nephews and Nieces therefore of Proselytes of Egyptians or Idumeans, it was permit∣ted to the Israelites to Marry: and Solomon's Nuptial Contract with an Egyptian Prose∣lyte, Daughter of King Pharaoh, was Legitimate.

By the Mosaic Law (Deut. 23. 1. & 2.)* 1.46 neither Eunuch, nor Bastard might enter into the Congregation of the Lord. The Marriages of such therefore were Interdicted, even to the Tenth Generation. Of Eunuchs, because they were unfit for Generation:

of Bastards, because of the Infamy of their Birth, the Ignominy of the Parents sin descending to their Posterity. Never∣theless the Manzers or Bastards were not Prohibited to Contract Matrimony with either Proselytes of Justice, or Liber∣tines. If a Maid-Servant, being a Prose∣lyte, were join'd to a Manzer, the Son born of her of Servile Condition, was, by Manumission, accounted a Libertine: and by such Emendation of his Birth, both he and his Posterity put off the Ignomini∣ous name of Bastard, and enjoy'd equal Right with Proselytes.

An Ingenuous (i. e. a Free-born) Gen∣tile* 1.47 admitted into Iudaism, was call'd a Proselyte of Iustice; a Servant, in the ve∣ry Act of his admission made Free, was call'd a Libertine: the same Civil Regene∣ration, and blotting out of former Cogna∣tion; the same Participation of the Iudaic Right and Name; the same retention of Peregrinity in their Posterity, were com∣mon to both. Also to both Proselytes and Libertines, Marriages with either For∣reigners, or Servants, were no less unlaw∣ful, than to Natives; among themselves, of whatsoever Nation, they might freely Inter-Marry: nor did the diversly Inter∣dicted Marriages with the aforesaid Nations

belong to them, but to the Originaries only. When a Gentile was made a Prose∣lyte; or a Servant, a Libertine; all his former Consanguinity ceased, and was ip∣so facto utterly extinguished: so that his Marriage with his Sister or Mother was not Incestuous. Among the Sons of a Fe∣male Proselyte was no Fraternity, unless both were as well Conceiv'd as Born in Sanctity, i. e. after her Conversion and Ad∣mission into Judaism. Thamar (the Ma∣sters say) was David's Daughter Con∣ceiv'd of Maacha, a Captive and yet a Gen∣tile; and Amnon was his Son by his Wife Ahinoam: Thamar then was Germane Si∣ster to Amnon in respect of Blood, but not by Right of Regeneration. She therefore saith to Amnon Ravishing her, Nay my Brother, do not Force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel.—but speak ra∣ther to the King for he will not withhold me from thee. And she spake with understanding. For the Consanguinity that was betwixt her and Amnon, being by her Mother's Prosely∣tism taken away, the Marriage was lawful.

A Handmaid receiv'd into Iudaism,* 1.48 her servitude retain'd, was not Ritely capable of Ma∣trimonial Right; as Mr. Selden (de Iur. Nat, & Gent. l. 5. c. 17.)

and Iosephus (Antiq. l. 4. c. 8.) but to one Manumitted, i. e. made Free, as having obtain'd entire Freedom, Marriage was permitted. With a Handmaid partly a Libertine, the whole Price of her Liberty not yet Paid, Espousals were neither void, nor of full force. (Levit. 19. 20.) Who∣soever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a Bondmaid betrothed to an Husband, and not at all Redeemed, nor Freedom given her; she shall be Scourged: they shall not be put to death, because she was not Free. Death therefore, the Vltimum Supplicium, was not to be inflicted upon her, as in the case of Adultery, because Matrimony with a Maid not perfectly Redeemed, or made Free, was not absolute.

A Proselyte Man-Servant,* 1.49 his servitude retain'd, was not participant of Civil Right (extra Sacra:) nor was there among such, either any respect of Cognation, or any Legitimation of Espousals. The Maid-Ser∣vant join'd by the Master to the Man-Servant, ut in fructu prolem haberet; was not his Wife, but his Contubernali••, Cham∣ber or Bed-fellow: and this Contubernium or Bed-fellowship was dissolved by the same Master at his Pleasure; nor was there, as to this matter, any thing of difference be∣twixt such Servants, and Beasts inured to

labour in Carriage or Tillage. But the more Humane and Mild Doctrine of Christianity at length remitted this ex∣tream rigor of the Iewish Law, and in∣troduced the Right de Servorum Conjugio, by Canon Law, or Right Pontifical. By which also Marriage is Interdicted even to the Seventh Degree of Consanguinity (Caus. 25. q. 2. & 3.) according to the Names of Cognations, in the Cesarean Law, to which Inheritances and Guar∣dianships are ascribed. But in the Coun∣cil of Lateran, Anno Dom. 1215. It was Decreed (cap. 50.) That Prohibition of Matrimony exceed not the Fourth De∣gree of Consanguinity and Affinity. And in England (by Statute 32. of Hen. 8. c. 38.) the Levitical Constitutions concerning de∣grees of Kindred to be excluded from Con∣tract Matrimonial, are restored.

CHAP. VIII. The fifth Precept.

Concerning Theft and Rapine.

IF by this Precept,* 1.50 not only the taking away, whether Privily or by Open Force, from another any thing that is Rightfully his, but also the interring up∣on another any Loss or Detriment whate∣ver, contrary to Right and the common Faith of Mankind, be (as certainly it is) Interdicted: then am I well assured, that the Egyptians of Old were under an Obligation to observe it. For, reflecting upon the Apology made by the Overseer of the Solemn Funeral Rites used among them, in the name of the Defunct, more than once above-mention'd; I therein find these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, neque eos deposito defraudavi, nor have I defrauded them of any thing committed to my trust. And that Theft, which properly is Clan∣destine Stealing, was among them unlaw∣ful, is sufficiently manifest, even from the Memorable Example of the Thief in He∣rodotus (lib. 2. c. 22.) who plundering

King Rhampsmites's Treasury, and being at length catch'd in a Snare or Trap by the Neck, chose rather to have his Head cut off, than to be detected. As for Robbery indeed, they had a Singular Law, yet ex∣tant in the most Faithful Monuments of Diodorus Siculus (lib. 1. p. 50.) which was this:

He gave Command, that they who would addict themselves to Robbery, should profess their Names [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] before the Prince of Thieves, and solemnly promise to bring to him so soon as they could, whatever they had Stolen; and that the Persons robbed should likewise send to him in a written Bill or Ticket a particular account of the things they had lost, with men∣tion also of the place where, and of the Day and Hour when they were taken from them. By which Means the Goods being easily found, the Loser recovered what was his own, Paying the Fourth part of the Real Value thereof. For since it seems Impossible, that all men should abstain from Stealing, the Maker of this Law found out a way, by which the whole thing Stolen might be Redeem'd for a small part of the Price of it.

By Virtue of this Natural Interdict,* 1.51 as the Talmudists (Gem. Bab. tit. Sanhed. c. 7.) affirm;

Every one of the Sons of Noah was Obnoxious to Punishment, if he had stolen any thing from Gentile or Isra∣elite, either Clancularly or Openly, Goods or Persons; or detained Wages from an Hireling, or done ought of that kind.

In the Mosaic Law,* 1.52 Theft is simply for∣bidden more than once; in the Decalogue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt not Steal: as of Goods, so of Men, as well Servants, as Free. (Exod. 21. 16.) He that stealeth a Man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Which was Interdicted also by the Roman Law (F. F. de furtis 37. 60.) The defrauda∣tion of Wages is particularly Prohibited. (Deut. 24. 14.)

Other Thefts there are of that kind,* 1.53 which are call'd Not Manifest: such as the Deceitful removing the Boundaries or Marks of Fields. (Deut. 27. 17.) Let him be accursed, that removeth his Neigh∣bours Land-Mark, namely the Bounds which your Fathers have put in thy Inhe∣ritance. Which is understood of the Li∣mits or Boundaries set in the First distribu∣tion of the Holy Land: as also of the limits

of the Nations confining thereupon, without just cause of War. Whence that of Iose∣phus (Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. p. 123.) Terminos Terrae movere non liceat, neque propriae, neque alienae quibuscum nobis pax est. Sed cavendum nè auferatur, quod velut Dei cal∣culus in aeternum figitur.

Among the Egyptians,* 1.54 Fraudulent Practi∣ces were severely punish'd, whether they were of Publick or Private Wrong. Wit∣ness Diodorus Siculus (l. 1. p. 50.) The Law Commanded, saith he,

That both the Hands should be cut off [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of those that adulterated Mony, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] substituted new Weights, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] counterfeited Seals, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Scribes that wrote Forg'd Tables or Instruments, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] took away any thing from written Records or Deeds, or obtruded false Bonds. To the end that every Of∣fender might suffer punishment in that part of his Body, with which he had of∣fended against the Law, and by an ir∣reparable loss deter others from com∣mitting the like Crime.

* 1.55

To the Hebrews it was forbidden, not only to use false Weights and Measures,

but even to use any fraud of words in Con∣tracts, or to lie to anothers wrong. (Lev. 19. 11.) Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsly, neither lie one to another. Upon which Text the Masters commenting, pro∣nounce, that tho' an Israelite accounted not a Gentile for his Neighbour, yet by the Natural Interdict of Theft, Gentiles were not to be any ways defrauded in Nego∣tiations. Nefas est, say they, quenquam de∣cipere in emptione & venditione, aut in consensum arte pellicere: quod pariter obti∣net in Gentilibus atque in Israelitis.

Nevertheless,* 1.56 in the Violation of this Interdict, the Babylonic Gemara (tit. Sanhed.) makes the Right of Foreiners different from that of Natives. If a La∣bourer working in a Vine-yard or Olive∣yard, eat of the Fruit thereof, at any other time than that wherein he laboured there, he was guilty of theft, tho' he were a Noachid: but with an Israelite the Case was otherwise, he might eat at any time. And this difference arises from the Mosaic Right (Deut. 23. 24.) When thou comest into thy Neighbour's Vine-yard, thou mayest eat Grapes thy fill, at thine own pleasure, but thou shalt not put any into thy Vessel. And so of the standing Corn. By which Law there was given to the

Israelites, not a licence of Stealing, but Iuris Modus, a Measure or Rule how far the Right extended. Another Example of this difference may be from the Value of the thing taken away by Stealth, which is not Taxed by Moses. By the Institute of their Ancestors, an Hebrew was not lyable to an Action of Theft, if he filched from another, what was in Value less than a Prota (which is the smallest Piece of Mony, the Eighth Part of an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, weighing half a Grain of Pure Silver;) but a Noachid was guilty of Theft, if he took away by stealth any thing of less Value than a Prota; and for so small a Trifle was to be punish'd with the Sword; from this Natural Interdict, not from the Civil Law of the Hebrews, which in such Cases required neither Attonement of the Divine Majesty, nor Compensation of the Neigh∣bour. But Capital Punishment was, in the Dominion of the Hebrews, inflicted upon Gentiles for almost every light Offence.

Satisfaction for damage sustain'd,* 1.57 was always to be made, either by restitution of the very thing that had been taken away, or by payment of the Price thereof and a Fifth part more, to the Heirs of the Per∣son that sustain'd the damage, if he him∣self

were dead; if he had no Heir, to the Lord, and in His Right to the Priest. (Numb. 27. 8.) An Israelite could not want an Heir; and therefore this Law is to be understood to concern only the Proselyte, who had no Kindred, nor Heir, unless one born after his Regeneration; nor had the Occupant any Right to the Goods that had been by stealth taken from a Proselyte deceas'd without Heir.

Restitution of things lost (saith Mr. Sel∣den,* 1.58 de Iur. Nat. & Gent. l. 6. c. 4.) de∣pended, not upon this Natural Interdict of Theft, but upon that Mosaic Law in Deut. 22. 2. To an Israelite it was lawful to retain a thing that a Gentile had by chance lost; as left, and not yet Occupied: but on the contre-part, 'twas not lawful to a Gentile to retain what he had found of an Israelites. To deceive a Gentile in reckon∣ing, was unlawful: but if a Gentile in casting up accounts, through error preter∣mitted any thing, the Israelite had the same Right to make his advantage of the mistake, that he had to retain what he had found of the others, and so might refuse afterward to pay it; as Maimonides (Galiz. Waib. c. 11.) Also any thing lost by an Israelite, if he despair'd to find it, became the Finders own, as if it had

been left of purpose: or if he could not so describe the Signs or Marks of the thing lost, as that it might be thence known, that it ought to be restored; 'twas then to be presum'd, that the Owner had despair'd to find it. (ibid. c. 14.)

In Mutual Commerce to impose upon another by an unequal Price,* 1.59 was unlaw∣ful by that Mosaic Law in Levit. 25. 14. Which is understood (saith Mr. Selden l. 6. c. 5.) of Goods Moveable, as the Law of Redemption is of Lands and Houses. Nor doth the same belong to a Gentile: but if a Gentile had brought damage to an Israelite by an unequal price, he was by Judgment of Court to refund. From the receiv'd In∣terpretation of the Law, if the price were by a Sixth part less than the true Valor of the thing, nothing was to be refunded: if greater by a Sixth part, the Buyer might require his Mony to be restored, the Seller his Ware.

The Punishment of Theft was Capital,* 1.60 from Ius Noachidarum, not from that of the Hebrews, which required (Exod. 22. 1.) Five-fold, Four-fold, or Double resti∣tution to be made. If the Person convict were not able to give the satisfaction re∣quired, he was by Sentence pronounced in Court, adjudged to servitude of the Actor

or Plaintiff, until his Service should equal the Price of the Theft: but the restitution Double, Quadruple, or Quin∣tuple, was to be expected from his more Prosperous Fortune after his Servitude. Nor was a Woman sold for her Theft. Neither was a Man convict of Theft adjudged in Servitude to a Proselyte, whether of Iustice or of the House, much less to a Gentile, but only to an Hebrew; who was Obliged to give Food, Raiment, and a House, not on∣ly to him, but to his Wife and Chil∣dren too: who notwithstanding were not the Masters Servants, but when the Husbands and Fathers Servitude was ended, went away with him. And all this by Virtue of that Law in Exod. 21. 3. To an Hebrew Ser∣vant Adjudged by Sentence of Court, who had by a lawful Wife fulfill'd the Command of Multiplication, it was permitted to have Carnal Conversation with a Maid-Servant that was a Canaa∣nite, that the Master might be enriched by the Children born of her: provided he were not kept apart from his Legiti∣mate Wife and Children, and that but one Maid-Servant were Conjoin'd to one Man-Servant, not to two or more.

Other causes of Servitude there were also among the Hebrews.* 1.61 If thy Bro∣ther Compell'd by Poverty, shall sell him∣self to thee, &c. (Levit. 25. 39.) If any shall have sold his Daughter for a Ser∣vant, &c. (Exod. 21. 7.) These Addicti∣ons or Sales were not permitted but in Case of extream Poverty, when the Sel∣ler had nothing left, not so much as a Garment, and that his life was to be su∣stain'd by the Price agreed on. This sel∣ling of a Daughter is understood only of a Minor; nor without hope of her Mar∣riage to the Emptor, or to his Son: without Espousals, she obtain'd her Liber∣ty Gratis, when first the Signs of Puber∣ty appear'd upon her. Also an Hebrew was made a Servant Privately; that by his Addiction or Sale he might not lose his Dignity together with his Liberty. Now from this Permission of an Israelite reduced to extream want, to sell him∣self or his Child for Sustenance, lest he should die of Hunger, it is sufficient∣ly manifest, that from the very Law of Nature obtaining among the He∣brews, it was not Lawful to steal for even the greatest necessity.

To exercise Vsury was more than once forbidden by the Hebrew Law:* 1.62 and the Lender upon Vsury was compell'd, by sen∣tence of Court, to restore to the Debtor; what he had receiv'd for the Loan of Mony, as a thing taken away by stealth, (Deut. 23. 20.) To a Stranger thou maist lend upon Vsury; to thy Brother thou shalt not lend upon Vsury. To steal the Goods of a Gen∣tile, was no less unlawful, than to steal from an Israelite: but to take Usury of a Gentile was permitted; of which the Con∣tract arises from the Consent as well of the Receiver, as of the Giver. For neither from Natural Right was it unlawful to lend upon Usury.

By the Statutes of their Fore-Fathers* 1.63 (as Mr. Selden de Iure Nat. & Gent. lib. 6. c. 11. delivers) an Hebrew was guilty of Theft, who made any Gain to himself by Playing at Dice, Cockal, Tables, or committing Wild or Tame Beasts, or Fowls to fight together, to make sport for the Spectators. For they judged no Gain to be honest, that arose from a Contract depen∣ding upon Fortune. But it was not Theft, if a Iew contending with a Gentile won the Prize or Wager: tho' that also, as a thing Inutile or Unprofitable to Humane Society were prohibited. By the same Ancient

Right, he also was a Thief, who so bred up and taught Doves or other Birds, or Beasts Wild or Tame, as that they should fly or go abroad, and alluring or decoying others of the same kind, bring them home, to the gain of their Owner: nor was it lawful to go a Fowling after Pigeons in a place inhabited, or within Four Miles thereof: because Pigeons were reckoned among the Goods of other Men, and were nourished by the Owners, either for Sacrifices, or for food. Nor was it lawful for any man to build a Dove-House in his Field, unless he had Ground of his own lying round about it, of Fifty Cubits extent every way.

CHAP. IX. The sixth Precept.

Of Judgments, or Administration of Iustice in Courts of Iudicature; and of Civil Obedience.

FRom this Natural Precept, the Masters (saith Maimonides,* 1.64 Hal. Melak. c. 9.) acknowledge that the Rulers ought to Con∣stitute Judges and Prefects in every City and Town, both to judge all Causes pertaining to the Six Precepts of the Sons of Noah, and to admonish the People of their obser∣vation

of them. And so indeed the Mosaic Law also at length commanded (Deut. 16. 18.) Iudges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, &c. In many other places also, Juridical Prefectures are comman∣ded to be constituted, according as the Civil Societies of Men require.

Many and memorable things indeed hath that most Excellent Interpreter of Eastern Antiquities,* 1.65 Mr. Selden, writ∣ten of the Councils or Assemblies of the Ancient Hebrews, in that interval of time that preceded the giving of the Holy Law on Mount Sinai: But to me (I confess) it doth not from thence appear, that any one of the Patriarchs, before Moses, ex∣ercised Jurisdiction in Foro, in Court; much less constituted Juridical Prefectures in Cities and Towns. The Family of the He∣brews, descending from Sem to Abraham, lived in Mesopotamia: nor is it constant from the Scripture, whether it were at that time sui Iuris, or under the Laws of the Neighbour Nations. The Grand-Chil∣dren of Abraham were toss'd to and fro in continual Peregrination, until at length they sate down in Egypt; where they were so far from living by Laws and Customs of their own, that they groan'd long un∣der a most cruel Servitude. Common-wealth

of Hebrews there was none. Tribu∣nal or Court of Judicature they had none, till after their deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage. Then, and not till then it was, that the People of God being greatly multi∣plied, and divided into Twelve Tribes, the Precept concerning Judgments was given in Mara; Exod. 18. 25.

Among the Traditions of the Masters we find mention'd often,* 1.66 the House of Iudgment of Methusalem; also of Sem, and Eber: which yet are not to be taken for Juridical Prefectures, but for Schools. Wit∣ness Maimonides (More Neboch. part. 2. c. 39.) Who saith;

The Wise Men speak of the Prophets that were before Moses, the House of Judgment of Eber, the House of Judgment of Methusalem, that is, the School of Methusalem. All [those] were Prophets, and taught Men after the manner of Preachers,

or Doctors. Nor is it otherwise said of Abraham, (Gen. 18. 19.) I know him, that he will command his Children and Houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do Iustice and Iudgment, &c. For this was a thing Oeconomical, not Political. Soon after the Deluge, God Proclaimed this Edict; (Gen. 9. 6.) He that sheddeth Mans blood, by Man shall his blood be shed: not

by judgment of any Court of those times, but by Natural Right of Talion. Cum Lex haec lata est (saith the Incomparable Hugo Grotius, in locum) nondum constituta erant Iu∣dicia: aucto humano genere, & in gentes distri∣buto, meritò solis judicibus permissum fuit jus illud primaevum. From these places of Genesis therefore truly interpreted, no pre∣text can be drawn to excuse their error, who dream of I know not what Publick Tribunals or Courts of Judicature consti∣tuted before Moses. Neither can any be drawn from either of these two Examples following.

Simeon and Levi,* 1.67 in revenge of the Rape committed upon their Sister Dinah, by Sichem the Hivite, slew him and his Father and all the Males of the City. But this was done by War, not from any Sen∣tence of a Judicial Court; nor is this re∣venge of a private Injury to be brought for an Example here, where the question is concerning Publick Iudgments.

It was told Iudah, Thamar thy Daughter in Law hath played the Harlot, and is with Child [per fornicationes] by whore∣dome. And Judah said, bring her forth, that she may be burnt. But this saying of Iudah, rashly pronounced, and in heat of anger, is by no means to be accepted for

a Iuridical Sentence. For by the Law of Moses (Levit. 21. 9.) the Priests Daugh∣ter was for Fornication (the Masters un∣derstand Adultery, not Stuprum, Whore∣dome) to be burnt alive. But Thamar was neither Priests Daughter, nor Wife, but a Widow expecting to be Married to the Brother of her Husband deceas'd; and this Law was not then made. Others think, that there was such a Law peculiar to this Family, to which Iudah had respect: which is in truth repugnant to the Ius No∣achidarum, by which it was accounted no Crime for an unmarried Woman, to hum∣ble her self to whom she pleas'd. Of which Right Maimonides being conscious, and speaking of this our Thamar, saith; Ante Legem datam, coitus cum Scorto erat sicut coitus hominis cum Vxore suâ; hoc est, licitus erat, nec homini fugiendus, [velut delictum] &c. Thamar then, by virtue of this ancient Right then obtaining, was not to be held guilty. Whence other In∣terpreters understand the Combustion or Burning mentioned in the Text, to signi∣fie, not burning to death, but a Stigmati∣zing or Marking in the Forehead with an hot Iron, by which she might be known to be an Harlot. Again, when Thamar was brought forth (not ad poenam, as the

vulgar Latin) the whole matter being de∣tected, Iuda non cessavit eam cognoscere, that is, he took his Daughter in Law to be his Wife; such Marriages being not un∣lawful before the Mosaic Law. This place is (I acknowledge) Translated by the Seventy Seniors thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non adjecti ultrà cognoscere eam; vel, ultrà non cognovit eam: but the Hebrew verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying as well cessare, as ad∣jicere; I am inclined to prefer the foremr Interpretation, and the more inclined, because the Genealogy of King David and of our Saviour Christ is deduced from one of the Male Twins she brought forth at that birth.

These Examples therefore not sufficing to prove that for which they have been al∣ledged by some Interpreters,* 1.68 otherwise of Profound Erudition and Solid Judgment, and it remaining still difficult to demon∣strate, that there were any such things in the World, as Courts of Judicature more ancient than those erected by Moses: let us enquire what was the Ius Noachidarum in the Common-wealth of the Israelites, as to Iudgment.

They that preside over the Tribunals of the Israelites (saith Maimonides in Hal. Melak•• c. 10.) ought to appoint Judges for the Proselytes of

the House, to hear and determine their causes according to the Rights of the Sons of Noah: lest humane Society should suf∣fer any thing of detriment: and that they might constitute these Judges, either by electing them out of the Proselytes themselves, or from among the He∣brews, at their pleasure. In another place (viz. c. 9.) he saith, a Noachid is put to death by the Sentence of one Judge, and upon the Testimony of one Witness; and that without Premonition and the Testimony of Neighbours: but not up∣on the Testimony of a Woman. Nor was it lawful to a Woman to give judg∣ment upon them, [nor upon the He∣brews.]

On the other side, by the Civil Right of the Hebrews, three Judges at least were to hear and determine Causes Pecuniary, and Twenty-three to judge of Causes Capi∣tal, not without Plurality of Witnesses, and Premonition. By the receiv'd Right of the Sons of Noah, the Violation of these Seven Precepts was punish'd in a Proselyte of the House, with death inflicted by a Sword: but an Israelite, by his own Right, was not to be punish'd with death, for Viola∣tion of the three latter. No Gentile that was under Age of discretion, or Blind, or Deaf,

or Mad, was punish'd; because such were not reputed Sons of the Precepts, i. e. ca∣pable to observe them. A Noachid that was a Blasphemer, or an Idolater, or an Adulterer with the Wife of a Noachid, and after that made a Proselyte of Iustice, was not to be call'd into Judgment, but was free: but if he had slain an Israelite, or committed Adultery with the Wife of an Israelite, and were after made a Proselyte of Iustice; he was to be punish'd, with the Sword, for Homicide; with a Halter, for Adultery; that is with the punishments of the Israelites. By the vertue of Prose∣lytism, which was Regeneration by the Hebrew Law, Crimes committed against Equals, yea also against God Himself, were purged away: those committed against an Israelite, not. All which nice differences betwixt the primitive Right of the Sons of Noah, and the Civil Right of the Israelites, punctually observed by Judges in hearing and determining causes, in Foro; have been with vast labour collected out of the Monuments of the Masters, and with ex∣act Faith and Judgment recited by Selden the Great in lib. 7. de Iure Nat. & Gent. to whom I owe the Knowledge of them, with many other remarkable things of good use toward the Interpretation of divers difficult Places in Holy Scripture.

CHAP. X.

Prints of the Six precedent Precepts observ∣able in the Book of Job.

THe same most Excellent Antiquary, to add the more of Credit and Authority to the Six foregoing Precepts of the Sons of Noah, hath also observed ma∣nifest Prints of them in the Book of Iob, a man (as St. Austin, de Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 47.) of admirable Sanctity and Patience; who was neither Native, nor Proselyte of the People of Israel, but an Idumean by Descent and Birth, and died there; and by consequence could not be Obliged to keep the Laws of Moses, of which perhaps, nay most probably, he never so much as heard. For this Just Man is said (Iob 1. 5.) to have offer'd up Victims, in the name of his Sons; not according to the Form and Rites ordain'd in the Mosaic Law, by which it was Enacted, under the pe∣nalty of Excision, that all Sacrifices should be Immolated at the Door of the Taberna∣cle: Whence some Learned Men infer, that he lived before the Law was given. Others affirm, that there never was any

such Man, and the Book that bears that name, is not a true History, but a Parable, or Poem (for the Original is written in Verse) concerning Providence Divine. Which of these two Opinions is to be pre∣ferr'd, I pretend not now to enquire. Certain it is however, that this Book con∣tains many remarkable things pertaining to Natural Law, principally these following.

Of Idolatry. (Chap. 31. v. 26.) If I beheld the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness: and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth kissed my hand: this also were an Iniquity to be punish'd by the Iudge: for I should have denied the God that is above.

Of Blasphemy. (Chap. 1. v. 5.) In the Morning he Offer'd Burnt-Offerings ac∣cording to the number of them all. For Job said, it may be that my Sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.

Of Homicide. (Chap. 31. v. 29.) If I rejoyced at the destruction of him that ha∣ted me, or lift up my self when evil found him. Neither have I suffered my Mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to his Soul. If the Men of my Tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his flesh! we cannot be satisfied.

Of Adultery. (Chap. 31. v. 9.) If my heart hath been deceived by a Woman, or

if I have laid wait at my Neighbours door: then let my Wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her; or, as the Vulgar Latin, Scortum alterius sit Vxor mea. To turn about a Mill, was among the ancient Services of Women.

Of Theft, or the unlawful laying hands upon the Goods of another. (Chap. 31. v. 7.) If any blot have cleaved to my hands: then let me saw, and let another eat; yea, let my Offspring be rooted out.

Of Judgments he speaks in Chap. 29. from v. 7. to the end, where he relates, that Himself had in the days of his Prosperi∣ty sate on the Tribunal, and been a Prince among the Judges of his Nation.

Most evident it is then, that all these Precepts of the Sons of Noah obtain'd among, and were Sacred to the Idumeans, who lived not under the Laws of Moses.

CHAP. XI. The seventh Precept.

Of not eating any Member of an Animal alive.

THis Precept was added after the Flood,* 1.69 according to the Traditions of the Rabbines; who say, that the eating of Flesh, which had been Interdicted to Adam, was permitted to Noah: and under∣stand this Interdict to be comprehended in that of not eating Blood. God at first said to Adam (Gen. 1. 29.) I have given you eve∣ry Herb bearing Seed, and every Tree, in which is the Fruit of a Tree yeilding Seed: to you it shall be for Meat. After he said to Noah (Gen. 9. 3.) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green Herb have I given you all things: but Flesh with the Life thereof, which is the Blood thereof shall you not eat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at carnem in sanguine animae non comedetis: where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anima, we are to understand the Life. The eating of Blood is, by the Levitical Law, for∣bidden in the same form with the Immola∣tion of a Son to Moloch. (Levit. 20. 3.)

I will set my face against him that eateth blood.* 1.70 Nor is this manner of speaking to be found in any third Precept: which Mai∣monides well observes (in More Nebochim part 3. c. 46. pag. 484.) because the eating of blood gave occasion to the Worship of Devils, and he fetcheth the reason of the Interdict from Idolaters who thought blood to be the meat of Daemons. Hence also it is commanded (Levit. 17. 10.) that the blood of Victims be sprinkled upon the Al∣tar; and moreover that it be covered with dust, or sprinkled upon the Ground as wa∣ter. Some of the Zabii used to eat the blood; some others, who reckoned this to inhuma∣nity, at the killing of a Beast reserv'd the blood, and put it into a Vessel or Trench, and then sitting down in a Circle about it, eat up the flesh, and pleas'd themselves with an opinion, that their Daemons fed upon the blood, and that this manner of sitting at the same Table with their Gods, would endear them to a nearer tie of Conversation and Familiarity; and promising to them∣selves also, that these Spirits would insinu∣ate themselves in dreams, and render them capable of Prophesy and Predicting things to come. Now in reference to these absurd and Idolatrous ways of the Amorites it was, that God expresly forbad his People to eat

blood, for so some of the Zabians did; and to prevent their imitation of others who re∣served it in a Vessel, he commanded that the blood should be spilt upon the ground like water. And with the same respect to the Zabian Rites it seems to be, that it was also forbidden (Exod. 23. 19. and Deut. 14. 21.) to any man of Israel, to Seeth a Kid or Lamb in his Mothers milk, as our many-Tongued Mr. Gregory (in Post∣hum.) hath Learnedly asserted.

The Law in another place (viz. Deut. 14. 21.) saith,* 1.71 Ye shall not eat [morticinum ullum] of any thing that dieth of it self. Thou shalt give it unto the Stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it: or thou mayst sell it unto an Alien. Whence some collect, that the eating of blood was not forbidden to either Proselytes of the House, or the Sons of Noah; but only of flesh torn from an Animal alive; as the Stones of a Lamb cut out. Maimonides (More Neboch. part 3. cap. 48. pag. 496.) brings these reasons of the Interdict: both because that is a sign of Cruelty, and be∣cause the Kings of the Gentiles in that age were wont so to do, upon the account of Idolatry; namely they cut some Member from a living Creature, and eat it pre∣sently.

Nor is this so strange a thing,* 1.72 since Clem. Alexandrinus (in Protreptico, p. 9.) com∣memorates the same execrable cruelty and Bestial Carnage to have been practised in Bacchanals: Bacchi orgiis celebrant Dionysi∣um Maenolem, crudarum carnium esu sacram insaniam agentes, & caesarum carnium di∣vulsionem peragunt, coronati Serpentibus. Nay more inhumanity yet hath been So∣lemnly practised in the furious Devotion of the Adorers of the same drunken Diety. Prophyry (de Abstinentia l. 3. sect. 55.) saith; In Chio sacrificabant Baccho [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] crudis gaudenti, hominem membratim discerpentes. Idem in Tenedo obtinuit. Well therefore do they speak who call Idolatry Madness in the last degree.

Jobus Ludolfus (in Historia Aethiopica lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 51.) saith of the Habessins, A Sanguine verò & suffocatis abstinent, non vigore Legis Mosaicae, sed Statuti Apostolici in Ecclesia Orientali semper, in Occidentali verò per mutla secula observati, & in Con∣ciliis nonnullis repetiti: nos{que} reprehendunt, quòd id in desuetudinem passi fuerimus venire.

To these Seven Natural Precepts, given (as hath been said) first to Mankind in ge∣neral, and after revived in Mara (according to the doctrine of the Talmudists) in the re∣cension and explication of which according

to the sense of the most Learned Interpre∣ters of the Hebrew Antiquities, I have hi∣therto exercised my unequal Pen; Some have subjoined another, of Honouring Pa∣rents. But of this, tho' equally Natural with the former, and among Moral Pre∣cepts principal, I defer to speak, until the Thred of the Method I have prescrib'd to my self in this disquisition, shall have brought me to the first Precept in the Second Table of the Decalogue: both because some of the Masters do not reckon it in the number of the Primitive and Genuine Precepts of the Sons of Noah, but affirm that it was not given until the Israelites were encamped in Marah; and because I would prevent repe∣tition of the same things in divers places. Nor doth any thing more, concerning the Seven Precepts precedent, occur to my mind at this time, that seems of moment enough to excuse me, if by insisting thereupon I should longer defer to put a Period to this First Part of my present Province.¶

The End of the First Part.

THE CONCORDANCE OF Natural and Positive Divine LAWS. PART II.

Containing a Short Explication of the Laws of the DECALOGUE, and Reduction of Evangelick Pre∣cepts to them.

CHAP. I.

The Preface to the DECALOGUE explicated.

FRom Primitive Laws meerly Traditional,* 1.73 or such as were delivered down from Gene∣ration to Generation, not in Writing, but only by voice or word of mouth, and seem to have con∣stituted the most ancient Right of Man∣kind; we come now to the most ancient of

Written Laws, such as were committed to Writing, and consecrated to the Memo∣ry and Observation of Posterity. Of this sort, the Mosaic Laws certainly are, as the best, so also the First of all known in the World. The Grecians indeed, ambi∣tious of the honour of being reputed Foun∣ders of Government, by making good Laws for the regulation of Humane Socie∣ties; among many other benefits, where∣with they boast themselves to have ob∣liged other Nations, put Legislation in the head of the Account. Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, and other ancient Sages, are great Names they glory in. But their Glory is altogether vain. For all the pretensions and brags of that arrogant Nation in this kind, have been long since refuted and silenced by the Jew Flavius Iosephus, in his Apology against Apion, full of admirable Learning. There he shews, that the Greek Legislators, compar'd to Moses, are but of Yesterday: for at what time their Father Homer liv'd, they knew not the name of Laws, nor is it extant in all his Poems; only the People had in their Mouth certain common sayings and sentences, whereby they were go∣vern'd; to supply the defects whereof, the unwritten Edicts of Princes were upon oc∣casion added. And he had reason. For the

truth is, Moses, Senior to Homer by ma∣ny Ages, was the first Writer and Pub∣lisher of Laws, teaching the People what was right or wrong, just or unjust, and by what Decrees the Common-wealth was to be established, which the Most High God had commanded to settle in Palestine. Be∣fore the time of this Moses, no Written Laws were known in the World. For although Mankind liv'd not altogether without Laws before, yet were not those Laws consecrated and kept in any Publick Records or Monu∣ments. Of this sort were the afore-recited Seven Precepts given to the Sons of Noah, concerning certain Rules of Righteousness necessary to humane life. Wherefore they were of so large extent, that whosoever knew them not, those the Israelites were commanded to destroy by War, and de∣prive them of all Communion with Man∣kind: and justly; for they that had re∣ceiv'd no Law, seem'd worse than Beasts; and (as Aristotle hath Divinely spoken) Injustice strengthened with Arms and Power, is most cruel and intolerable

It must then be acknowledg'd,* 1.74 that of all Legislators Moses was the most Ancient: nor can it be with truth denied, that he was also the Wisest. For he ordain'd such a kind of Government, which cannot be

so significantly stil'd, either Monarchy, or Oligarchy, or Democracy, as Theocra∣cy; that is, a Common-wealth whose Ruler and President is God alone: openly professing, that all affairs were managed by Divine Judgment and Authority. And of this he gave a full demonstration, in as much as although he saw all matters depen∣ding upon him, and had all the People at his Devotion; yet upon so fair an invitati∣on he sought no Power, no Wealth, no Honour for himself. A thing whereby he shew'd himself more than Man. Then he ordered that the Magistrates should not be Lords and Masters, but Keepers of the Laws, and Ministers. An excellent Constitution this. For seeing that even the best Men are sometimes transported by passion, the Laws alone are they that speak with all Per∣sons in one and the same Impartial Voice: which may well be conceiv'd to be the sense of that fine saying of Aristotle, The Law is a Mind without Affection. To these Two undeniable Arguments of admirable Wisdom in Moses, may be added a Third no less considerable, viz. the Eternal Sta∣bility of his Laws: whereto to add, where∣from to take ought away, was a most high offence. So that, neither Old Laws were abolish'd, nor new brought in; but

the observation of the first was with rigor exacted of all, even in the declination of that Common-wealth. Which was not so in other Common-wealths, most of which have been ruined by Law-making. The reason of this diversity cannot be abstruse to him that considers, that the Laws of other Nations were the inventions of hu∣mane Wit, and enforced only by penalties, that by time, or remissness of Rulers, lose their Terror: but those of the Iews, being the Decrees of the Eternal God, not ener∣vated by continuance of time, or softness of Judges, remain still the same; mens minds being still kept in awe by Religion, as I have in the former part of this discourse in∣timated. Now if in these Three things (to which I might here subjoin others, if I thought it necessary) the excellent Wis∣dom and Prudence of Moses be not clearly visible; I know not what is so.

Of these Mosaic Laws,* 1.75 upon which by Divine Wisdom both the Polity and the Reli∣gion of the Holy Nation are so establish'd, as to be, not only connex'd, but made one and the same thing; some are Moral, others Ceremonial. The Moral (which only belong to my present Province) are comprehended in that Sacred Systeme call'd the DECALOGUE, or Ten Commandments,

in which the whole duty of Man, as well towards God as towards Men, is prescrib'd. These Ten Precepts therefore I intend (the Omnipotent Author of them assisting me) seriously and according to the best of my weak understanding, to consider, one by one, in the same order in which they are delivered in the Twentieth Chapter of Exodus. And that neither want of skill in the Hebrew Language, and in the Idi∣otisms or proper modes of speaking used by Esdras (or whoever else was) the Writer of the Pentateuch; nor the slenderness of my judgment, may lead me into errors, in the interpretation of the Sacred Text: I am resolved to resign up my self entirely to the conduct and manuduction of the most celebrated Interpreters of the Holy Scrip∣ture, and among them principally of the Illustrious Hugo Grotius (a Man no less admirable for the singular felicity of his judgment in difficult questions, than for the Immensity of his Erudition) in his Ex∣plication of the Decalogue, as it is extant in the Greek version of the Seventy Seniors; choosing rather to tread in his very foot∣steps, than to deviate from the right way, in an argument of so great moment. Not that I think it necessary to recite whatsoe∣ver he hath congested of this Subject in that

part of his Theological writings, wherein are deliver'd many curious Criticisms con∣cerning the various significations and uses of as well Greek as Hebrew Words and Phrases, that belong chiefly to the cogni∣zance of Philologers: but that I design from thence to select only such things that seem requisite to my right understanding of the sense of all and singular the Precepts, that I am now about to consider. In pursuance therefore of this design I begin from.

The Preface to the Decalogue.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And the Lord spake. Here by the Lord,* 1.76 is meant the God of Gods. And the reason why the Greek In∣terpreters chose rather to use the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Lord, than [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] God, seems to be this; that writing to the Greeks amongst whom, are to be number'd the Egyptian Kings of the Macedonian blood, by the Hebrews call'd Kings of Graecia; and that among the Graecians also they who were re∣puted wiser than the rest, as the Platonicks, of which order were the Ptolomies Kings, used to give the appellation [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of God also to those whom they call [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Daemons, and sometimes, in imitation of the Hebrews, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Angels: they

thought themselves religiously concern'd openly to testifie, that they spake of that God only, who by supreme Right ruled and commanded all those that they honor'd by the name of Gods: as among Mortal Kings, the King of the Persians was call'd [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the King of Kings; and even at this day the King of the Habessins in Ethio∣pia writes himself [Negûsa nagast Zaitjo∣pja] King of the Kings of Ethiopia, with respect to some petty Kings subject to him, or his Vice-Roys, who also are honoured with the Title of Negus, King; as the most Learned Iobus Ludolfus observes (in Hist. Aethiop. l. 2. c. 1. Printed at Francfurt this present year 1681.)

But although the Lord,* 1.77 that is, the Highest God, be here said to speak these words that follow; yet ought we to hold for certain, that He spake them not by Himself, or Immediately, but by an An∣gel sent as an Embassador, acting in the Name of the Most High God: which ought to be understood also of other the like Vi∣sions, that have hapned to Holy Men in old times. For it was an Angel that spake to Moses and the People in Sinah; if we be∣lieve the Writer of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 7. v. 38.) And so thought the Grave Iosephus also, when (Antiq. l. 15.)

he said, Cum nos dogmatum potissima, & Sanctissimam Legum partem per Angelos à Deo acceperimus.

They err greatly, who here by Angel understand the Second Substance of God, or Second Person in the Trinity. For God spake indeed in various and manifold man∣ners to the Fathers of old; but in the last times He began to speak to us by His Son, (Hebr. 1. 1.) The Law was given by An∣gels by the ministry of [Internuncii] an Embassador or Mediator (namely of Moses) that it might be of force, until the promi∣sed Seed should come (Galat. 3. 19.) And the Writer to the Hebrews prefers the Gospel to the Law from this, that the Gospel was given by our Lord Iesus Him∣self, the Law only by Angels. (Heb. 2. 2.)

In which places Angels are named in the Plural Number,* 1.78 tho' St. Stephen saith Angel in the Singular; because such is the manner of Visions of that kind, that there is One Angel sustaining the Person and Name of God, and others present with him as Apparitors, or Ministers. As in Gen. 18. & Luke 2. 13. conferr'd with 1 Thess. 4. 16. and with Matth. 13. 39. 41. 49. As therefore the Angel that pronoun∣ced the Law, saith, I Iehovah, so also do other Angels, that have been likewise sent

from God, as Embassadors, to transact affairs of great Importance, speak in the first Person, just as the Crier of a Court pronoun∣ces the words of the Judge; as St. Austin (l. 2. de Trinitate c. 2.) makes the Com∣parison. So Moses (Exod. 3. 15.) saith, that the God Iehovah spake to him in the Bush: and he that then spake to Moses, had newly said, I who am, which is an explica∣tion of the word Iehovah, i. e. Existens, or Being; for Being without Beginning, with∣out End, and without Dependence, is Proper to God alone. But St. Stephen (Acts 7. 30.) saith, that an Angel of the Lord appear'd to Moses in a Flame of Fire in a Bush: and that from the Authority of Moses himself. (Exod. 3. 2.) Of which St. Athanasius (Orat. 6.) saith; Et vo∣cavit Dominus Mosem exrubo, dicens: Ego sum Deus Patris tui: Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, & Deus Jacob: at Angelus ille non erat Deus Abraham, sed in Angelo loque∣batur Deus; & qui conspiciebatur, erat Angelus, &c. Of the same judgment was the Author of the Responses to the Ortho∣dox Christians, when he said; Angelorum, qui Dei loco visi aut locuti sunt hominibus, Dei vocabulo nominati sunt, ut ille qui Jaco∣bo, quique Mosi est locutus. Etiam homines Dii vocantur. Vtris{que} ob Officium ipsis in∣junctum

datum est, & Dei vicem & nomen obtinere. Expleto autem officio, desinunt vocari Dii, qui tantùm operae alicujus causâ id nomen acceperunt. We must acknowledge then, that the words recited in this place of Exodus, were pronounced by an Angel in the Name of God: but we are not obli∣ged to believe the same of those that are in Deut. 5. For they were the words of Moses by memory rehearsing the former, and in∣deed with such liberty, that he transposeth some words, changeth some for others of the same signification, omitteth others, and addeth new for interpretation sake. For Deuteronomy, or, (as Philo speaks) Epinomis, is nothing else but the Law and History summarily repeated, in favour of those who were not present at the promul∣gation of the Law, and at the transactions of that time.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; All these Ser∣mons, saying.* 1.79 These very words; that no Man of Posterity might think; that ought had been added or taken away. In Deuteronomy 5. are not found these words so express: and therefore it sufficeth, that there the sense of the Reciter is signified, as we just now siad.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.80 I am the Lord thy God who hath brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of Servitude. By the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Sep∣tuagint have interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Empire is signified. The same word is attributed sometimes also to Angels, as in Psalm 82. v. 2. and sometimes to eminent Magistrates, as in Exod. 21. 6. & 22. 26. so that in Psalm 82. 1. & 131. 1. it is a great doubt among the most Learned of the Hebrew Doctors, whether Angels or Magistrates are to be understood. But whensoever the Plural is conjoin'd with the Singular [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] by apposition, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] defective, no doubt is to be made, but that He alone is to be understood, who with Highest and most absolute Empire presides over all both Angels and Magistrates. But to that word, the Possessive Case is wont to be added, whereby it is signified, that to this Most High God, besides the Sove∣raign Right He hath of most absolute Domi∣nion over all Angels and Men, there be∣longs also a certain peculiar Right of Do∣minion over some particular Men or Nation, by vertue of not common benefits conferr'd upon them. For such is the nature of be∣nefits, that it always gives to him who

hath conferr'd a benefit, somewhat of new Right over him that hath receiv'd it. And this is the cause, why here no mention is made of God's Creation of Mankind in the beginning, but of those things that proper∣ly belonged to the Posterity of Iacob, nor of all those neither, but only of the most recent, the memory whereof sticks more firmly and efficaciously in the minds of Men. Compare with this, the cause of keeping the Law, which Fathers are com∣manded to deliver down to their Children, in Deut. 26. 10. and following verses.

Now what is said in this place,* 1.81 is not Law, but a Preface to the Law, Seneca indeed approves not of a Law with a Pro∣logue, because a Law is made, not to per∣suade, but to command. But Zaleucus, Charondas, Plato, Philo, and some other Philosophers were of another Opinion. Certainly the middle way is the best; let the Prologue be brief and grave, such as carries the Face of Authority, not of disputation.

The Number Ten is to almost all Nations the end of numbering;* 1.82 for the numbers that follow, are distinguished by compound names, either by the sound, as Vndecim, Duodecim, Eleven, Twelve; or by signi∣fication, as an Hundred, a Thousand, &c.

and certainly the most ancient way of Nu∣meration was by the Fingers, of which Man hath Ten. For which reason, also in these Precepts, which were above all other things to be imprinted upon the re∣ceivers memory, God was pleas'd to choose this number, wherein that all diversities of numbers, all Analogies, all Geome∣trical Figures relating to numbers, are found; Philo largely shews in his Enarra∣tion of the Ten Precepts. And Martia∣nus Capella, where he saith; Decas verò ultra omnes habenda, quae omnes numeros diversae virtutis ac perfectionis intra se ha∣bet. Nor was it from any other reason, that the Pythagoreans, and after them the Peripateticks referr'd all kinds of things into Ten Classes, vulgarly call'd Categories: or that not only in the Law, but also be∣fore it, Tenths were devoted to God; as may be collected from the History of Camillus written by Livy and Plutarch, and from Herodotus, who speaks of that Custom as most ancient.

The Place wherein the Law was given,* 1.83 also exacts our notice. It was given in a Wilderness barren and desolate; with design, that the People remote from the contagion of Cities, and purged by hardship and sore afflictions, and by Miracles taught not to

depend upon things created, might be well prepared for that Common-wealth which God was about to found and esta∣blish.

Nor ought we without a remark,* 1.84 to pass by the Particle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Thy God. Which not only here in the Preface, but in the Precepts ensuing, is used; intimating, that the Law commanding and forbidding speaks to every individual Man in the number of Unity; to the end, that it may declare, that here the condition of the Prince, and of the lowest Hebrew of the vulgar, is one and the same, none, High or Low, being exempted from the Obligation thereof.

CHAP. II. The First Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thou shalt not have other Gods beside me.

IN the words,* 1.85 Other Gods beside me, seems to be a Pleonasm, or redundance of speech. For it had been sufficient even to men of common sense, to have said, other Gods. But the like speech occurs also in 1 Corinth. 8. 4. and 1 Corinth. 3. 1. and the meaning is, that other Gods are nei∣ther to be substituted in the place of the True God, nor to be assumed to him, which many did, as in 1 Kings 17. 33.

Here by Gods are to be understood,* 1.86 not only Angels and Iudges or other Magistrates of eminent Dignity, who are (as we have already hinted in the Preface) sometimes in the Scripture honour'd with the Title of Gods, while they execute their Office; but also all those whom the Gentiles, tho' without just cause, call'd by that name; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] who are call'd Gods (1 Co∣rinth. 8. 5.) So some are call'd Prophets, who boast and Magnifie themselves for

such, (Ier. 28. 1.) let us therefore con∣sider, first the false Gods of the ancient Gentiles, and then those that are not with∣out cause call'd Gods.

That the first things which men wor∣shiped as Gods,* 1.87 were the Celestial Fires or Luminaries; is the opinion of the most Learned and Judicious of the Hebrew Ma∣sters, Abenesdras, Moses Maimonides, and others. And this opinion is highly favor'd, both by the Tradition of Abraham, who is said to have abandoned his Native Coun∣trey, and travell'd into a strange Land, meerly out of detestation of this kind of Idolatry; and from the History of Iob ta∣ken from times most ancient (Chap. 31. v. 26. 27. 28.) Whereto may be ad∣ded that of Deut. (Chap. 4. v. 19. and Chap. 17. v. 3.) Now that the Sun, Moon, and other Lights of Heaven are false Gods, is most evident, not only from hence, that no great goods or benefits come from them to Mankind; but also from this, that they neither understand Mens adoration and prayers, nor have the liberty of doing good more to one Man than to another: which two things are conjunctim requir'd to fill up the true sig∣nification of the name God, (Heb. 11. 6.)

No sooner had Men made to themselves Gods of the Stars,* 1.88 but they began to make also Stars of Men, and to Worship them with Divine Honours. Kings and Queens (that there might be Deities forsooth of both Sexes) were after their decease, what by the cunning and pride of their Posterity, what by the adulation of the Learned of those darker times, Deified and Adored; and that too under the names of eminent Stars. And from this Antique Custom St. Chrysostom (ad 12. cap. Secundae ad Corinth.) derives the Worship of Idols: Sic enim Idolorum cultus primùm obtinuerunt, cum homines supra meritum in admirationem venirent. That Divine Honors were by the Syrians attributed to Azael and Aderus their Kings, Iosephus relates: and Athenae∣us affirms, that this Custom came first out of Egypt. But the most ancient memoir of the thing is found in Sanchuniathon, who hath recorded for truth, that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Kro∣nos King of the Phenicians was by them consecrated into that Star, which the Greeks, taught by the Phenicians, call'd from his name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Latines Saturnus. And he is the same to whom, by way of excellency named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. The King, the Phenicians used to sacrifice their children: a most inhuman and execrable custom, that

from them descended down to the Tyrians (a Colony of theirs) and from them to the Carthaginians and other peoples of Africa. Thus was Astarte also consecrated into the planet Venus; and not long after among the Egyptians, Osiris was stellified into the Sun, Isis into the Moon. Thus was Hammon translated into Aries, the Ram; Derceto into Piscis, the Fish. But of the Moors, a People of Mauritania, St. Cyprian saith; manifestè Reges colunt, nec ullo velamento hoc nomen obtexunt.

From the deification of Stars,* 1.89 and stelli∣fication of Men, in process of time they proceeded to yet a higher degree of madness, Idolizing of Brute Animals. For, either because the Asterisms or Constellations of Stars had been before, by the curious ob∣servers of them, formed into the figures of divers Animals, from some similitude they fancied in One or more Stars; or because some Animals were believ'd to have, I know not what, secret Natural Cognation with certain Asterism, and to receive a more vigorous influence and virtue from them; or perhaps for both these causes: therefore were those Animals supposed to have some∣what of Divine in their Natures, and ac∣cordingly number'd among Deities by the Egyptians, who adored them as such.

Hence an Ox was call'd Apis, with relati∣on to Luna, or Lunus rather (for a great part of the East call'd that Planet by a Masculine name;) the Phoenix (tho' pro∣bably there never was any such Bird in re∣rum natura) was worship'd as a favourite of the Sun; as also were the Lizard, Lyon, Dragon, Falcon, for the same reason; the Bird Ibis, out of respect to Mercury; the Dog, in respect to Sirius, the Dog-Star: and in like manner other Animals al∣so, betwixt which and the Asterisms (to which notwithstanding the Chaldeans gave Figures different from those the Persians imagined, and the Indians different from those that either of those two Nations had fancied) they conceiv'd any resemblance of shape, or cognation of Nature to be. They proceeded yet farther. Without any respect at all to Celestial Bodies, they ho∣nour'd as Gods all such living Creatures that were highly useful and profitable unto men; such as are reckon'd up by Diodorus Siculus cited by Eusebius (in praeparat. Evang.) by Pliny (l. 8. c. 27.) Philo (ad Praecept. Secun.) and Porphyry (de abstinentia l. 4.) Now of all these Brutal Deities of the Egyptians, we need say no more than what we said just now of the Host of Heaven, to prove them to be false Gods; viz. that they neither

understand the prayers, nor have power to do good to one man more than to another of their stupid adorers, as wanting the facul∣ties of reason and election.

The same cannot be said of Angels,* 1.90 who are able, both to hear and understand pray∣ers address'd to them, and from a certain liberty of mind to confer benefits upon those whom they are commanded to favour and assist. He therefore that honours them with due respect and reverence, also he that hopes to obtain some eminent benefit by their help and assistance; doth not sin against this Law: but he doth, who at∣tributes to them the things that are proper to the Most High God. For the word God in this Precept, is to be understood in sensu summitatis, i. e. as signifying the God of Gods. Examples will illustrate the thing. They sinned not who as often as Angels appeared to them, shewed great veneration of them by falling down upon their faces, as in Ioshuah (c. 5. v. 14.) since as much of honour as that comes to, was given al∣so to Prophets, without sin; as to him that was thought to be Samuel (1 Sam. 28. 15.) to Eliah (2 Kings 1. 13.) to Da∣niel (2. 46.) Who forbids Offerings and Sacrifices, doth not forbid a sign of simple reverence. Nor did the Angel in the Reve∣lation

refuse that honour, because there was ought of unlawful in it, but because he would shew that the Apostle was equal to him, both being Ministers of Christ, now head of the Angels, (see Coloss. 1. 16. 18.) and that an Apostolick Legation designed for Mens salvation, was in no part inferior to an Angelick: and Equals are not wont to usurp such signs of submis∣sion one of the other. Nor is this explica∣tion of that place new, but delivered down to us by St. Ambrose and Gregory the Great. Nor do I think that Man would sin, who should beseech an Angel appearing to him, to recommend him before God; to the proof of which Point Maimonides brings what is in Iob (33. 23.) with whom Philo consents, often calling Angels [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Mediators. But in both exhibiting signs of reverence to Angels, and in imploring their commendation, it highly concerns us to see, that he that appears to us under the form or shape of an Angel, be not an evil Daemon come to delude and seduce us; a cheat not seldom practised by the Prince of Impostors Satan, as St. Paul observes (2 Corinth. 11. 14.) and Porphyry (de Abstinentia l. 2.) in these words; aliorum Deorum velut vultum induti, nostra impru∣dentia fruuntur; and Iamblicus (de Myster.

Aegypt. l. 3. c. 32, & l. 4. c. 17.) Nor is it difficult to discern betwixt good and evil Angels appearing to us. For those that endeavour to seduce Men from the Worship of the True God, or pretend themselves to be Equal to Him; are most certainly Emis∣saries [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of the Devil, and to be resisted.

True it is nevertheless,* 1.91 that there are many signs of honour that cannot be exhi∣bited even to good Angels, without mani∣fest violation of this Holy Precept. First if those signs of singular veneration be ex∣hibited to them, which the consent of Na∣tions hath made proper to Divine Worship, as Sacrifices, Oblations, Incense, expres∣ly declined by the Angel that appear'd to Manoah, (Iudg. 13. 16.) and mentioned in Daniel (2. 46.) Secondly if we so∣lemnly Vow or Swear by them, or beg of them those things, which by God's Com∣mand ought to be petitioned for from God alone, or now under the new Covenant from God and Christ, such are Remission of Sins, the Holy Spirit, Eternal Life. For this is, as Philo rightly observes, Aequalia dare inaequalibus, qui non est infe∣riorum honos, sed superioris depressio; nor is it less than crimen laesae Majestatis summae, High Treason against the Divine

Majesty, to give His Honour to His Ministers.

To petition Superiors,* 1.92 principally Kings and Princes, who are Presidents of human Peace, and Conservators of every private Mans Right and Propriety, for such things as are in their power to grant; is not against this Law. Nor are we by the same forbidden to honour them by kneeling or prostrating our bodies in their presence, where Custom of the Place or Nation re∣quires those signs of respect and reverence; for this is Civil, not Divine Honour. Na∣than prostrated himself before David, only as he was King (1 Kings 1. 23.) and the Writer of Illustrious Lives saith (in Conon.) necesse est, si in conspectum veneris, venerari te regem, quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illi vocant. The Greeks instead of that word often put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, procumbere, to lye down flat upon the ground, in token of Submission and Vene∣ration. Livy speaking of certain Embas∣sadors of the Carthaginians, saith; More adorantium (accepto credo ritu ex ea regione ex qua oriundi erant) procubuerunt. He means from the Phenicians, Neighbours of the Hebrews, whose Custom of yene∣rating their Kings in this manner Euripides (in Phoeniss.) thus expresses;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Supplex te, Rex, venerans genibus Patrio advolvor de more tuis.

But if this prostration of the body be in any Nation used only in Divine Worship; then is the case quite alter'd, and to use it in ho∣nour of the King himself, will be unlawful. For this very reason the Grecians, who were not accustomed to prostrate themselves unless in Sacris, refus'd to venerate the King of the Persians in that manner: and some Macedonians, tho' eminent in the Ar∣my and Court of Alexander the Great, could not either by flattery or terror be brought to prophane the Religious gesture of Procumbency, by using it before him even when he affected to be thought a God. Particularly Callisthenes and Polypercon: the former of whom, in the close of his free Oration to Alexander, fear'd not to say; non pudet Patriae, nec desidero, ad quem modum Rex mihi colendus sit discere, the other openly derided one of the Persians that, from veneration of the same Mighty King, lay with their Faces upon the ground, jeeringly advising him, ut vehe∣mentius caput quateret ad terram, as

Curtius (lib. 8. cap. 5.) relates. There were times when the Christians thought it not alien from their Religion, to humble themselves by such prostration before the Statues and Images of Emperors. But af∣ter Iulian had commanded, that Images of false Gods should be added to his own Images, the more Prudent of the Christians held themselves obliged in conscience to suffer the worst of torments, rather than to fall down before them; as Gregorius Nazianzenus hath recorded. And hither may we refer that of Tertullian to Scapula; Colimus ergo Imperatorem sic, quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit, ut hominem à Deo secundum, & quicquid est à Deo consecu∣tum, & solo Deo minorem.

Hitherto we have enquir'd, what Gods are falsely and without just cause so called; and who are sometimes not without cause named Gods; and how far these of the latter sort may, without offence of the Most High God, be honour'd. It remains only, that we enquire, what is the Grand Scope or Principal Design of this first Precept.

The most Learned Iew, Philo, and the Christians following him,* 1.93 rightly call this Precept [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of the Empire of One, or also [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the de∣struction of a multitude of Gods. For no

doubt is to be made, but that the chief purpose of this Law is to extirpate Poly∣theism; and that too, as Maimonides wisely observes, not for God's sake (for what be∣nefit can he receive from humane worship?) but for Man's, whose felicity consisteth only in this; that he be advanced from things sensible to that Insensible God, from things subject to decay and destruction, or such as had a beginning, to that Eternal Ens. Nor is any thing so useful, as the belief of one God, to conjoin and bind Men together in Peace and Mutual Amity. Whence that memorable Sentence of the Greek Author of the Book (de Monarchia l. 1.) Amatorium vehementissimum, & vin∣culum insolubile benevolentiae atque amoris, cultus unius Dei. Whereto he adds, for confirmation, or that he might inculcate the same as a Maxime of perpetual truth, and universal too; Causa concordiae & sum∣ma & maxima, de uno Deo persuasio, a quo velut fonte procedit amicitia firma & insolubi∣lis hominibus inter se. To this great verity Tacitus seems to have had respect, when speaking of the Religion of the Iews, he saith; Honor Sacerdotii firmamentum poten∣tiae assumitur. For if the honour of the Priesthood be the Grand Sanction of the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate

in all Common-wealths (as is confest by that common Axiom, sublato sacerdotio tollitur simul & Lex) and Religion be the Basis upon which the honour of the Priest∣hood stands (which is by all Men acknow∣ledg'd) and the persuasion of One God be the firmest fundament of Religion (which cannot be denied) then it will of necessity follow, that the perswasion of One God, is the firmament of Empire, because the stron∣gest ligament whereby the minds of Men are combin'd and disposed to live, both in obedience to Governors, and in peace and mutual amity among themselves. Admirable therefore is the Goodness shewn by God to the Israelites, in this: that having selected them before all other Nations to be his pe∣culiar People, and being now about to constitute a new form of Government or Republick, wherein Himself was to preside: He gave them this first Precept, as the funda∣mental Law upon which the stability of their Empire, and their Felicity was to de∣pend; and to which the Light of Nature or Right Reason would oblige them to as∣sent. For the Agnition of One, Eternal, Infinite, Omnipotent God, is to a conside∣ring Man, without much difficulty of thoughts, inferrible from any one of these subsequent reasonings.

1. He that from any natural effect what∣ever,* 1.94 which he hath seen, shall reason to the next cause thereof, and thence proceed to the next cause of that cause, and then immerge himself profoundly into the order of causes; will at length find (with the Philosophers of clearest understanding) that there is one first Mover, i. e. one Eter∣nal Cause of all things, which all Men call God: and this without all cogitation of his own fortune, the solicitude whereof both begets fear of evil to come, and averts the mind from the inquisition of natural causes, and at the same time gives occasion of imagining many Gods.

2. God is necessarily, or by Himself; and whatsoever is so, is consider'd, not as it is in genere, but in actu; and in actu things are single. Now if you suppose more than one God, you shall find in singulis no∣thing, wherefore they should be necessarily or by themselves; nothing wherefore two should be believ'd to be rather than Three, or Ten rather than Five. Add, that the multiplication of singular things of the same kind is from the fecundity of Causes, ac∣cording to which more or fewer things are bred out of them: but of God there is nei∣ther original, nor any cause. And then again in divers singulars, there are certain

singular proprieties, by which they are distinguish'd among themselves; which to suppose in God, who by his Nature necessa∣rily is, is not necessary.

3. Nor can you any where find signs of more than One God. For this Whole Uni∣versity makes One World; in the World is but one Sun; in Man also but One mind governs.

4. If there were Two or more Gods; acting and willing freely; they might will contrary things at the same time, and con∣sequently one might hinder the other from doing what he would; but to imagine it possible for God to be hinder'd from doing what He wills, is to imagine Him not to be God. Evident therefore and necessary it is, that there is but One God. Evident it is also, that the Israelites were under a double obligation to obey this Precept: One from God's express Command; the other, from the Light of Nature, which alone is suffi∣cient to teach Men, both that there is but One God properly so call'd, and that to Him alone all Divine Worship is due.

CHAP. III. The Second Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, &c.

IN Greek Writers the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often used to signify [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] an apparition or ostent:* 1.95 but in the Sacred Books we no where find it used in that signification, but always of the same with [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] graven, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Image, or Effigies; and there∣fore St. Ierom translates it sometimes Ido∣lum, sometimes Sculptile, then Imago, and in other places Simulacrum. So the Calf made in Horeb is by St. Luke (Act. 7. 41.) call'd an Idol, and they that worship'd it are by St. Paul (1 Corinth. 10. 7.) call'd [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Idolaters. And the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers exactly to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby is signifi'd Worship alien from the Law: not that an Idol signifies any thing of evil per se, as some think; but because, after the Law, there was no more evident sign of distinction

betwixt the Pious and the Superstitious, than this, that all these had graven Images, those had none. And therefore tho' the Greek version renders not word for word, yet the sense is plainly enough express'd.

Nor did the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] worshippers of many Gods only make and set up Images to them,* 1.96 but thought also that by Magical rites some certain Ethereal Spirit was brought down into those Images; as may be seen, both in the Dialogue of Trismegi∣stus (whoever he was that impos'd that mighty name upon himself) with Asclepius, and in Maimonides in many places of his Book intituled Ductor dubitantium, as also in Abenesdras upon this Precept. The same is noted by Tertullian (l. de Idololatria) in these words, Rapere ad se Daemonia & om∣nem Spiritum immundum per consecrationis obligamentum; and (in l. de spectaculis) he saith, that Demons operate in Images: and Minutius Felix, Isti impuri Spiritus sub statuis & imaginibus consecratis de∣litescunt. That such were the Images which in Iacob's History are named Tera∣phim, is the opinion of Abenesdras, Mai∣monides, and Kimchi: tho' the word it self be of good and bad signification indif∣ferently, and is sometimes (as in Iudg. 17. 5. and Hosea 3. 5.) taken for Cherubins.

Such also was the Gamaheu or little Image that Nero had, or at least was willing Men should believe he had, by the suggestions whereof, he pretended to be premonished of things to come, as Suetonius relates. That many Images, telesmatically made for∣sooth, and erected have been vocal, yea, and Oraculous too; many grave Writers have made no scruple to affirm; and Mai∣monides (parte 3. cap. 29. Ductor dubitant.) tells us, That he had read two Books of speaking Images. These Authors perhaps had from others heard of such Statues, and believ'd what they had heard to be true: but to me (I freely profess) it seems more probable, that either they gave credit too easily to fabulous relations, or that the re∣lators themselves had been imposed upon by frauds and impostures of Heathen Priests speaking in, and pronouncing enigmatick Oracles from the hollow of Statues, to de∣lude the Credulous, and at the same time propagate the honour of the False Gods re∣presented by those Idols; than that evil De∣mons should as it were animate a Statue, and cause it to express articulate Sounds, without vocal Organs. And as for Mem∣non's Statue or Colossus made of black Mar∣ble, set up in that magnificent Temple of Serapis in Thebes, and for the Musick it

made upon the striking of the beams of the Sun upon it, so much celebrated by an∣cient Writers as well Latine as Greek; cer∣tainly it was meerly a piece of Art, a kind of pneumatic Machine contrived by the Theban Priests, Men of not vulgar skill in Astronomy and all other Philosophical Sci∣ences. Athanasius Kircher (I remember) in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Tom. 2.) ac∣cording to his usual credulity, conceives it was a Telesme, or made by Talismanic Art; and that the Devil was conjur'd within the hollow of it, to perform that Effect, because it continued Musical for so long a time, namely to the days of Apollonius Tyaneus, which from the first Erection of it was about Eleven hundred Years. But yet he shews, that such a Musical Statue may be made by Mathematical and Natural con∣trivance upon the ground of Rarefaction; saying, Magnam enim vim in natura rerum, rarefactionem obtinere, nemo ignorat; and subnecting various other pneumatical devi∣ces among the Aegyptians in their Tem∣ples.

But whether it were the Devil or the Priest that spake in those Consecrated Sta∣tues;* 1.97 or whether the vulgar, in all Ages easie to be gull'd by Men of more Learn∣ing and cunning, were only deluded into a

belief that they spake: certain it is however, that the opinion of some Spirit or other in∣cluded within them, so far advanced their Reputation, that they were now no longer lookt upon as Representations of Gods, but as real Gods themselves, and accordingly Worshiped and Consulted about future Events. From this Opinion it was, that Laban (in Genesis 31. 30.) expostulating with Iacob about the Teraphim or Images that Rachel had secretly taken from him, saith, Wherefore hast thou stolen my Gods? That these Teraphim were fram'd by Astro∣logers, for Divination sake, and that they might Predict things to come; is the judg∣ment of Rabbi Kimchi: and that they were also made of Human Form, so as to be the more capable of Coelestial Influence, is ob∣serv'd to us by Rabbi Abraham Ben-Ezra, the greatest Theologue and Astrologue of the Iews. Who adds, That Rachel stole the Images from her Father Laban for this reason alone, lest from the inspection of them he might learn what way Iacob had taken in his flight, and so pursue him. And St. Austin (quaestion 94. in Genes.) grants that Laban consulted these Idols for Divi∣nation; saying, Quod Laban dicit, quare fu∣ratus es deos meos, hinc est illud fortasse quòd & augurari se dixerat. Capite enim prae∣cedenti,

ad Jacobum dixit, Auguratus sum, (not as our Translation, I have learned by experience) quod benedixerit mihi Deus propter te. So Mr. Selden (De Diis Syris syntagm. 1. c. 2.) assures us, the Ancients Interpret Nichasti; and the Hebrews under∣stand that place (ver. 27.) of fore-knowing or conjecturing. But whether or no these Teraphim were worshiped as Gods, though they were call'd so, is an old Controversie among the Masters, as appears from R. Si∣meon Ben-joachi (in libro Zohar fol. 94.)

As for the dismal manner how these Te∣raphim were made,* 1.98 Mr. Selden (from R. Eli∣as in Thisbi) describes it thus:

They killed a First-born Son, twisted or wrung off his Head from his Body, then Em∣balm'd it with Salt and Aromatick Pow∣ders, and wrote upon a thin Plate of Gold the Name of an Unclean Spirit; which Plate being put under the Embalm'd Head, they placed it in a niche of the Wall, burn∣ing Candles, and adoring before it. And with such Teraphim as these Laban used to Divine.

If this be a true Description, I wonder why the Author of it, and Onkelos too, in this place of Genesis Translate Te∣raphim by Tzilmenaia; when Tzilmenaia signifie Figures, Effigies or Images; and a dead Mans Head is neither of these.

Of Micha also we read (Iudg. 17. 5.) That he had a Temple of Gods, and made an Ephod and Teraphim, and Consecrated one of his Sons, (that is, filled his hand with Sacrifices;) which ancient Rite used in the initiation of Priests, we find mention'd in Exod. (29. 24.) and Levit. (8. 27.) and he became his Priest. Upon which Text Mr. Selden, according to his wonted sagaci∣ty, well observes, That this Micah did ill to mix the Worship of the True God, with that of Idols and Demons; for doubtless he Consecrated the Ephod and Levite to the True God, but the Teraphim, the Molten, and the Graven Image to Demons: from which the Danites soon after obtain'd an Oracle, as if it had been from God Himself; as appears in the Chapter following. Nor did the Idolaters give credit to the Ephod, which they referr'd to God; or to the Tera∣phim of Demons, singly or apart: and there∣fore they foolishly and impiously thought, that both together were to be Consulted, both to be Worshiped, and conciliated by the same Divine Worship. It seems by the History, That the Molten Image, and the Graven Image of Micah were the Gods to whom the Teraphim were Consecrated. But yet the Teraphim also, in respect to their egregious use in Divination, were held

to be Gods. Hence arises somewhat of Light to us for our clearer discerning of what is meant by that darksome place in Hosea (3. 4.) For the Children of Israel shall abide many days without a King, and with∣out a Prince, and without Sacrifice, and with∣out an Image, and without an Ephod, and Teraphim. For the Sacrifice and Ephod are referr'd to Divine Worship of the True God; the Statue or Image and Teraphim, to Ido∣latry: according to R. Kimchi's interpreta∣tion, who (in Radice) saith, Abs{que} sacrifi∣cio, respicit Deum Verum; abs{que} [matzebah] statua, cultum alienum sive numina Gentium; & abs{que} Epho, item Deum verum; & Tera∣phim, cultum alienum.

As to the matter whereof these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Puppets or Idolillo's were made;* 1.99 the most antique of Eastern Nations, the Zabii, or Chaldeans (out of whose Books R. Moses the Aegyptian transcrib'd many Remarkable Memoirs) made them of Gold sometimes, sometimes of Silver, according to the rate of their fortunes. These they Dedicated to the Moon, those to the Sun: and they built Temples or Houses to receive them, as he, (More Nebochim. l. 3. c. 30.) Records; Et posuerunt in eis imagines & dixerunt quod splendor potentiorum Stellarum diffundebatur super illas imagines, & loquebantur cum ho∣minibus,

& annunciabant eis utilia. Which quadrates exactly with their Doctrine who teach, That the Teraphim were always made according to the Precepts of Astro∣logy, and to certain positions of the Stars, (as those which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and to the Figures, imagined to be in Heaven, that they might be, not only [Mechavi] Annunciantes, Fortune-tellers, but also [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Averrunci dii, drivers away of Evil. Nor do the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed, as to the Astrological reason, differ from the Tera∣phim, unless in this, That these were de∣sign'd to Predict things to come, but those to drive away Evils; and the makers of the Talismans were named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Much nearer to the nature of the Teraphim do those Images come, that were believ'd both to give Oracles, and to protect from Evil: not only from their having been Astrologically formed and erected, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dae∣moniorum] from the coming of Demons in∣to them: and we are told by Michael Psel∣lus, that Demons are said [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to make their intrada's or entrances, when being invocated by their Adorers or Conju∣rers, they enter into Statues or Images Con∣secrated to them. Of this sort of Images the most ancient Memory is found menti∣on'd by that Hermes Trismegistus in his

Dialogue with Asclepius. Such was that wooden Seal by Apuleius called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by him under a secret name worshiped; of which Magical Practice being accused, he wrote an Elegant Apology. The same is to be thought of that Head of a Statue, which Gerebert Arch-bishop first of Rhemes, and after of Ravenna, and at last Pope, by the name of Sylvester the Second, taught by the Saracens of Spain, to the satiety of Humane Curiosity, made into an Oracle for his own use; as our William of Malsbury (de gestis Regum Angliae, lib. 2. cap. 10.) relates.

This Head, saith William, would never speak, but when interrogated; and then it fail'd not to speak Truth, either affirmatively, or negatively. For instance, when Gerebert asked, Shall I be Apostolick? the Head would Answer, Thou shalt. Shall I dye before I have sung Mass in Jerusalem?

No. But by this Answer, the Pope (as is well observ'd by Selden, de Diis Syris. l. 1. c. 2.) was deceived, as to the time of his Death: for he understood it of the City Ierusalem; but the Oracle meant a Church so called in Rome; in which, immediately after his Ho∣liness had upon the Sunday call'd Statio ad Ierusalem, celebrated Mass, he ended his Life miserably. That the like Head was made of Brass, and to the same purpose too,

by our Country-man Roger Bacon of Ox∣ford, a Minorite (a Man of greater Learn∣ing than the gloomy Age wherein he lived, could well bear) is confidently reported by the vulgar; not without injury to his ad∣mirable skill in all parts of the Mathema∣ticks, which his Works now extant shew to have been profound and pure, and of which the most Renowned University of Oxon hath, in their late History and Antiquities, given an honourable Testimony. Nor have our Annals any the least Ground, upon which this scandalous Fiction could be rais'd.

Of what matter the Image of the Great Diana of the Ephesians was made,* 1.100 is left to conjecture; no less uncertain than the Foun∣der of her Magnificent Temple in that Ci∣ty: but that the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Silver Shrines made there by Demetrius a Silver Smith, and other Crafts-men, not for, but of Diana, and mentioned in Acts 19. 24. were little Chappels representing the Form of the Ephesian Temple, with the Image of Diana Enshrin'd; hath been affirm'd by the Great Erasmus, and sufficiently proved by our most Learned Mr. Gregory, (in Posthum. c. 11.) And to this agree the Heathen Rites of those times. For Ammianus Mar∣cellinus (in Iuliano, l. 22. numb. 12.) re∣lates,

that Asclepiades the Philosopher was wont to carry about with him whitherso∣ever he went, a little silver Image of the Coelestial Goddess, or Vrania: and Dion (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lib. 40. fol. 81.) saith of the Ro∣man Ensign, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That it was a little Temple, and in that, the Figure of an Eagle set in Gold. Now that which moved Demetrius and other Workmen of the like occupation to stir up the Beast of many Heads to raise a Tumult against St. Paul, was not zeal for the honour of Diana, as they cunningly pretended, but fear lest their Trade should be ruin'd. For at this time there was a so∣lemn confluence of all the Lesser Asians, to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Holy Games celebrated at Ephesus, to the honour of other Gods, but of Diana in Chief. And it must have cut off the stream of profit from the Craftsmen, if the People had been convinced of the absurdity of their Devotion by St. Paul's Doctrine, that these Enshrin'd Idolillos of Diana so much bought up by Bigots, were no Gods, because made with hands. In the Prophesie of Amos (5. 27.) is mention'd [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Tabernacle of Moloch, which probably was an Image of Saturn in a Shrine, like these of Diana here describ'd. For that Moloch was Saturn, Selden hath

render'd indubitable: and that the Aegypti∣ans Worshiped him under the name of Re∣phan, is evident from the Coptick Table of the Planets explicated by Athan. Kir∣cher in Prodrom. Coptic. c. 5. pag. 147.

But of what Materials soever the Idols of the Ancient Gentils were made,* 1.101 still the Worshipers of them seem to have been possessed with an Opinion, That there was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] some Numen or Divine Power la∣tent in them. And this Opinion had been so diffused through all the Oriental Nations, before the Law; that God thought it ne∣cessary to the peace and felicity of the He∣brew Commonwealth now to be established, by this Precept to interdict all Graven Ima∣ges of any Animal whatsoever, such being thought, by reason of their hollowness and secret recesses, more capable of Demons, than others. For we are to understand, that to the Hebrews, as it was expresly for∣bidden to Worship any such Image, so was the meer making of any not permitted; lest from the shape or form of the Image, the Israelites might perhaps take occasion to believe, as the Heathens did, That such Images were (to use the Phrase of the false Trismegistus, in Dialog. cum Asclepio) ani∣matae sensu, & spiritu plenae; or (as Iam∣blicus calls them) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Divino Consortio simulacra plena. Where that Consortium or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of Angels or Daemons, whom they Conjur'd into the Ima∣ges, by certain Magical Rites and Sacri∣fices. Nay more; God strictly command∣ed that all such Statues and Images should be destroy'd and utterly abolish'd, Exod. 34. 13. Numb. 33. 52. Deut. 7. 5. Hence it was, That when Pilate had nayl'd up cer∣tain Shields or Bucklers in the Holy Tem∣ple, the Iews were unquiet and mutinous, until he had caus'd them to be taken away; because there were in them [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Countenances or Faces of some of the Cae∣sars emboss'd or prominent, perhaps in messo relievo. Hence also Herod having set up certain Trophies, was in danger of being outraged by the fury of the Iews, until by exposing them uncover'd, he shew'd, that no Images lay conceal'd under them. In like manner the Golden Eagle set up by the same Herod over the Gate of the Temple, was thrown down, as repugnant to the Ho∣ly Law; as Iosephus (Antiq. l. 17.) re∣lates. Nor was this Law unknown to Ta∣citus, who speaking of the Iews, saith, Nul∣la simulacra urbibus, nedum templis sunt. And he was in the right; for even Dion could tell his Readers, That to have Graven Ima∣ges or Statues, not only in their Temple

but in any other place whatsoever, was to the Jews unlawful. To endeavour to ex∣empt himself from the obligation of this Law, while the Sanctity of it continued, was criminal to any Man, from the Prince to the meanest of the Vulgar: God reser∣ving to himself alone, the Power of ex∣ception, as being the Law-maker.

He by his right commanded Cherubins,* 1.102 winged Images with Human countenances, to be set up in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple in that very place, into which none but the High Priest, nor he but once in the Year, upon the day of Solemn and general Expiation, was permitted to enter: as well knowing, that there was nothing of Divine in them; and designing, that by them should be signified, either (as Philo thinks) that the actions of God in rewarding Good Men, and in Punishing the Disobedient, are winged and swift; or (as Maimonides and others conjecture) that God uses the most ready and expedite Ministry of Angels to execute all His Commands. Of this His Prerogative Royal▪ He again made use, when He gave order, That the Brazen Ser∣pent should be Erected in the Wilderness for the healing of the People bitten by Fiery Serpents; and therefore Tertullian (de Ido∣lolatria) saith, Extraordinario praecepto

Serpentis similitudinem induxit. That the Fiery Serpents by which the mutinous Isra∣elites were bitten, were ex genere Chersy∣drorum, a kind of Water Serpents, grown more venenous by heat and thirst, and so truly Seraphim, i. e. ardentes, and exuren∣tes; and that they were not bred in the place call'd Phunon, where the Brazen Ser∣pent was Erected, but brought thither vi quadam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Divine Power, to punish the Contumacious people; hath been am∣ply proved by the Many-tongued Bochartus, (in Hierozoici parte posteriori. l. 3. c. 13.) to whom we owe all the knowledge we have acquired of the various kinds of Animals mentioned in the Holy Bible. As for Solo∣mon's adding the Images of Oxen and Lions, to the Brazen Laver; either he did it by se∣cret intimation or suggestion from God; or (as Iosephus judges, and other Learned Iews) it was his first step toward the Idola∣try to which after he arrived.

When we said that Graven Images of Ani∣mals were by this Law forbidden,* 1.103 we com∣prehend also Images of the Caelestial Lu∣minaries, because they too have their Mo∣tions; not Animal indeed, but Regular and Periodick. For, that not the Coelestial Orbs, but the Stars and Planets are moved in Cae∣lo Liquido, in the AEthereal spaces or Fir∣mament;

is the most ancient Opinion of the Hebrews, as the Gemara teaches at the beginning of Genesis, saying, Orbes fixi, sed sidera mobilia. And they expressed in Figure, either the form of some single Pla∣net, as of the Sun, Moon, Saturn, (call'd the Star of your God Remphan, or Rephan, in Act. 7. 43,) Lucifer, Jupiter, &c. or some whole Constellation made up of many Stars, and by men fancied to resemble a Man, or brute Animal, or Serpent, or other Living Creature. Wherefore Images of this kind also fall under the interdiction of this Law. It appears nevertheless, that the Images and Figures here interdicted, are in the number of things in their own Nature neither good nor evil, but indifferent, and consequently not unlawful; and which are prohibited only for caution of some Evil that may arise from the abuse of them. And that very many things interdicted in the Mosaic Law, are indeed by their own nature, or per se [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] indifferent; but directly opposed by God to the Institutes of the AEgyptians, Phoenicians, Arabians, to the end that the Hebrews might be kept the more remote from Polytheism or the Wor∣ship of many Gods; is prudently observ'd by Maimonides.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

But besides this Caution,* 1.104 there is another excellent use of this interdict of Images, viz. to admonish men that God is most remote from our sight and other senses. The Invi∣sible God is not to be Worshiped by Images, Symbols or Representations. Ye saw not, saith Moses, any similitude in the day where∣in the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being de∣ceived ye might make to your selves any gra∣ven Image. And Seneca (Nat. Quaest. 8. 30.) could say of God; Effugit oculos, co∣gitatione visendus est. Also Antiphanes the Philosopher; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. God is not seen by Eyes, He is like to no man; whence no man can know him by an Effi∣gies. And that this was the reason of this Law, is intimated both by Philo, when (de-Legatione) he said; Eum qui inaspicuus est, in simulacro aut fictili opere ostendere, nefas: and by Diodorus Siculus, when he said of Moses, Imaginem statuit nullam, quòd non crederet Deum homini esse similem: And by Tacitus, Iudaei mente solâ unum{que} numen in∣telligunt. Prophanos qui Deûm imagines mortalibus materiis in speciem hominum effingunt. For the same reason Halicarnen∣sis and Plutarch Affirm, That Numa caus'd all Images to be remov'd out of the Roman

Roman Temples; Quod non sanctum ratus, assimulare meliora pejoribus, ne{que} ad Deum accedi aliter posse quàm cogitatu. And Var∣ro hath left upon Record, That the Romans for more than One hundred and seventy Years from the building of their City, Wor∣shipped the Gods sine simulacro: adding, that if that wise Custom had been continued, to his days, the Gods would have been ob∣served more Religiously; and alledging the Example of the Jewish Nation to attest that his Sentence; and at length concluding, That they who first set up Images of Gods for the People, took away fear from their Cities, and put Error in the place of it.

What therefore shall we say of Pictures or Forms of Animals made in flats,* 1.105 or cut in hollows; are they also by this Precept forbidden, or not? Certainly this place can∣not be interpreted to condemn them. That not all Pictures were Prohibited, may with good reason, and assurance too, be inferr'd from the Ensigns of the Hebrews bearing a Man, a Lyon, a Bull, an Eagle, &c. Some Pictures are indeed forbidden, but in other places; namely all those which Idolaters used in their Superstitious and detestable Worship. Levit. 26. 1. To which may be adjoyn'd the Figures cut or engraven upon Metals, and believ'd to be of Power,

after their Consecration with certain Magi∣cal Words and Ceremonies, to defend Men and Cities from Invasion of Enemies, Scor∣pions, Lyons, Serpents, and other hurtful Animals, commemorated copiously by Mai∣monides (Ductor Dubitant. part. 3. cap. 37.) Which Opinion the Graecians following, call'd such Magical Figures [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] perfect Works: whence comes the corrupt word of the Arabians Talisman sig∣nifying the same thing. Others call them (as we have before hinted) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Princi∣ples, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Traditions of Elements. Of these frequent Examples occur in the Constantinopolitan History, in the posthume Works of Scaliger, in Gaffarel, and in our Mr. Gregories opuscula.

That we may come now to the Christi∣ans; they have believ'd themselves to be oblig'd,* 1.106 neither by other Laws of the He∣brews indeterminately, nor by that of ha∣ving no Graven Images of living Creatures. For such Images and Statues both of Em∣perors and of private Men renowned for Learning and Wisdom, have been in most Cities extant among them, and are so at this day, without danger of Idolatry; and there∣fore without offence. And as for Figures painted or engraven; since these were not without difference interdicted even to the

Hebrews, they have used them more freely, as the Figure of a Shepherd in a Cup or Chalice mention'd in Tertullian assures us. Nay, they abstain'd not from the Figure of our Saviour Christ, after the Emperors be∣came Christians: witness, these Three an∣cient Verses, written by Prudentius:

Christus purpureum gemmanti textus in auro Signabat labarum, clypeorum insignia Christus Scripserat, ardebat summis crux addita crist is.

Christs Figure of bright Gold on Purple born, Did the Imperial standard long adorn: Drawn upon shields, for Arms his picture stood; And on their crests was rais'd a Cross of Blood.

The same excellent Poet (in passione Cassi∣ani) hath transmitted to Posterity, that in the Monuments of Martyrs was express'd in Figures, the manner of their Martyrdom, and what they had so gloriously suffer'd. Long it was notwithstanding before Pictures were admitted into Churches, as appears from the Eliberin Canon, and from that so celebrated fact of Epiphanius. Lon∣ger before Statues and Prominent Ima∣ges were admitted, nor then without much dispute and opposition; not be∣cause they were prohibited by the Law,

but only because they were thought to give occasion to Error; which Reason was indeed, while Paganism remain'd, of no little moment.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.107 Thou shalt not adore them. So abundant was the Goodness and Favour of God towards the Israelites, that not thinking it sufficient to provide for their defence against the false Opinions, and im∣pious Customs of that Age, for the time they were to live in the Society of their own People; he having a longer prospect, was pleas'd to superad cautions for those of their Nation, who should in future times travel abroad and reside among strangers. For there, since they could not hinder the ma∣king, and superstitious use of Graven Ima∣ges of Animals or Stars; another preser∣vative was requisite to prevent their Infecti∣on by the contagion of some evil and ab∣surd Opinion and Institute: and the most powerful Antidote against all Contagion of that kind, was to prohibit to them the imitation of all such Gestures, by which that Errour was nourished. The Hebrew Word here by the Septuagint translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is sufficiently general; signifying an Act, not of the Mind, but of the Body, whether done by bowing down the Head only, or by inclining the whole Body, or by bending

the knees, or by sitting upon the Hams, or (which is a sign of the greatest honour) by falling prostrate upon the Ground. And yet notwithstanding the Greek Interpreters had reason on their side, when they rendr'd it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, adorare, to adore. For, as among the Peoples of the East, Veneration was shewn by various Forms of bending the Body; so among the Greeks, and some other Nations, Veneration was generally signified by putting the Hand to the Mouth; which properly is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [in utero fero, & Suavior] whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is, osculor, I Kiss.

Nor doth the Latine Word adorare own any other signification, being in truth de∣riv'd, not from orare, to pray or entreat, but ab ore quod manus admoveatur ori, from put∣ting the hand to the Mouth, or kissing the Hand. Which was not unknown to St. Je∣rom, who (in Apologia contra Ruffinum) saith, Qui adorant, solent de osculari manum: nor to Apuleius, who interprets adoratio, advene∣ratio, to be, a putting the Hand to the Mouth, or kissing the Hand, in token of singular Honour and Veneration. What in an old Epigram is, Ingressus scenam populum Salta∣tor adorat; is the same with that in Phae∣drus, jactat basia tibicen. How ancient this manner of Veneration is, may be learned

from that Expression of Iob (31. 26) If my Mouth hath kissed my Hand, i. e. If I have offended by extraneous Worship. But what hath hap'ned to many other Words, that they remain not in the sense of their Original; nay that in process of time, and by long use, the adoptive sense comes at length to prevail over the Genuine; the same hath been the fate of this Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It began to be used for any Ge∣sture whatever testifying Reverence. And therefore what the Interpreter of St. Mat∣thew (8. 2.) calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, adorare; the same in St. Luke (5. 12.) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to fall upon the face; and in St. Mark (5. 22.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to fall at the Feet. sometimes for perspicuity of the sense, one is explicated by the other added, as in St. Matt. (2. 11.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, falling down they worshipped: and (Act. 10. 25.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, falling up∣on his Face he shall worship God. Hence it came, that an External thing being referr'd to an Internal, that word is sometimes, though not often indeed, to signifie an act of the mind also, as the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sacrifice; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Oblation; and many other made by time Ambiguous. But in this place doubt∣less is signified, every act whereby Ho∣nour is wont to be demonstrated to Supe∣riours.

For as the Hebrews are in Exod. (23. 13.) forbidden to use the Names of false Gods, though in common talk: so here they are forbid to give any sign of Ho∣nour to Images, Quocun{que} tandem animo id fieret, as Moses de Cotzi (praecepto vetante 19.) prudently noteth.

But that by this interdict of bowing the Body to,* 1.108 or before Images, Strangers-born, how pious soever, are of right obliged; the Hebrews themselves deny, alledging the ex∣ample of Naaman the Syrian.

Nor did the ancient Christians believe themselves to be thereby obliged indistinctly, but only so far as there was in the Testimo∣ny of Honour exhibited before an Image, a Veneration of a false God, which is, per se & omni modo evil: which may be under∣stood from the forecited place in Job, from that in the Acts (10. 25.) and from the well known History of Nazianzen. But in places of Prayer, whether it were lawful to bow their Bodies, in sign of Honour, before the Images of Christ, or of Saints, which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. a sign of Love and Reverence towards men emi∣nent and honourable for Sanctimony; was a question long disputed and not without Seditions in the East. To Germany and France, this seem'd not to be free from Evil,

or an appearance at least of Evil: as ap∣pears from the Synods of Francfurt, and Pa∣ris, which were held in the times of Charles the Great and his Children. But yet it is to be remark'd, that in those Synods the Greeks were more harshly treated, because the Western Bishops Interpreted the sentence of the Greeks express'd in the Second Nicen Synod, in a harder or more rigid Sense, than it was intended, or than the words could well bear: being deceiv'd by the Acts of that Nicen Synod, translated into Latine so unfaithfully, as that sometimes they exhibi∣ted a sense contrary to the Greek; which may be observ'd, as in other places, so chiefly in those things which Constantine Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus had spoken about Ima∣ges. The Errours of which Translation, so far as they concern this question, have been particularly detected, and by comparing the Latine with the Greek Copy Corrected by the incomparable Hugo Grotius (ad Exod. cap. 20.) of whom I borrow'd much, and the best of what is here said. But to end this digression; that there was somewhat of danger in this Honour exhibited to the Ima∣ges of Saints; St. Augustin in his time ob∣serv'd, when speaking of the Christians, he saith, Novi multos esse Sepulchrorum & Pictu∣rarum adoratores. At this day the Greeks

prefer Pictures to Images, as thinking that in those is less of danger. The Armenians abstain'd from both. And as for the Ha∣bessines, the most Learned Iobus Ludolfus (Hist. Ethiopic. Lib. 3. cap. 5. num. 82.) speaking of the singular Honour and Ve∣neration they have for the Blessed Virgin Mother, saith, Eam tanto prosequuntur affectu, ut parum illis videatur, quidquid Ecclesia Ro∣mana in ejus honorem excogitavit: tantùm nullas ei statuas erigunt, Picturis contenti. So that being in all things true Iacobites, they follow the example of the Greeks, who judged Pictures of Saints more innocent than Images. Of the Muscovites, who yet boast themselves to be the only true Christi∣ans in the world, since they only are bap∣tized, whereas others are but sprinkled; Olearius assures us, That they Universally give their Saints and their Images the Ho∣nour due to God alone; and that the Vul∣gar among them place all Religion in the Honours and Veneration they exhibit to Images, teaching their Children to stand with profound respect, and to say their Prayers before those Images for which the Parents have most Devotion. Herein there∣fore they have degenerated from the Greek Christians, from whom they pre••end to have deriv'd their Faith, Doctrin, and Sacred Rites.

'〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.109 Nor Worship them. If by this Law God permitted not the Ho∣nour that was wont to be given to Eminent Men, to be exhibited, I do not now say to, but before Images, or in places where they stood; He thought it more unfit for his People to be permitted to do before Images any of those things, which the Custom of Nations had made proper to the honour of a Divine Numen, whether true, or only be∣liev'd to be such. Here the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indeed of ample signification, but when spoken with relation to any thing, is wont to be, by the Greeks translated as well by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to serve, as by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to obey; and sometimes also by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Mini∣ster unto. But because, when the same is used of things Divine, the same Interpre∣ters render the sense of it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thence sprung up that difference, with the Latine Christians, more than the Greek use. Other∣wise, if propriety be consider'd, there is no more in the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than in the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as appears from Psal. 2. 11. com∣pared with 1 Thess. 1. 9. in both which pla∣ces, what is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the same that in Heb, 9. 4. is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But where the Writer Treats of things Divine whether truly such, or only thought to be such; there the Hebrew Word here used, is

wont to signifie particularly those things, which by receiv'd Custom through all the East, and that which after was diffused through all Graecia, and wider too, were used in Divine Worship, whether true or false; namely, Sacrifices, Oblations, and In∣cense. For these properly are the things, which whensoever they are used in honour of any but the true God, the Hellenists or Iews speaking Greek, and as well the Apo∣stles themselves, as Apostolic Writers, fol∣lowing the Hellenists, express by '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Worship or Service of Idols. And in this Apostolic sense, Idolatry is, as Tertullian describes it, Quicquid ultra humani honoris modum ad instar divinae sublimitatis attolli∣tur.

Now both the Rites of which we have just now spoken,* 1.110 and all bowing before Ima∣ges are prohibited to the Hebrews, because the Precept of throwing down and breaking Images, in Countries not within their Ju∣risdiction or Dominion had no place; as the Hebrew Doctors rightly observe. With whom agrees that in the LX. Canon of the Eliberin Council; Si quis Idola frege∣rit, & ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in Evangelio non scriptum est, ne{que} invenitur sub Apostolis unquam sactum, placuit in nume∣ro Martyrum eum non recipi. Of the same

judgment was St. Austin, who (2. Contra literas Petiliani) saith, Non enim auferenda Idola de terra, quod tanto ante futurum prae∣dictum est, posset quisquam jubere privatus: And the African Synod under Honorius and the younger Theodosius, which Petitions the Emperours to take away the reliques of Idols through all Africa.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God. This clause belongeth, not only to this second Precept; but also, and principally to the First: to the Second, so far as that is in∣servient to the First. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is signified, The Supream Lord; I who have Soveraign Right and Empire over thee. The other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Strong, Migh∣ty, Potent; appositely, because mention of Revenge immediately follows in the next Comma. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is properly impatient of a Rival, as appears in the Law concerning the Jealous Husband (Numb. 5.)

* 1.111 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children. The Hebrew word here Interpreted by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, reddens, or rendring, signifies visiting, as our Translation rightly hath it; and is usually taken in the sense of vindicating: and ac∣cordingly by the Greeks very often expoun∣ded by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Revenge. But here is not

treated of all Sins, but of that Sin in par∣ticular which is committed about false gods; as appears from the antecedents and the con∣sequents. This sin therefore, as committed against his Divine Majesty, God Revenges, not only in those who have Committed it, but also in their Posterity; namely, by de∣livering them up into miserable Servitude: which He, by the right of his Supreme Do∣minion over all Men, can do without any the least iniustice. To give Authority to this Explication, we bring that place in Levit. (26. 39.) And they that are left of you, shall pine away in their iniquities in your Enemies Lands; and also in the iniquities of their Fathers shall they pine away with them. We bring also the example of Zion, (Lam. 5. 6.) We have given the hand to the Aegyp∣tians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. Our Fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have born their Iniqui∣ties, &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To the third and fourth Generation. Even to the Grand-childrens Grand-children. This is a pro∣verbial speech; used also by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he transmits Re∣venge to the Fourth Generation: And by the Poets.

Et nati natorum, & qui nascentur ab illis.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of those that hate me.* 1.112 Be∣cause properly the Evil touches the Posteri∣ty, the Punishment the Parents. St. Chry∣sostom (Homilia 29. ad 9. Genes.) Nulla poe∣na plus adfert doloris, quàm si quis ex se na∣tos sui causâ in malis esse videat. And Ter∣tullian: Duritia populi ad talia remedia com∣pulerat, ut vel posteritati suae prospicientes legi divinae obedirent. In Sacred Writ they are said to hate God; particularly, who Worship false Gods: so that Maimonides denies, that that kind of speech is found in any other sense.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.113 And shewing mer∣cy unto Thousands. God spake in the plural Number, not to a Thousand, but to Thou∣sands; shewing how much larger God is in doing good, and conferring benefits, than in punishing. This is what the Hebrews mean when they say, That the Angel Mi∣chael [the Minister of God's Wrath and Vengeance] flyes with but one Wing; Ga∣briel [The Minister of His Mercy, Love, and Blessing] with two.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.114 To those that love me. To those that Worship me, and that are there∣fore call'd Pious.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And keep my Precepts. Who are attent to observe all my Commandments, but chiefly those

which pertain to the exclusion and extincti∣on of Idolatry and all wicked Superstiti∣ons: and who are therefore call'd Righte∣ous or Iust.

CHAP. IV. The Third Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God, &c.

IN the Hebrew,* 1.115 thou shalt not bear or carry, namely in thy Mouth; which is the same with, Thou shalt not take, viz. into thy Mouth. Here also is, of the Lord; because by that Title the tremend Maje∣sty of God is best understood. We may en passant observe, that here the manner of speech is changed. For according to the way of speaking used in the former Pre∣cepts, it should have been My Name; but to the Hebrews this is frequent, to put a Noun for a Pronoun; as in Exod. 23. 18, 19. Genes. 2. 20. Numb. 10. 29. and many other places, where the like Translation from the first person to the third occurs.

* 1.116 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In vain, or (as Aquila) rashly,

or (as Philo) to testifie a Lye. But to omit all other interpretations of these Words, we have the sense of them compendiously ex∣prest in St. Matthew (5. 33.) Thou shalt not forswear thy self: nor is it to be doubted, but our Saviour Christ in this place urged the very Words of the Law, where the Sy∣rian hath put words that signifie, Thou shalt not Lye in thy Oath or Swearing. Only this is to be accurately noted, That in this place is treated, not of an Oath taken for Testi∣mony, of which the Ninth Precept was par∣ticularly given; but of an Oath Promissory, which the words following immediately in the same verse of St. Matthew sufficiently de∣clare, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths; (taken most certainly from Numb. 30. 2.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to for∣swear, taken in its proper sense, is (as hath been critically observ'd by Chrysippus) to make void what thou hast sworn, or not to stand to what thou hast by Oath promised. The weight or hainousness of this execra∣ble Crime, Philo wisely sheweth, where he saith;

That he who commits it, doth ei∣ther not believe, that God takes care of humane Affairs (which is an Abnegation of Gods Providence, and the Fountain of all Injustice,) or if he doth believe that, he makes God less than any honest Man,

whom none that designs to assert a Lye, would dare to call in for a Witness of what he knows to be false.

Abenesdras adds, That in other sins somewhat of commodity, profit, or pleasure is lookt upon, whereby Men may be tempted and carryed away; but in this oftentimes there is not the least commodity or emolument: that other Crimes cannot always be committed, this always.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.117 For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh the Name of the Lord his God in vain. Here accor∣ding to the Greek custome, two Negatives are put for one in the Hebrew: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, to pass by one as innocent. So that the sense is, God will not leave him unpunish∣ed: which is a Figure call'd [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] an Ex∣tenuation, such as is used in the Gospel of St. Matthew (12. 31.) Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men; that is, shall be severely punished; and in many other places of Scripture. And this sin is even by the Light of Nature so hainous and detestable, that the Heathens themselves believ'd, that it was always severely punished by God. Hesiod said,

Et juramentum, clades mortalibus unde Adveniunt, quoties fallaci pectore jurant.

Dire miseries pursue those men, that dare, Themselves with heart fallacious to for∣swear.

In Herodotus this Oracle is related.

At juramento quaedam est sine nomine proles, Trunca manus & trunca pedes: tamen impete magno Advenit, at{que} omnem vastat stirpem{que} do∣mumque.

From Perjury a nameless issue springs With maimed hand and foot; which yet still brings Revenge with mighty force; and doth at last, Both the whole Race and Family devast.

And the sweet-tongu'd Tibullus could say;

Ah miser! Et si quis primo perjuria celat, Sera tamen tacitis poena venit pedibus.

Ah wretch! though one his Perjury con∣ceal, Vengeance with silent feet will on him steal.

And he had reason;* 1.118 for an Oath is a religi∣ous Affirmation, as Cicero defines it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Testimony of God upon a doubtful matter, as Philo: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an affirmation with an assumption of God for witness, as Clement of Alexandria: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the strongest Seal of Human Faith, as Dionysius Halicarnensis: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the last and most certain pledge of Faith, as Procopius. Wherefore the Ancients, even wehre a specious excuse might be brought, held themselves religiously oblig'd to ful∣fill whatsoever they had by Oath promi∣sed. Concerning the sanction of an Oath or Vow, consult Iudges 20. 1. 1 Sam. 14. 24, 26, 27. Ioshua 19. 15. Psal. 21. 2, 6, 7, 8.

Now the reason why God threatens to* 1.119 send from Himself dire Punishments upon those who either worship False Gods, or vi∣olate His most Holy Name by Perjury, seems to be this; to let them know, that though men may perhaps be ignorant of, or neglect to vindicate these Crimes, yet they shall never escape the certain hand of Divine Ven∣geance in the end; which many times in∣deed is slow in lifting up, but always first or last strikes sure and home.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

CHAP. V. The Fourth Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remember the Sabbath day, &c.

IN Deuteronomy 'tis [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Observe the Sabbath day; and in the Hebrew is the like difference: in the latter place Moses expounds what is meant by Remember in the former, namely attend to the Sabbath.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to sanctifie it;* 1.120 viz. by a glad and grateful recordation of the Worlds Cre∣ation by God. For most true is the Sen∣tence of Rabbi Iudah Barbesathel, and R. Ephraim in Keli Iacar, that in these words one thing is Commanded, and another in the following. The keeping holy of the Sabbath day, hath for its true cause the Creation of the World: the Rest from La∣bour, the Egyptian servitude. That ex∣tends to all mankind: this to the Hebrews only, Exod. 31. 13. Which is the Judg∣ment also of Irenaeus (Lib. 4. c. 30.) and of Eusebius (1 Histor. c. 4.) And thus may we best explicate that of Genesis 2. God

blessed the Seventh day and Sanctified it; which the Hebrew Masters will have to be spoken by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] anticpation, as if Moses should say, that this Cessation of God from His work of Creation was the cause, why after in the time of Moses the Celebration or Sanctification of the Seventh day was ordained. But the righter interpretation is that, which distinguishes the precept of keeping holy the Sabbath, from the pre∣cept of resting from Labour, as by the causes, so also by the times. And to this differ∣ence Moses himself seems to have had respect, when in Duternomy to these words, Observe the Sabbath day to sanctifie it, he adds, as the Lord thy God hath Commanded three; namly long ago from the very beginning of the World, as Grotius conceives; or, as Selden, from the time when the Israelites were encamp'd in Mara (a part of the Wil∣derness so call'd from the brackish bitterness of the Waters) where the observation of the Sabbath was first instituted, about forty days before that institution was renew'd in the Decalogue. For he refers the first word of this Precept (Remember) to the first Sabbath there instituted. And true it is, that the first Sabbath was celebrated by the Israelites in their tenth Mansion or encamp∣ing in Alush, part of the desert of Sin. They

came from Elim into the desert of Sin upon the Fifteenth day of the Second Month from their beginning to march. Six days Manna was gathered, and one the Seventh the People Sabbatized. So that the first obser∣vation of the Sabbath fell upon the 22. day of the same Month; which being the Se∣cond Month from their Exit out of Egypt, was after named Iiar (for the names of the Hebrew Months were then unborn) and that 22. day of this Month answers to the 23. of May in the Julian year. The Seder Olam makes this Month Hollow, i. e. of but Twenty nine days; not Full, i. e. of Thirty days. Whence in computing the feriae or Holy days of these Months, there hath risen up a discrepancy of one day be∣twixt that Chronicon, and the Talmudist's. But that alternate distinction of Months, as our most Excellent Chronologist Sir Iohn Marsham (in Chronic. Canon. pag▪ 184.) observes, doth not well agree with the antick Chronology of the Hebrews.

How then shall we reconcile these two* 1.121 different opinions concerning the respect of the word Remember, the one asserted by Grotius, the other by Selden? By granting, that the Precept de observando Sabbato, in commemoration of the Aegyptian Servitude, was first given to the Israelites in Mara,

and a little after renewed at the promulgati∣on of the Decalogue, as pertinent particularly and only to them; and consequently that so far Selden is in the right: but that the institution of the Sabbath in grateful memo∣ry of the Worlds Creation by God, where∣in all Mankind were equally concern'd, was as ancient as the World it self, and extended to all Nations universally; and therefore Grotius, who seems to have consider'd this general institution and the cause of it, is so far in the right too. For,

That some knowledge and veneration of* 1.122 the Sabbath was by Tradition of highest an∣tiquity derived to other Nations beside the Hebrews, and remain'd among them for some ages; Clemens Alexandrinus (Stro∣mat. l. 5.) and Eusebius (in Praepar. Evang.) have clearly shewn, as by other Testimo∣nies, so particularly by the Verses of He∣siod, where [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Seventh day is call'd Holy. And in Iosephus, Philo, Theophilus, and Lucan, are places that ma∣nifestly attest the same long-liv'd Tra∣dition.

And upon this account it was,* 1.123 that the Primitive Christians, who believ'd that by Christ all things were reduced to the same State wherein they had been constituted from the beginning, Piously celebrated the

Sabbath, and therein held their Solemn Assemblies, in which the Law was publick∣ly read and expounded, as appears from that of the Acts 15. 21. Which Custom flourished until it was antiquated by the La∣odicen Synod, which judged it more conve∣nient and profitable to Christians, that in∣stead of the Law, the Gospels should be up∣on that day read to the People assembled. So Sacred in those more Pure and Pious times was the memory of the Sabbath originally instituted, that Men might with glad and grateful hearts acknowledge and celebrate with Praises the Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness of God shewn in the Creati∣on of the Universe; that they equall'd the Sanctity thereof to that of the Lord's day consecrated to the perpetual remembrance of that greatest Seal of our Faith, and pledge of our hopes, the Resurrection of our Redeemer from the dead. Hence Balsamo most appositely said; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. By the Holy Fathers the Sabbath days were held in all respects equal to the Lords days. Hence also Gregorius Nyssenus calls these two days Brethren, as worthy of equal Venera∣tion and Solemnity: and the Ancient Book of the Constitutions of Clement (l. 7. c. 24.) gives this in Precept; Diem Sabbatti & di∣em

Dominicam festas habete, quoniam illa Creationis, altera Resurrections memoriae di∣cata est. Nor was it from any other cause, That by the most ancient Church was intro∣duced the Custom of not fasting upon the Sab∣bath, because it was a day of joy and glad∣ness: as appears from the Epistle of St. Igna∣tius ad Philippenses, where he saith, Si quis aut Dominicâ aut Sabbato jejunet, excepto uno Sabbato, is Christum occidit. The same may be inferr'd from that memorable place in Tertullian (advers. Marcionem) memi∣nerat enim & ille hoc privilegium donatum Sabbato à primordio, quo dies ipse compertus est; veniam jejunii dico. Where we cannot but observe, that this Custom is deduced from the beginning of the World. From the same reason it came, that Constantine the Emperor, permitting to Christians the free use of their Worship, at the same time forbad their being compell'd to appear before any Tribunal or Court of Judicature upon the Sabbath, no less than upon the Lords day: which Edict is yet extant in Eusebius.

These things being known are sufficient* 1.124 to refute those who think that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Lord's day was surrogated into the place of the Sabbath; of which men∣tion is no where made by Christ, no

where by any of the Apostles. And St. Paul, when (Colossi. 2. 16) he saith, that the Christians are not to be condemned for their Sabbaths and New Moons; sheweth plain∣ly, that they are free from that Law of rest∣ing from labour, which liberty would sig∣nifie nothing, if, the Law remaining, the day were changed. That the Christians therefore appointed and held their Assem∣blies upon that day, wherein their Lord had risen from the dead; was not from any Precept either of God, or of the Apostles, but they did it by vertue of the liberty gran∣ted to them, and by voluntary consent among themselves. And to violate such Consent, after it hath passed into a Custom, is not the part of men living in Society. But this Custom obliged not to rest from la∣bour, farther than was necessary to the holding their Assemblies.

Having thus briefly shewn the difference* 1.125 betwixt the Precept instituting a Sabbath in memory of the Creation, which was from the beginning given to Adam and his whole Posterity; and the Precept given particularly to the Hebrews, both in Ma∣rah, and soon after at the promulgation of the Decalogue, whereby they were obliged to celebrate the Sabbath, by resting from dayly labours, in remembrance of their re∣demption

from the Aegyptian servitude; and assigned to each its proper cause and time: it will not perhaps be impertinent, if we subjoin a line or two concerning the Word Sabbata here used in the plural num∣ber. This Word among the Greeks is list∣ed in the Catalogue of those, which tho' pronounced in the number of Multitude, are yet notwithstanding often contented with the signification of Unity. And so is it often found in the Greek Pentateuch; so also in Mat. 12. 1, 5, 10, 11, 12. and c. 28. 1. in Mark 1. 21. and 2. 23, 24. in Luke 4. 16. On the contrary St. Iohn every where speaks it in the singular, as do also the Greek In∣terpreters of the other books extra Penta∣teuchum. The Latines often exprest it, as here, in the plural. So Horace, Sunt h••∣die tricesima Sabbata; and Iuvenal, Qui∣dam sortiti metuentem Sabbata Patrem.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Six days shalt thou work,* 1.126 and do all thy works. Here now begins that Constitution which is not common to all Mankind, but proper to the Hebrews. And what is here spoken in the Imperative, and in the Future, which is often taken from the Imperative hath not the force of a Command, but the sense only of suffering or permitting. For lest the Modes might be too much multiplyed,

it hath seem'd good to almost all Nations to express the sense of Permitting, as also of Praying, with the same sound, with which they express the sense of Commanding: as, for Example, sequere Italian ventis, in Virgil; and ubi nos laverimus, si voles, la∣vato, in Terence; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vre haec crema{que} membra, in an old Greek Tra∣gedy. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here are signified all sorts of Work, by Cicero (de ligibus l. 2.) call'd famula opera; Ferii jurgia amovento, ea{que} in famulis operibus patratis habento: and by Tertullian, Humana opera quotidiana, what∣soever men commonly do in their ordina∣ry vocations or daily business.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; But on the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.* 1.127 The Seventh day is De∣dicated to God from the beginning. And wisely do Maimonides and other Hebrew Masters distinguish the Cause why rest or quiet was commanded, from the cause why it was commanded upon this Day. The former cause is exprest in Deuteronomy plain∣ly to be, because the Israelites lately freed from the Aegyptian slavery by Divine help, ought to remember and consider how hard and grievous Servitude is, and therefore to treat their Servants and others subject to their Command with humanity and cle∣mency;

as Dido in Virgil, Non ignara mali miseries succurrere disco. The latter is de∣clar'd in this place, where it is signifi'd, that when any day might have been taken for rest or vacation for Labour, this was cho∣sen by God, because from the beginning it had been dedicated to joy, and the grate∣ful commemoration of the Worlds Creation by Him; and because upon the same day God had finish'd all things, and ceas'd from Creating, whence the Seventh day deriv'd the Name Sabbath.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt not do every work therein.* 1.128 God by many Words inculcates this Precept concerning the Sab∣bath, that by the perpetual observation thereof might be impressed upon the minds of all, a firm knowledge that this World was not from Eternity, but made by God, which is a strong inducement to the Ve∣neration of the Omnipotent Creator, as on the contrary, the belief of the Worlds Eter∣nity, is the way to Impiety and down-right Atheism.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Thy Son and thy Daughter.* 1.129 He understands those, who by reason of their Minority have not yet at∣tain'd to knowledge of the Law; whom their Parents ought to restrain from work∣ing upon the Sabbath. For they that are

of more advanced Age and understanding, are by the Law bound for themselves; as likewise in the Law of Circumcision.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Thy Man-servant and thy Maid-servant.* 1.130 This is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a kind and courteous way of speaking, much used by the Greeks to their Servants, and in imitation of them by the Latins, who with like softness and humanity call'd their Men∣servants, Pueros, as hath been of old noted by Servius upon that of Virgil, Claudite jam rivos pueri. Hence the names of An∣cient Men-servants, Marcipor, Quintipor, &c. So Epicurus call'd his Servants Friends, as Seneca (Epist. 107.) observes, who in imi∣tation of him, saith of them (Epist. 47.) Servi sunt? imò homines. Servi sunt? imo contubernales. Servi sunt? imò humiles amici. Servi sunt? imò conservi, si cogitaveris tan∣tundem in utros{que} licere fortunae. Than which he could have said nothing more becoming his great prudence and erudition. Hence also were Masters call'd Patres-fami∣lias, and Mistrisses Matres-familias, that by the very Name they might be admonished of humanity. And this Precept obligeth Masters, not only not to injoyn labours to their Servants of either Sex, but not to suffer them to work upon the Sabbath.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Thy Ox,* 1.131 and thy Ass, and every Beast of thine. Observable here is the great Cle∣mency of God, who by this Law requires some goodness and mercy to be exercised even to brute Animals, that he might re∣move Men the farther from cruelty toward each other: and to confirm this mild Pre∣cept, the like is given in Deuteron. 5. 4. The same reason is urged by Porphyry [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of Abstinence from eating of the flesh of Animals. Hence also was the slaughter of a Plowing Ox prohibited by a Law common to the Phrygians, Cyprians, Atticks, Peloponesians, and Romans, as we find Re∣corded by Varro, Pliny, Columella, Porphyry, Aelian, Vegetius and others. The Atheni∣ans made a Decree, that a Mule should be fed at the Publick Cost, which worn out by Labour and Age, used to accompany other Mules drawing burdens: and banished a Boy for putting out the Eyes of little Birds, taking it for a sign of a mischievous and cruel disposition in him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are, besides Oxen, Asses, and Mules, which also were used to the Yoke. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Beasts, as well Dogs as other quadrupeds. But these words are by the Greek Interpreters Translated hither from Deuteron. 5. for in the Hebrew is found only one general Name, signifying all

mute Animals whatsoever: which the Greeks render sometimes by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Beasts; sometimes by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Four-footed Living Creatures, and sometimes (from the sense of the place) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wild Beasts.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And the stran∣ger that is within thy Gates.* 1.132 Of Proselytes there are (as we have often hinted in the former part of this disquisition) two sorts; some, who subjected themselves to the whole Mosaic Law, that they might be participant of the right of Marriages and Honours among the Holy People: others, who though of forreign blood, were notwithstanding per∣mitted to dwell among the Hebrews, so long as they Worshipped one God, and ob∣serv'd the perpetual and common Laws of all Nations, together with the additional Laws interdicting incestuous Copulation, and eat∣ing of Blood; of both which we have spo∣ken profess'dly in the Precepts of the Sons of Noah. Now it is of this latter kind of Proselytes (as Abenesdras noteth) that the Precept here speaks, such as had not ad∣mitted the Seal of Circumcision, and whom St. Luke (Act. 17. 4.) rightly enough calls [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] devout Greeks, because the Hebrews used to call all Gentiles Greeks.

* 1.133 Here it may be inquir'd, Why such a stranger or Proselyte, though not oblig'd by

other Laws of Moses, as appears from Deuter. (4. 2.) was yet bound to keep this of resting from Labours upon the Sabbath. The reason is this; if while the Hebrews rested, strangers had been permitted pro∣miscuously to work and dispatch their bu∣sinesses; they would have diverted the stream of gain and profit from the Natives; which was repugnant to Justice and Equity. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to the Latines Incola, a Sojourner, one that fixeth his Seat in a Soil not Na∣tive to him. Thus in the Gospel of St. Luke (24. 18.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou art a Pe∣regrine or Stranger.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For in Six days the Lord made Heaven,* 1.134 and Earth, and the Sea, and all things that are in them. A brief description of the Universe, as in Acts. 4. 24. At first the Earth was rude and without Form, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mud, to the Phaenicians, intermixt and overwhelm'd with waters, which is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the abyss or bottom∣less Gulph. Of these God made the Earth dry Land, gather'd together the Seas, and distinguish'd the Air into two Parts, the Su∣perior or Aetherial, wherein he placed the Stars; and the Inferiour, which surrounds the Terraqueous Globe: then to this lower Air, to the Earth, and to the Waters he ad∣ded

their proper Animals; and particularly to the Earth he affix'd Herbs, Trees, &c. and in fine, He made Man: And all in Six days, though He could have made them in one Moment, that He might by His Example, teach Men to act with counsel and deliberation, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to ha∣sten slowly.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; And he rested upon the Seventh day.* 1.135 The sense is taken from Genes. 2. 2. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, requievit, is signified, not that God was weary with working, whereof the Divine Nature is in∣capable; but that He ceas'd from Creating, or put an end to all His Works: convert∣ing Himself to the survey and contempla∣tion of the most beautiful World He had newly rais'd and made out of Nothing; as Philo excellently observes. From Gods Example the Hebrews also were comman∣ded to devote this day to pious Contem∣plation, and the learning and commemo∣rating Sacred things. Of which pious Cu∣stom there remains an ancient Testimony in 2 Kings, 4. 23. and the number Seven was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, more anciently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Worshipping.

* 1.136 Concerning this Seventh day, by Philo (Lib. de vita Mosis) call'd [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] The Worlds Birth day, various are the Opi∣nions

of the Iewish Masters. Some think that the Septenary period of days was first Instituted by Adam, and began from the six days of the Creation. Others affirm, That Seth found out the way of compu∣ting the flux of time by Weeks, Months, and Years. But however disputable this Question be, highly probable it is, That Philo hit the white of Truth, when he ob∣serv'd, that the true Seventh or Sabbatical Day came first to be known to the Hebrews from the Miraculous cessation of Manna to rain upon that Day: whence 'twas easie for them to understand, what day in the week∣ly Circle of Seven Days ought to be rec∣kon'd the Seventh from the Creation, which was altogether unknown to them before.

The same most Learned and wise Iew,* 1.137 treating [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Of the Making of the World, and of the Number Seven, saith, That this Number hath been held of singu∣lar honour by the more Illustrious of the Greeks and Barbarians; who were versed in Mathematick Studies. And certainly the Aegyptians were the most Ancient Masters of the Mathematicks, by whom, both Py∣thagoras and Plato being taught, have very subtilly Philosophiz'd concerning the power and dignity of the Septenary Number in general, which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This

Number (saith A. Gellius from old Varro) makes in Heaven the Septentriones or Charle's wain, and lesser Constellation of the same Name; also the Pleiades, and the Seven Planets. Nor doth the Zodiac want Characters of that noble Number. For in the seventh sign is made the Solstice from Winter, or the shortest Day in the year, and again, from the Summer Solstice in the seventh Sign is made the Winter Solstice.

Both Equinoxes are confin'd to a Seventh Sign. Whence in the Sacred Rites of Osiris, a little before the Winter Solstice, Plutarch tells us (in Iside. pag. 372.) the Aegyptians used to lead a Cow Seven times about the Temple, because the Course of the Sun from Solstice to Solstice is finish'd in the Seventh Month. And they affirm, That all the great dangers of the Life and Fortunes of Men, which the Chaldeans call Climactericks, hap∣pen in Septenaries: of which abstruse Ar∣gument Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. l. 6. pag. 685.) and Macrobius (in Somn. Scipionis) have written copiously, and with no less assurance, than if they had certainly known that there are such Climacterical Mutations of human Life. In Sacred things also, in Purifications, Invocations, and other religious Rites, the Septenary Number hath been esteem'd of singular vertue and solemn

observation. Whence Apuleius describing the manner and ceremonies of his prepara∣tion for the Worship of Isis (Metamorphos. l. 9. Initio) saith, Me, purificandi studio, marino lavacro trado, septies submerso flucti∣bus capite; quòd eum numerum praecipuè Re∣ligioni aptissimum divinus ille Pythagoras prodidit. And Virgil (Aeneid. 6. vers. 645.) testifies that invocations also were to be Se∣ven times repeated.

—Longâ cum veste Sacerdos Obloquitur numeris Septem discrimina vocum.

Of the Septenary Number of Days,* 1.138 they observe, That the monthly Course of the Moon is performed in four times Seven, i. e. in Twenty eight days; that the Birth of Infants depends very much upon the power of this Number: and they observe the first Seven days, the Fourth week, and the Seventh; as A. Gellius. And from the Scholiast upon Aristophanes we learn (in Plut. p. 107.) that by the Athenians some certain days of every Month, besides other Feasts or Holy-days, were Consecrated to some Gods particularly; as the New-moon, and the Seventh to Apollo, The Fourth to Mercury, the Eighth to Theseus. The same was long before taught by Hesiod in this distich:

Primùm prima, quarta, & septima dies sacra est: Hâc enim Apollinem auri-ensem genuit Latona.

In the Mosaic Rites also the Septenary Number is solemnly respected.* 1.139 In the Con∣secration of the Altar, Oyl is Seven times sprinkled upon it: in Seven days the Con∣secration of Priests is Consummated: in the Expiation of Sin committed through ignorance, the blood of the Bullock is sprinkled by the Priest Seven times before the Mercy-seat (Levit. 16. 15.) A woman that hath brough forth a Male Child, is unclean Seven days: She that hath brought forth a Female, is unclean twice Seven. A man unclean by touching a dead Corpse, is expiated upon the Seventh day. In the purifi∣cation of a Leprous Man, Seven aspersions, and Seven days are Ordain'd: and accor∣dingly Naaman wash'd himself Seven times in Iordan. Iob offer'd for his friends Se∣ven Bulls, and as many Rams. Balaam built Seven Altars, and prepared Seven Bullocks, and Seven Rams. Seven Priests sounding Trumpets went Seven times round about Iericho, and on the Seventh day the Walls thereof fell down. Just so many Priests sounded with Trumpets before the Ark, and an equal number of Bulls and Rams

were offer'd in Sacrifice. Ezechias also offer'd Seven Bulls, Seven Rams, Seven Lambs, and Seven Hee-goats (2 Chron. 29. 21.) In Ezechiel (39. 9.) Arms and Wea∣pons are commanded to be burnt with fire Seven years: and the Land purged in Se∣ven months; and (Chapt. 43. 25.) the Al∣tar is in Seven days expiated. Daniel num∣bers the times by Hebdomadas. In the Apo∣calyps, the Book is seal'd with Seven Seals, the Lamb hath Seven horns, Seven Eyes, which are the Seven spirits of God; and to the Seven Angels are given Seven Trum∣pets, and Seven Phials. In a Word, in My∣steries this Number as the most perfect; hath always been preferr'd to all other.

But the most celebrated,* 1.140 and to our pre∣sent enquiry the most pertinent, is the Sep∣tenary Cycle or round of days, or the Se∣venth day in the weekly periods of days per∣petually recurrent; such as is the Sabbath of the Iews. The Aegyptians, the most anci∣ent computers of times, are reported by Au∣thors of good Credit, to have deriv'd the weekly Circle of days from the number of the Planets, and to have propagated that ac∣count of time, together with their Astrolo∣gical Discipline. For Herodotus recounting the noble Inventions of that mighty Na∣tion, saith (in Lib. 2. c. 82.) Alia etiam ab

Egyptiis inventa sunt: quis Mensis, & quis Dies cujus{que} sit Deorum: & quo quis die ge∣nitus, qualia sortietur, & quam mortem obiet, & qualis existet. Quibus rebus usi sunt ii qui è Graecis in poesi versabantur. Where Dies Deorum are the days of the Week, de∣nominate from the VII Planets: for in the Genethliac Art of the Egyptians, they ob∣tain the name of Gods, and every Planet hath his peculiar Holy-day assign'd to him: and therefore Dio Cassius the Greek Historian (lib. 36. pag. 37.) said truly, Quòd verò dies assignantur Septem Planetis, id certè in∣ventum est Egyptiorum.

But in the denomination of the Seven days,* 1.141 they have not observed the order of the Planets, that is in the series of the coe∣lestial Orbs. Whereof various Writers have excogitated various causes. Of all these, the reason given by our Venerable Bede seems to be the most simple, and therefore the best.

The Gentiles (saith he, de Tem∣por. ratione cap. 6.) though that they by good right consecrated the first day to the Sun, because it is the greatest Luminary; the second to the Moon, because it is the second Luminary. Then by an ordinate alternation, they made the first Planet from the Sun, Mars, president of the third day, the first from the Moon, Mercury, Lord of

the fourth; the second from the Sun, Iupi∣ter, ruler of the fifth; the Second from the Moon, Venus, Lady of the sixth; and the third from the Sun, Saturn, governour of the Seventh.

Now because this Saturn was by Astro∣logers imagined to be a sad,* 1.142 ill-natur'd, and malignant planet; therefore the Se∣venth day, in which he ruled, hath been accounted a black and unlucky day (for∣sooth) and unfit for business and the per∣forming of any work, and so set apart for leisure and rest. Nor have Orpheus and Hesiod doubted to propagate this precarious and superstitious Doctrine. To which Tacitus, writing of the Jews, seems to have respect in these lines: Septimo die otium placuisse ferunt; quia is finem Laborum tule∣rit. Alii honorem eum Saturno haberi; seu quòd è septem sideribus (queis mortales re∣guntur) altissimo orbe, & praecipuâ potentiâ, stella Saturni feratur; ac plera{que} coelestium vim suam & cursum per septenos numeros con∣ficiant.

But whatever was the reason that indu∣ced the Egyptians to assign the Seventh day to Saturn,* 1.143 we have none to doubt but that this Planetary denomination of the days, though not received into use by the Grecians till many Ages after, is originally of re∣motest

antiquity, equal to that of Astro∣logy it self, and to the age of Mercury the first, who taught the Egyptians the art of computing the year and times. For beside the auctority of Herodotus and Dio Cassius above-cited, we have that of Plato also; who (in Phaedro) introduces Socrates speak∣ing of the Egyptian Theuth, i. e. Mercury; these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that is,

That he first invent∣ed numbers and computation, and Geome∣try and Astronomy, and the Games of Cockle-blanck and Dice.

Nor are there want∣ing some of the Rabbins themselves, who have granted that this denomination of the days was in use among the Gentiles before the Decalogue was given. And Chaeremon in Porphyry (de Abstinentia) affirms, that the Egyptian Priests, in their purifications observ'd the Seventh days. We may there∣fore acquiesce in this persuasion, that the weekly Cycle of days was taken from Ma∣thematick discipline, and from the most secret treasury of Egyptian Antiquity: but that the sacred observation of every Seventh day, and the Feast of the Hebdomadical Sabbath, constituted by this Mosaic Law, in memory of the Egyptian servitude, was now first receiv'd into the Religion of the

Hebrews; as also that this their Sabbath was by the miracle of Manna ceasing to rain down upon that day, fixt upon the true Seventh day from the Creation, which God had from the beginning sanctified. Nor is it to be doubted but that this Precept of keep∣ing holy the Sabbath day, was peculiar to the Israelites. For God himself was pleas∣ed to say (Exod. 31. 13.) it is a Sign be∣twixt me and you in your Generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord who sanctifie you. Ye shall therefore keep the Sab∣bath; for to you it is holy. Nor will the Masters allow it to have pertained to the Gentiles. Some exempt even Proselytes of the House from the obligation of this Precept; but how that exemption can be brought to consist with those words of the Law [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and the stranger that is within thy Gates, I see not.

CHAP. VI. The Fifth Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Honour thy Father and thy Mother, &c.

* 1.144 THat this Precept (among those that are as it were imprinted upon the mind of man by Nature, and Legible by the light of right reason, not the least) was first given to the Israelites in Marah; we have the Authority of the Babylonian Ge∣mara, where (in titulo Sanhedrin. cap. 7. sect. 5.) we read; Decem praecepta acceperunt Israelitae, in Mara: Septem quae Noachida∣rum fuere; jam vero adjecta sunt Iudicia, Sabbatum, & parentum honos. That it ob∣tain'd among the Egyptians also, and was by them placed next after the Precept of divine Worship; is evident from the funeral Apo∣logy used among them, wherein the Libi∣tinarius personating the defunct, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, I have ever honour'd those who begat my body. And that the same was taught also in the School of Py∣thagoras, who learned all his Doctrines from the Egyptian Priests; is equally manifest from

the Golden Verses, where immediately after the precept of Worshipping the Godsfollows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and honour thy Parents.

But long before the days of Pythagoras was this Law placed in the Temple of Ceres Eleusinia,* 1.145 if we may confide in the testimo∣ny of Porphyry, who (from Hermippus) in De Abstinentia, p. 1. and 399. saith, as St. Ierom hath translated the place (Iovinian. l. 2. p. 528. Xenocrates Philosophus de Triptole∣mi legibus apud Athenienses tria tantum prae∣cepta in templo Eleusinae residere scribit: hono∣randos Parentes, venerandos Deos, carnibus non vescendum. And Socrates in Xenophon. (Memorabil. l. 2. p. 743.) saith, Civitas ingrati∣tudinis alterius rotionem non habet, ne{que} datur actio in eam: verùm si quis Parentes non honorâ∣rit, & actio adversùs eum scribitur, & Magi∣stratum capessere non permittitur. For, in the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] inquisition made into the manners and life of those who were to be admitted to Magistracy, they were interrogated first, if they were descended for three generations at least on both sides from Athenian Citi∣zens? and Secondly, if they had duely ho∣nor'd their Parents? Because he that is im∣pious toward his Parents, cannot be judged pious toward his Country. Nor toward God neither, saith Menander in this distick,

Qui patrem incilat, voce maledicit patri: At in hoc se parat at ipsi maledicat Deo.

To return to the Egyptians;* 1.146 doubtless the Sons among them shew'd all Signs of filial respect and honour to their Fathers while they lived, since they piously vene∣rated them even after their decease, and paid a kind of religious reverence to their dead bodies, to that end preserv'd by precious Embalmments; as if death could not cancel their bonds of gratitude, nor fate extinguish their Sentiments of natural piety. Whence that honourable testimony given of them by the Prince of Antiquaries, Diodorus the Sicilian (lib. 1. pag. 58.) Sanctissimè receptum est inter Egyptios, ut appareant Parentes aut Majores, ad eternam habitationem trans∣latos, impensius honorasse. Whereto he adds, that it was Lawful for them, in case of ne∣cessity to pawn the dead bodies of their Pa∣rents: but those who redeem'd them not, were punish'd with highest infamy and con∣tempt during life, and after death with pri∣vation of Sepulture.

Nor were the Egyptians the only Nation that taught and urged obedience and honor to Parents,* 1.147 from the dictates of Nature. For the grave Plutarch (de Philadelphia) saith,

Omnes dicunt at{que} canunt, primum ac praeci∣puum honorem post Deos, Parentibus desti∣nasse & Naturam, & Naturae legem. Nor is there is the whole World any People so Barbarous and Savage, but by mere natural instinct they understand, that honour and reverence are due to Parents.

Wisely therefore did Philo Iudaeus ac∣count this Precept now confirmed at the* 1.148 promulgation of the Decalogue, the last of the first Table, and placed in confinio utrius{que} His reason this; Natura Parentum videtur esse confinium immortalis & mortalis essentiae. Immortal, because a Father by begetting resembles God the Genitor of all things: and in the violation of it he puts the highest inhumanity, most detestable to God and man; feritatis primas ferunt, qui Parentes negligunt. And in truth this Law is the cement of human society. For he that loves and reveres his Parents, will re∣quite their care with good education of his Children, love his Brethren and Sisters as branches of the same Stock with himself, cherish and assist all his kindred as descendent from the same progenitors: whence flows that whole Series of consanguinity and na∣tural relation; and whence was the most ancient Original of Nations, Cities, and Towns, when Tribes and numerous Families

conjoyn'd themselves into Societies under the Government of their Heads. After this, when men conven'd from many places, they began by common consent to constitute Kings and Governours, by the example of Parents, to whom the ancients therefore gave the most proper and obliging name of Fathers. For which reason in the Roman Laws, and in those of other nations, the crime of Majesty, which we call High Treason, is put before all other crimes, as most pernicious to the peace and safety of the Common-wealth: and for the same reason is this Precept of Honouring Parents put before the rest that respect hu∣man society.

Here God hath been pleased to name (and certainly as He is the Author of Na∣ture,* 1.149 and maker of all Children in the Mo∣thers Womb, so is He the most equal Judge) the Mother as well as the Father. Whereas the Laws of this kind made by Men, provide almost for Fathers only; as the Persian Law commemorated by Aristo∣tle, and the Roman described in the Digests and Institutions, mentioned first by Epictetus, then by Simplicius, and Philo (de legatione) And though (in collisu) the right of the Father be the better, by reason of the pre∣valency of his Sex, for which God gave the Husband dominion over the Wife: yet cer∣tainly

obedience and reverence, which are here signified by the word Honour, are from Children due to both. In the same word is comprehended also the duty of Thankfulness and a grateful requital, as much as in Children lyeth; for indeed a full requital can never be made to Parents for the great blessing of existence and life given by them to Children; as both Aristo∣tle and Philo have observ'd: quomodo enim ab aliquibus genitus eos vicissim generare possit? And as God was pleased, for mans imitation, to impress upon mute Animals visible characters of almost all virtues, of justice, clemency, chastity, fidelity, friend∣ship, &c. not of all in all, but of each in particular species: so hath He given for an example of filial love and piety, to men the Storks which sustain and nourish their Pa∣rents, when they are grown old and weak.

For this also is comprehended in the first word of this Precept [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Honour,* 1.150 which in its chief sense signifies to nourish, as ap∣pears from the 1 Timothy 5. 3. Honour Widows that are Widows indeed, i. e. re∣lieve their wants, and contribute to their maintenance. And so the Hebrews inter∣pret that text in Numbers 22. 17. I will promote thee unto very great honour. So Cicero (Officior. 1.) treating of duties to Kindred

and near relations, saith, Necessaria praesi∣dia vitae debentur his maxime. And Hiero∣cles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: i. e.

We shall highly honour Pa∣rents

, if we most readily serve them with the Ministry of our body, and the help of mony.

Here I cannot but take notice of a strange distinction made betwixt Sons and Daughters, by the Egyptians in their Law of nourishing Parents labouring of old age or poverty, and recorded by Herodotus (l. 2. 35.) Nulla est necessitas filiis alendi paren∣tes, nolentibus: sed filiabus summa, etiamsi nolint.

Sons are under no necessity to feed and sustain their Parents, against their own will: but Daughters are most strictly bound to nourish them, though against their will.

An odd Law this, to impose the burden upon the weaker Sex, and exempt the stronger; and the more admirable to me, because no reason is added to it by Herodotus, nor can I fix my con∣jecture upon any that is probable.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That it may be well with thee. This is here added out of Deuteronomy, for explication sake; or perhaps ascribed on the margin from that place in Epist. to the Ephe∣sians, 6. 1. 3. many such additional clauses being found in the Scripture.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That thou mayst live long.* 1.151 Here Abenesdras noteth, that God is wont, when He forbids any thing, to annex the penalty; where He commands, the reward, as in this place. But St. Paul in the just now cited place to the Ephesians, no∣teth this more, that this is the first Command∣ment with promise. The Law in direct words promiseth only temporal felicity, as St. Ierom observes (l. 2. Commentar. in Epist. ad Galat. & 1. Dialog. contra Pelagium,) and St. Austin (de Civit. Dei l. 10. cap. 15.) And of temporal felicity the principal part is long life. Which is generally promis'd to those that keep the Law, as in Levit. 18. 5. and 25. 18. and in Deuter. 6. 17. 18. and in Ezech. 20. 11. some expound the Hebrew words, That they may prolong thy days, namely thy Parents by their favour and prayers to God. But I fear lest this interpretation be too Subtile, and adhere rather to the Seventy and other Interpreters, who take the Hebrew word, though of an active form, in a passive sense; viz. That thy days may be prolonged. To Absolom vi∣olating this precept, his days were cut off or shortned.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vpon the Earth, or in the Land. Life in exile, is not life, but a long death. Therefore God promiseth to obse∣quious

and dutiful Children a long life, and that too at home in their own Country. And Ezechiel enumerating the causes of deserved exile, puts the contempt of Pa∣rents in the head of the Catologue; chap. 27.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The good Land. This also hath been added from Deut. 8. 7. but deservedly. For that Land was in those days truly good and singularly fertil, abounding with Milk, Honey, and Corn, and other Fruits; and the only Land that produced Balsam, which it continued to do in good plenty down to the days of Pliny, who therefore praised it, and doth even at this time though in less quantity.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Which the Lord thy God will give thee.* 1.152 The present for the fu∣ture, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who will come, Matth. 3. 2. It must be something great and highly estim∣able, that God confers as a donative upon the posterity of those whom he loved above all others, and to whom he promised to give it. But as God promises great blessings to those that observe this Precept: so on the contra∣ry He threatneth grievous punishment to those that contemn and revile their Parents, namely death by decree of the Judge, if the matter be by sufficient testimonies prov'd a∣gainst them, Exod. 21. 15. 17.) and if the mat∣ter be not brought to publick notice, divine

wrath (Deut. 27. 16.) than which nothing is more dreadful, and from which Good Lord deliver us.

CHAP. VII. The Sixth Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt not commit Adultery.

IN the Hebrew this Precept is placed next after that against Murder, and the Greek Copies also now keep the same order in the rehersal of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy. But lest any should think this transposition of these two Precepts a thing recent, I must observe, that Philo in his time read them, as we now do; and that he gives this reason for it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that among unjust facts Adultery is the greatest. And again after he hath with ad∣mirable eloquence described the many evil consequents of this crime, he saith, Meritò Deo & hominibus exosa res adulterium inter crimina ordinem ducit, meaning the crimes that are injurious to men. Nor did the an∣cient Christians read them otherwise, fol∣lowing the Greek Codes; as appears from

Tertullian (de pudicitia) who saith, Eo amplius praemittens, Non maechaberis, ad∣jungit, non occides. Oneravit uti{que} maechi∣am, quam homicidio anteponit, &c. Where∣fore whenever the Ancients bring in these Precepts in another order, they bring them out of Deuteronomy, not out of this place of Exodus. Let us then, since we may do so without injury to the diligence of the Maso∣rets, follow the Greek Edition, which we have taken into our hands, and which may be defended not only by its antiquity, but also by this probable reason, That many of the Hebrew Women preferr'd Chastity to life; and that in the judgment of Aristotle, the crimes that proceed from the desire of plea∣sure, are more hainous than those that come from anger.

Abenesdras thinks, that by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath committed Adultery, all un∣lawful Venery; and simple Fornication is signified: but we find, that among the He∣brews that word is every-where taken on∣ly in the sense of Adultery, and so transla∣ted in this and other places, by the Greek, Latin and other Interpreters. True it is indeed, that in the Mosaic Law there is an interdict, that there should be no Whores in the People of Israel; and that Incests, and Marriages with strange Women that

worshipped false Gods, and the Portenta Ve∣neris or unnatural lusts, are also strictly pro∣hibited. But there was nothing of necessity that in so brief a Decalogue all the crimes that were afterward to be interdicted, should be mentioned, when it was enough that those were toucht upon, that might most hurt either piety, or human society. So there is no mention made of wounds inflicted, but of murder, which of all kinds of violence offer'd to the bodies of men is the greatest. In these words therefore is properly com∣prehended both the Wife that yields the use of her body to any other man besides her Husband, and the man that polutes anothers Wife. Both are condemned to suffer death, Levit. 20. 10. Which punishment the Chri∣stian Emperors, Constans and Constantius long after introduced into the Roman Empire, as appears from the Theodosian Code. Nor is this capital punishment to be thought more severe than Equity requires, if we well con∣sider that Common-wealths arise from, and are conserv'd by marriages, that their very foundations are shook by Adultery, that con∣jugal love is converted into mutual hatred, that inheritances are alienated to a spurious issue, while the right Heir is supplanted; that whole houses are fill'd with reproaches and feuds, which descend to posterity; and

not seldom break forth into publick mise∣ries and destruction. Of these dire mis∣chiefs, and a hundred other (too many to be here in this brief and desultory discourse particularly mentioned) sad and tragical examples occur in almost all Histories, whether ancient or modern: and the con∣sideration of them made Epicurus, in the Moral Sentences ascribed to him, to say,

What evil doth it not draw upon a man, to desire to have to do with a Woman, whose company is interdicted to him by the Laws? Doubtless a wise man must be deterred from admitting such a design in∣to his thoughts, if not by the manifest in∣justice thereof, yet at least by the great solicitude of mind requisite to obviate the many and great dangers that threaten him in the pursuit of it: it being found true by daily experience, that those who attempt to enjoy forbidden Women, are frequent∣ly rewarded with wounds, death, impri∣sonment, exile, and other grievous pun∣ishments. Whence it comes, that for a pleasure which is but short, little, and not necessary to nature, and which might have been either otherwise enjoy'd or wholly omitted, men too often expose themselves to very great pain, danger, or at best, late and bitter repentance.

CHAP. VIII. The Seventh Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt not Kill.

THat in the Books of our time this Precept hath been unduly placed af∣ter that against Theft,* 1.153 Philo, Tertullian, and others clearly shew. Philo saith truly, That he who commits Homicide, is guilty also of Sacriledge, in that he violates the Image of God: and then he most hainously sins against Society, to which all Men are born, and which cannot consist, if Innocency be not safe from Violence. Since Nature hath in∣stituted a certain Cognation betwixt us, it is a genuine consequence, saith Florentinus most wisely, that for one man to lye in wait for the blood of another, is a high Crime against the Law of Nature. Then again, he that assumes to himself that pow∣er over the Life of another, how nocent so∣ever, which the Law attributes only to the Judge, violates the Civil Laws. So that Homicide is a Crime against the Majesty of God, against the Law of Nature, and

against the Laws of Humane Society, or Civil Government.

But by the Verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to Kill, is here signified,* 1.154 not every act by which the Life of another is taken away, but the unlawful Act, which is wont to be the sense of the Hebrew word, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] He hath Murder'd. What therefore is done in defence of Life or Chastity, is exempt from this Law, by that of Exod. 22. 2. and Deut. 22. 26. So are other Killings that the Law permits, as the Killing of him that attempts to seduce to the Worship of strange Gods, Deut. 25. 6, 7, 8. And the Killing of an Homicide is permitted to the Revenger of Blood, who was the next of Kin to the person slain. The same is to be said also of those who have receiv'd from God a special mandate to Kill some Peoples or Men. For there is no injury in what God commands, who hath by highest right most Absolute Do∣minion of the Life and Death of all Men, even without cause Given. Of the Right of Zealots, deriv'd from the Example of Phineas the Son of Eleazar (Numb. 25. 11.) we have formerly spoken in Art. 6. of Chap. 6. of the former part of this Disquisition.

CHAP. IX. The Eighth Precept explained.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thou shalt not Steal.

UNder the Name of Theft is compre∣hended all subduction or taking away of the Goods of another,* 1.155 whether it be done by force, or by fraud. Society, to which (as was just now said) all Men are born, can∣not subsist, unless every Mans Possessions be in safety. He therefore that either by open Violence, or by privy Stealing, takes any thing from a private Man; at the same time both wrongs him, by invading his Propriety; and hurts the Common-wealth, by dissolving the common Ligament or bond of it, which is the safety of every Mans pri∣vate Right or Propriety. Nor is it to be doubt∣ed, but he that indulges to himself that li∣cence, would, if he could, invade all things of all Men, and by open Force make the Com∣mon-wealth his own. For Injustice strength∣ned by Power, becomes Tyranny. Therefore,

* 1.156 The Seeds of so great and pernicious an evil were to be early oppress'd, and the di∣ligence

of all Men to be excited to Labours, by Faith made to them, that they should qui∣etly keep, possess and enjoy whatsoever they by their honest Pains, Art, and Industry acquired. To admit Theft, saith Paul the learned Roman Lawyer, is prohibited by Law Natural. And Vlpian saith, that Theft and Adultery are by Nature shameful and odious.* 1.157

By the Mosaic Law, the Panishments of Theft were various, according to the quali∣ty and valour of the things stolen, and some other Circumstances. But Theft of the most precious thing, of a Man, which the Latines call Plagium, was punish'd with Death. Exod. 21. 16. and Deut. 24. 7. Which Abenesdras, in his Notes upon this Precept, will have to be understood only de Puero, of a Boy or Child that cannot speak. Theft of a Man was interdicted also by the Roman Law, F. F. de furtis 37. 60. So it is by our Law, which makes it Felony.

CHAP. X. The Ninth Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thou shalt not speak against thy Neighbour a false Testimony.

NEighbour here is,* 1.158 an Israelite of the same Country; as appears from Ex∣od. 11. 13. and Levit. 19. 18. Where it is said, Thou shalt not stand against the Blood of thy Neighbour. Which according to the Interpretation of the Masters is, Thou shalt not stand an idle Spectator when an Israelite one of thy own Nation, is Assaulted, and his Life in danger, but help to deliver him from the Aggressor. And to this Neighbour is opposed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] an Enemy. But in the Gospel, Neighbour is every Man of whatso∣ever Nation or Country, as in St. Luke 10. 33. Where the good Samaritan is by Christ Himself declared to be Neighbour to the Iew that was wounded by Robbers: and be∣fore the Law of Moses, all men were Neigh∣bours, as is hinted in Genes. 11. 3. And they said one to another, i. e. in the Hebrew, A Man said to his Neighbour.

The Hebrew word here Englished speak,* 1.159 properly signifies to give answer to an Inter∣rogation; and in that sense we take it, for Witnesses were wont to be solemnly Sworn or adjured, i. e. By an Oath Administred and taken by the most Holy Name of God, excited to give true Testimony in the mat∣ter under enquiry before the Judge, who Administred the Oath: and then to answer the Questions by him propos'd. So are we to understand that of Levit. 5. 1. And if a Soul sin, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] hear the Voice of Adjuration, and is a Witness, &c. The Party Accused was also Adjured by the Judge in the Name of God: of which an∣cient Custom we have an Example in Io∣shua 7. 19. and in Matth. 26. 63. And the form of Interrogating and Adjuring the Accused was, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Give Glory to God; as in the Examination of Achan by Ioshua, My Son, give Glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make Confession unto him, and tell me now what thou hast done. Hence some Learned Men with good Reason Col∣lect, That Achan was not without hope, That the Souls of Men survive their Bo∣dies, and remain after Death to Eternity. For by what other hope could he be brought to confess himself guilty of a Crime, which he knew to be capital without Pardon?

nor could he be ignorant of the common perswasion of the Hebrews, that by Con∣fession and Death, full forgiveness of such Crimes might be impetrated or obtain'd from God. This form of Adjuration was used by the Prophets and Judges of the Great Sanhedrin constituted by God, as hath been rightly observ'd by Grotius (ad Ioannis cap. 9. vers. 24.) and in the Thal∣mudic Digests (titulo De Synedrio) Sime∣on one of the Senators thus spake to King Iannaeus; Non stas coram nobis, sed coram eo qui dixit, Fiat & factus est Mundus. Sometimes this form indeed was express'd in other words, but the same sence was still retain'd: as in 1 Kings 22. 16. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I Adjure thee to speak to me the Truth in the Name of the Lord.

Now this Crime of bearing false Witness, which is here prohibited,* 1.160 is also hainous and execrable in various respects. First be∣cause Verity, which is as it were another Sun among Men, is thereby violated and brought into Contempt. Then because the Guilty are helped and Absolved, and the Innocent hurt and oppress'd; both which are against the rules of Justice. In fine, because a false Witness deceives and mocks the Judge, who is Gods Vicegerent; and

doubtless would do the same to God Him∣self also, if he were not above all Illusi∣on.

The Punishment appointed by the Law of Moses for a false Witness,* 1.161 was most ap∣posite, namely what the Latines call poenam talionis, i. e. an Evil equal to that which the Person against whom the false Witness gave Testimony, might have suffer'd, in case the Testimony had imposed upon the Judge: so that the Punishment might reach even to death, if the Party accused were upon Trial for Life.

CHAP. XI. The Tenth Precept explicated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's Wife, nor his House.

BY the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to desire,* 1.162 here most fitly used by the Greek Interpre∣ters, is signified, not every sudden motion of the Mind, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Phantasie exciting the Mind, as Philo speaks, but the Passion or disease of the Mind call'd Lust, when a Man resigns up the conduct of his Will to that sensual desire, and pur∣sues the Object of it; or as the Poet pathe∣tically expresses the Passion, Vulnus alit venis, & caeco carpitur igne. Seneca (de ira Lib. 2. cap. 4.) calls the former, a Mo∣tion not voluntary, a stroke of the Mind that cannot be declin'd by Reason: the latter he saith, arises from judgment, and is by judgment to be taken away. Of this moreover he makes two degrees; one, that is not yet obstinate, but vincible by reason;

the other, that already Triumphs over the Understanding, and leads the Will captive in Chains of impotent desire.

In the Old Testament also we find the* 1.163 Hebrew words here used to express Concupi∣scence, most frequently to denote, not those first and indeclinable Motions alone, but the permanent study and fixt purpose to obey, cherish, and gratifie them; as in Mi∣chaea 2. Yea, more in this place seem to be noted, the Acts by which the Wife or House &c. of another man is indirectly coveted; such are the sowing or fomenting of dis∣cord and animosities betwixt Husband and Wife, whence follows Divorce; promoting Suits at Law, and other Artifices of con∣ceal'd iniquity. And this to me seems to be the reason why St. Mark (10. 19.) ex∣pounds this Precept by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ne frau∣dem feceris, defraud not: which both the order of the Laws there recited shews, and because [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Thou shalt not Steal, went before.

But although this may seem to be the sense of this Precept [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in a grosser Interpretation;* 1.164 yet have Philosophers of the soundest judgment always held, that

the meer purpose in Lust or Coveting, though it never proceed to act, is sinful. Aelian said wisely, non solùm malus est, qui injuri∣am fecit, sed & qui facere voluit, me qui∣dem judice. Nay, Ovid himself, though no example of Chastity, could say;

Quae quia non licuit, non facit, illa facit Vt jam servaris benè corpus, adultera mens est.

Seneca the Father saith the same thing, and with equal Elegancy; Incesta est etiam sine stupro, quae cupit stuprum. The Son; Non immeritò in numerum peccantium refer∣tur, quae pudicitiam timori praestitit, non sibi: and in another place, of Crimes in gene∣ral; Omnia scelera etiam ante effectum ope∣ris, quantum culpae satis est, perfecta sunt. So Typhoninus the Lawyer Affirms, That a Man is call'd an Adulterer Ex animi pro∣positione sola, though he hath never actual∣ly corrupted any Mother of a Family. So also Porphyry (de Abstinentia lib. 1.) Postquam factis abstinueris, abstinendum & motibus, ac maximè ipsis animi morbis. Quid enim prodest factis absistere, si causis unde ea proeedunt astrictus maneas.

These Philosophers then saw farther in∣to the Nature of concupiscence,* 1.165 and re∣quired greater purity of mind, than the Iewish Masters that were in our Saviour's time, and a little before and after; who finding in the Mosaic Law no penalty or∣dain'd for thoughts and desires of intervert∣ing the Wife or Goods and possessions of another man, therefore deny that any sin is committed by the Will alone, without any overt Act, unless in the case of wor∣shipping false Gods, because to such thoughts, Counsel, and purpose, a penalty was assign'd, and to no other. And that this was the judgment of most Rabbins, Abenesdras noteth at the beginning of the Decalogue: and Iosephus certainly was of the same, when treating of the Sacri∣lege designed by Antiochus, he said; non erat paenae obnoxium consilium sine effectu. Nor would St. Paul, educa∣ted under such Masters, have believed otherwise, had not a more exact and more Spiritual consideration of the Law con∣vinced him, and brought him to write (Romans 7. 13.) that the Law being Spi∣ritual, makes concupiscence in thought, though it proceed no farther, sinful.

But what shall we Christians say of what our Saviour prescribes to us in the Gospel of St. Matthew (5.) that this Law,* 1.166 which we now consider, was there∣by only vindicated from an erroneous in∣terpretation; or that somewhat was ad∣ed unto it? The latter is more probable; viz. that Christ prohibited not only a firm purpose and design to gratifie our lusts, but also the assent or yielding to the motions of them; which He commands us to suppress and extinguish so soon as they are felt and perceived within us, and to avoid all occasions that may foment them, which He teacheth very significant∣ly, though in parable, by the casting away of Hand, Eye, and Foot, i. e. by the loss of those things that are dear to us. Nor content to have taught this purer Doctrine, He addeth a more grievous pe∣nalty to offenders, than any found in the old Law, namely that of Hell; whereas for such delicts the Law of Moses pre∣scribes no punishment at all, as the Ma∣sters rightly observe. Certainly the an∣cient Christians held, that in the Gospel somewhat more perfect is exacted, than what the Law expressly treats of. Wit∣ness Tertullian. Nos ergo soli innocentes?

quid mirum, si necesse est? Enimvero necesse est: innocentiam à Deo edocti, & perfectè eam novimus, ut à perfecto Magistro reve∣latam; & fideliter custodimus, ut ab in∣contemptibili dispectore mandatam. Let us for example take that Precept of not lust∣ing after a Woman, which the Ancients thus explicate. Iustin writing to Zena and Serenus, saith that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the first fume of this appetite is interdict∣ed by Christ.

Athenagoras saith; we are so far from thinking such things in∣different, that it is not permitted to us to look upon a Woman with desire. Tertullian (de velandis virginibus) a Christian beholds a Woman with safe Eyes: in mind he is blind toward lust. And Minutius; ye punish wicked Acts; to us, but to think an ill thought, is to sin.

This more refined precept deli∣ver'd by Christ, with some other of like perfection, seem'd so new, and so heavy withal to the Iews, that Tryphon, the most learned and eloquent among them, doubt∣ed not to say to Iustin; Your Precepts in the Evangel I know to be so great and admirable, that no man is I think, able to observe them: not considering what had been taught by Christ (Matth. 19. 26.)

With men this is impossible; to God all things are possible. Namely Christ hath ob∣tain'd for those that believe in him, a more certain faith of eternal life, and a Spirit much greater, than had ever before been given to men: and then by His sufferings upon the Cross He gave us an example most absolute; and that nothing is so hard at first, which may not by exercise and a willing mind be made easy and familiar; as most of the Fathers have noted upon that in St. Matthew (12. 30.) By this custom of repugning it comes to pass, that those lustful motions by degrees sub∣dued, dare no more rise up within us. This is that noble and glorious victory by faith, of which St. Iohn speaks in his Epistle. c. 5. v. 45.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Nor his field, nor his Man-servant,* 1.167 nor his Maid∣servant, nor his Ox, nor his Ass, nor any Beast of his, nor any thing that is thy Neighbours. Nor his Field, hath crept hither from Deuteronomy; and, nor any Beast of his, from the Precept of the Sab∣bath: for neither is found in the Hebrew

of this place. But these differences are of little moment. Tertullian spake all in a word, when he said, alienum non concupi∣sces, thou shall covet nothing that belongs to another; not the least things ought to be excepted, lest by degrees men should go higher; nor the greatest, because in such the virtue of justice is most resplendent. And Aristotle being asked what was [Tò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Iust, answered, as became the Prince of Philosophers, [Tò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] non concupiscere aliena; in which all Moral Precepts are reduced to one.

CHAP. XII.

Evangelick Precepts conferr'd with those of the Decalogue.

IT was wisely observ'd by Philo, that the Masters of his Nation were wont to referr to these ten Precepts of the Decalogue, which we have endeavor'd briefly to explicate, whatsoever was con∣tained in the whole Law of Moses: not that all the Mosaic Institutes were com∣prehended in the words of the Ten Com∣mandments, but that these all pertain to

certain kinds of actions, to which the rest may be, for help of the memory, re∣ferr'd; as all things are by Philosophers referr'd to Ten Categories or Predica∣ments, for more facility of teaching. This very thing have the Christians also done, referring all Evangelic Precepts to their respective places in the Decalogue: but they have done it much more fully and perfectly, as being both endowed with a greater Spirit, and obliged by their most noble faith and profession to exercise sublimer virtues.

Thus to the First head, which is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of Gods Vnity and single Go∣vernment, they congruously refer, not only all those Doctrines of the Gospel that forbid the least shew or appearance of Worship exhibited to false Gods, de∣liver'd in Acts 15. 20. and 29. in 1 Corinth. 8. 10. in 1 Iohn 5. 21. and particularly expounded by Tertullian (in Apologetico) and the Ancient Canons: but also those that Command the Vnity of the Church most strictly to be observ'd, taught in Iohn 17. 3. and 21. in 1 Corinth. 8. 6. and 12. 2. 18. 19. and 25. and in Ephes. 4. 5.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

To the Second, which interdicteth Idols or Images, they refer all the Evangelic; Precepts by which we are prohibited to addict our selves to, or fix our affections upon things subject to sense, so as to pre∣fer them before, or equal them to God: such as are given in Matth. 6. 24. in Ephes. 5. 5. in Coloss. 3. 5. in Philip. 3. 19. and in Romans 16. 17. Of which ar∣gument we may read excellent things in St. Chrysostom, upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

To the Third, of not swearing or vow∣ing by Gods holy Name in vain, they refer whatever we are taught in the New Testa∣ment concerning the great Reverence due to the Divine Name, in Matth. 6. 9. so great, that out of respect thereunto we ought to abstain from all swearing, unless in matters highly pertaining to the honor of God; as in Matth. 5. 34. and Iames 5. 12.

To the Fourth, of keeping holy the Sabbath, they refer the Christians certain hope of a most tranquil and happy life to come, assured by that in Hebrews 4. from the First verse to the 11th. Where∣of a certain tast is in the mean time given

in that peace of Conscience which St. Paul so justly preferrs to all other enjoy∣ments in this transitory life, when (Ro∣mans 5. 1, 2.) he saith, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, &c.

To the Fifth, commanding honour to be given to Parents, the Christians re∣fer all the Evangelical Mandates of giving civil honour and obedience, within the limits of Divine Commands, to Kings and Governours, and all that are put in Au∣thority under them. Such are given in Rom. 13. from verse 1. to 8. in 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, and 3. in 1 Pet. 2. 13. Of obedience to Masters, in Ephes. 6. 3. and Coloss. 3. 22. Of honour and obedience to Hus∣bands, in 1 Corinth. 11. 3. 1 Coloss. 3. 18. in 1 Pet. 3. 1, and 2. in 1 Tim. 2. 12. in Tit. 2. 9. Also to Pastors or Ministers of the Gospel, in 1 Tim. 5. 17. in Hebr. 13. 17. and in 1 Pet. 5. 5. and to others of Eminent quality, in Rom. 13. 7, and 8.

To the Sixth, by which Adultery is prohibited, are accounted the Evangelic Interdicts against all sorts of unnatural lusts, all scortation or whoring, all un∣cleanness and polution Venereal of what∣soever

kind or degree: such as are pro∣mulged in St. Matth. 15. 19. in Mark 7. 21. in Acts 15. 20. in Rom. 1. 19. in 1 Cor. 6. 13. and 2 Cor. 12. 21. in Gal. 5. 19. in Ephes. 5. 3. in Coloss. 3. 3. in 1 Thess. 4. 3. and 2 Thess. 2. 3. Also all Divorces, unless in the case of Adultery, as in Matth. 5. 32. and 19. 9.

To the Seventh, interdicting Homicide, are referr'd all animosities, anger, ha∣tred, and malice, the seeds of fights and murders, condemned and forbidden in Matth. 5. 22. 43, 44, 45. and the follow∣ing comma's; in Eph. 4. 31. in Coloss. 3. 8. in 1 Tim. 2. 8. in Iames 1. 20. in 1 Ep. of Iohn 3. 15. and in other places of the New-Testament.

To the Eighth, against Theft, are re∣duced those most equitable Precepts by which Christians are, not only forbidden to infer any damage, loss or detriment upon others, but obliged on the contrary to do good to all men, even to their ene∣mies, to the best of their faculties and power. Such we find in Matth. 5. 44. in Luke 6. 35. in 1 Cor. 6. 7. and 8. in 2 Cor. 7. 2. in 2 Coloss. 3. 25. in Ephes. 2.

in 1 Pet. 4. 18. in Rom. 5. 14. in Galat. 5. 22. in 2 Thess. 1. 11.

Under the Ninth by which it is made criminal to give a false Testimony, are listed the Precepts by which we are com∣manded to shun all falshood, lying, and deceit in speech, and to be highly studious of veracity and faith in all conversation, and transactions. Such are recorded in Iohn 8. 44. Ephes. 4. 24, 25, 26. 1 Iohn 2. 21. Coloss. 3. 9. Rom. 3. 4. 1 Tim. 1. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 8.

The Last prohibiting Concupiscence, is by Christians so far extended, as that no permission is to be indulged to the moti∣ons of the mind that sead to unlawful counsels, designs and actions; but that they ought to be checkt and extinguished, so soon as we perceive them to arise within us, as appears both from the places already cited in 5th. Art. of the Chapt. next precedent, and in Mark 4. 19. Gal. 5. 24. 1 Pet. 2. 11. And this Mortifica∣tion of our sensual appetites, is what the Holy Scripture intends by crucifying, kil∣ling, and putting off the old man; in Coloss. 3. 5. and 9. Rom. 6. 6. Ephes. 4, 22. and

what Lactantius (l. 6. c. 18.) adviseth when he saith, Priùs tamen quàm commotio illa prosiliat ad nocendum, quoad fieri po∣test maturius sopiatur. The Three allure∣ments of these sensual Motions are, Plea∣sure, Pride, Riches; in the judgment of St. Iohn (1 Epist. 2. 16, and 17.) To whom Philo consenting, deduceth all Sins and Mischiefs [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] from one fountain, viz. the desire either of Money, or of Honour, or of pleasure.

To conclude; the Sum of all the hi∣therto. recited Precepts, of the Mosaic somewhat more obscurely indeed, and with many shadows intermixt; but of the Evangelical most openly and bright∣ly, is no more but this, that God be loved above all things, and that every man be loved as our selves. This is the sole scope, as of the Law and the Prophets, so also of the Gospel. Witness Psal. 15. Esai. 32. 15. Mich. 6. 8. Matth. 22. 37, 38, 39, 40. Mark 12. 30, 31. Luke 10. 27. Rom. 13. 8, 9, 10, and 11. 1 Cor. 8. 3. and 13. 2. Gal. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 22. Iam. 2. 8. 1 Iohn 2. 10. and 3. 17. and 4. 7, 8, 9. and 2. 12. 20. By this Love faith is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] operating,

Gal. 5. 6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and perfect, Iam. 2. 22. Without it, and the works thereof, it is a dead Faith, Iam. 2. 20. This Love there∣fore let us pray to God to give unto, and increase in us, for His Sons sake, by the Holy Spirit. Amen.

From this Harmony of the Mosaic and Evangelic Laws, I might take occasion to enquire also into the things in which these differ from and excel those; and thence to shew, how incomparably more noble in it self, and more agreeable to the Spiritual Nature and proper affections of a Rational Soul, the Christian Religion is, than the Iudaic, or any other hitherto known in the World. Which would not be difficult to me to do, since various Arguments offer them∣selves to every considering man, from the excellency of the Reward by God Himself promised and infallibly assured to all true and sincere Professors of Christianism, viz. eternal Life and immutable Felicity after a joyful Resurrection: from the singular Sanctity of its Doctrine and Precepts, as well concerning the true and most congruous Worship of God in Spirit, and from pure Love, as concerning all the Offices of Hu∣manity due from us to our Neighbour, though our Enemy; the Mortification of

all sensual Lusts and unjust desires, nay the contempt of all temporal goods in compa∣rison with eternal; from the Divine Vir∣tues, inculpable life, miraculous works, pa∣tient sufferings, and certain Resurrection of Christ the Author of it: and in fine,-from the wonderful Propagation thereof, whether we consider the infirmity, simplicity, and ob∣scurity of the Men that in the first times taught and diffus'd it, or the mighty im∣pediments that retracted their Hearers from embracing, or deterr'd them from professing it. From all these Heads I might (I say) fully evince the Excellency of our Religion. But because this matter is alien from my present Theme, and principally because the same hath been already treated by many others of much greater ability than I can pretend unto, more professedly with Philo∣sophic subtility by Raimundus de Sebunde, with variety of Dialogues by Ludovicus Vives, with solid erudition and charming Eloquence by Mornaeus, and with inimita∣ble gravity of judgment by Grotius: there∣fore I restrain my unworthy Pen from pro∣faning a verity so Sacred, and as well from its own splendor as from the Light it hath receiv'd from those Illustrious Writers, so conspicuous; and acquiesce in the full per∣suasion thereof, wishing equal conviction of mind to all Mankind.

APPENDIX. A short History of the Iews TALMVD.

Collected out of Josephus, Philo Judaeus, Bishop Walton's Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglotta, the Chronicus Canon of Sir John Marsham, &c.

HAving in the precedent shadow of a Book often cited the TALMVD or Pandects of the Iews; and now presuming it to be possible, that those Papers, of how little value soever in themselves, and however secretly kept by me in my life time, may yet, after my Death, come into the hands of some men, who are not per∣haps so conversant in those Greek and La∣tine Authors who have written of the Ci∣vil and Canonical Laws, and Traditions of that Nation, as to know from what Origi∣nal, of what Antiquity, and of how great Authority among them that Talmud is: therefore I am inclin'd to hope, that the more Learned will not condemn me, either

of Vanity or Impertinence; if for Infor∣mation of the less Learned, I here add a brief History thereof, not without some∣what of diligence and Labour, Collected from Writers of excellent Erudition and undoubted Faith.

After the Macedonians had spread their Victorious Arms over the East, and the Hasmoneans with equally successful Courage asserted the Liberty of their Country; there arose out of the School of Antigonus So∣chaeus two mighty Sects among the Iews: the Pharisees, so call'd from their Separati∣on; and the Sadduces, who deriv'd their name from Sadocus their Head and Ring-leader. The former deliver'd to the People, many Precepts receiv'd by Tradition from their Ancestors, which were not written in the Pentateuch among the Laws of Moses; the Latter directly opposing the admission and sanction of those Traditions, maintain'd that the Precepts recorded in the Books as∣crib'd to their Legislator Moses, were all of Sacred Authority, and therefore to be dili∣gently observ'd; but those taught by the Pharisees, from tradition only by word of Mouth, were not obliging; as Iosephus re∣lates (Antiquit. l. 13. c. 18.)

From this division of the disciples of Antigonus, in a short time it came to pass, that the whole Nation of the Iews also was divided into Sects; of which there is no memory in any of their monuments, be∣fore the Government of Ionathan, who succeeded his Brother Iudas Machabaeus, (whose History we have in the Books of the Maccabees) in the year of Nabonassar 588. and of the Iulian Period 4553. At which time, as the same Iosephus commemorates (Antiquit. l. 13. c. 9.) there grew up three Sects or Heresies of the Iews, which delivered divers Do∣ctrines, not of religious duties, but of hu∣man affairs, principally de Fato; one, of the Pharisees; a Second, of the Sadduces; a Third of the Essens, who lived an a∣ctive life, different from the others. So Philo (de vita contemplativa) distinguishes them from the Theoretics, whom he call's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and so Photius (in Bibliothec. n. 104.) interpreting Philo, saith; Lectae sunt philosophantium apud Iudaeos vivendi rationes, & Contemplativa, & Activa: quorum hi Esseni, illi Therapeut ae appellantur.

These Esseni [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] denomi∣nated from their Sanctity, retiring from

the noise and crowds of populous Cities into solitary Villages, affected solitude; gens sola, sine ulla faemina, sine pecunia, socia palmarum, &c. No wonder then, if all the Four Evangelists be silent concern∣ing them, since they lived strangers; and unknown even to the inhabitants of Ie∣rusalem, nor is any mention of them to be found in the writings of any Rabbins before Zacuthius, a late writer, and li∣ving in the year of our Lord 1502.

But the Pharisees, and their Antagonists the Sadduces made a great bustle and noise in the Court of Ierusalem where they lived in mutual Emulation, drawing mighty parties after them: the rich for the most part patronizing the Sadduces, and the common people adhering to the Pharisees; as we read in Iosephus (Anti∣quit. l. 13. c. 18.) And in truth those [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] unwritten traditions asserted by the Pharisees, grew more and more Authentic in the Schools, were openly taught by the Rabbins by word of mouth to their disciples, and studiously propagated as sacred verities; but not published in writing. Yet at length, after the City of Ierusalem had been sack'd and demolish'd by Titus, and

repair'd by Hadrian in such sort, that the poor Iews retain'd neither their name, nor nation, nor religion; while by the sedition of one Barchocebas, almost all Iu∣dea was reduced to a desert, as Xiphili•• (in vita Hadriani) reports; and while the Iews were dispers'd, and in exile, pro∣hibited to set a foot upon their native soil; and the Schools that had been design'd to promote the Pharisaic discipline failed; one Rabbi Iehuda, whom they call Ha∣kadosh, i. e. the Saint, with vast Labour collecting all the Traditions, Judgments, Opinions, and Expositions, that the Syna∣gogues of all ages precedent had deliver'd upon the whole Law; composed of them the Book of the MISHNA, and read it publickly. And this he did, lest the Tra∣ditions of their Ancestors might otherwise be lost and forgotten. He lived under the three Antonins, Pius, Marcus, and Com∣modus, and finished this Syntagm of the Mishna, in the Reign of the Last, and (as De Gantz computes) in the year 120. from the destruction of the Temple, but of the Christian Aera 190. This Mishna is their [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Second Law, so call'd to distinguish it from the first, which was written.

Of Christian writers, the first that re∣members this Book of the Mishna, seems to be the Emperor Iustinian (a greater Collector of Ancient, but civil Laws and Constitutions) who in the year of Christ 551. gave leave to the Iews to read the Holy Scriptures publickly in their Syna∣gogues; but interdicted the like use of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Second Edition of their Law, the Mishna, as neither conjoyn'd to the Pentateuch, nor deliver'd down from the old Prophets, but invent∣ed by men that had nothing of the Di∣vine Spirit in them: as appears from Novel 146. pag. 295. But since neither Origen, nor Epiphanius, nor St. Ierom (who all make mention frequently of the Judaic traditi∣ons) takes notice of any such Book as the Mishna; and since St. Austin (contra adversarios Legis & Prophetarum l. 2. c. 1.) saith expressly, Habere, praeter Scripturas le∣gitimas et propheticas, Iudaeos quasdam Tra∣ditiones suas, quas non scriptas habent, sed memoriter tenent, et alter in alterum Loquen∣do transfundit, quam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vocant: it seems probable, that the Mishna was, either not written, or at least not well known in the world, in the year of Christ 400. as the Mo∣dern Rabbins would have it to have been.

Among these Maimonides (in praefat. ad Mishnam) affirms, that about 300 years from the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Iochanan, Head of a Synagogue in Pa∣lestin added the GEMARA [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Complement, call'd the Ierusalem Ge∣mara. Which joyned with the Mishna of Iudas, makes the Ierusalem TALMUD.

And this Maimonides well deserves our be∣lief. For his extraordinary Wisdom and Learning are to this day so much admi∣red by the Iews, that they commonly say of him. à Mose us{que} ad Mosem nequa∣quam fuisse hactenus talem Mosem: and Mr. Selden (de Diis Syris syntagmate 2 cap. 4.) prefers him to all other Rabbins, saying, primus Rabbinorum fuit, qui de∣lirare desiit.

The Iews at length passing from the Subjection of the Romans to that of the Persians, about 100 years after, Rabbi Ase in the Land of Babylon composed another Gemara or Complement of the Mishna; which from thence was denominated the Babylonic Gemara, and which contains

many ridiculous fictions, and fables in∣credible. And this, with the Mishna, makes the Babylonian Talmud, which is now most in use; nay doctrinal to all the Iews, as if all their discipline, all Law both Divine and Human were therein comprehended: in which notwithstanding the Sadduces are never remember'd, but under the name of Hereticks or Epicureans.

In the Mishna if self were contain'd, not only the Judgments, Ordinances and De∣crees of all precedent Consistories, but also a Collection of all the Traditions which they call the Law Oral, and pre∣tend to have been originally receiv'd from the mouth of Moses himself. And to give more credit and authority to these tradi∣tional Precepts, Rabbi Eliezar (in Pirke cap. 49. editionis Vorstianae pag. 123.) tells us, that during the 40 days absence of Moses on the Mount, he spent the days in reading the Scripture, and the nights in composing the Mishna: and in the Ba∣bylonic Gemara is a formal story of the ve∣ry manner (forsooth) how Moses com∣municated and explain'd the Oral Law to Aaron and his Sons and the Elders. The

Elders (saith the Pirke Aboth, i. e. capi∣tula Patrum, a Talmudic treatise) deliver'd the same to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue, and they again handed it down to their Suc∣cessors. But these things being too com∣pendiously spoken, to evince the successi∣on through so many ages, the more re∣cent Rabbins have put their wit upon the Rack to explicate the matter more par∣ticularly.

After the finishing of the Talmud, for an age or two, there is nothing but thick darkness in the Histories of the Iews: but then they being expulsed out of Babylon, and their Schools left empty and desolate, about the year of our Lord 1040. a great part of the Rabbins and People came for refuge into Europe, and chiefly into Spain: there appearing to us no Memorials of European Iews before that time. Since that, innume∣rable Rabbins men of great Learning & skill in all Sciences, nor addicting themselves and studies to the extravagant and absurd dreams of the Talmud, as their predecessors had done; have written copiously: and the succession of the Cabbala hath been sought

for in the East. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, vulgarly Maimonides and Rambam, born at Corduba, in the year of Christ 1135. died at the age of 70. after he had written Commentaries upon the Mishna; in the preface to which he gives a long series or list of those who had propagated the Oral Law successively. Which yet appearing imperfect and interrupt to Rabbi Abra∣ham Zacuth of Salamanca, who wrote Iuchasiin in the year of Christ 1502. he and his contemporany Don Isaac Abarbinel an exiled Spaniard, and after them, David Ganz (who brought his Chronology down to the year of Christ 1592. in his Book entitled Tzemach or Germen Davidis) found, or made that Catalogue of the Propagators of the Traditional Law more perfect and continued. Herein Zacuth indeed follow'd Maimonides; and Ganz trod in the steps of Abarbinel: but Gui∣tiel. Vorstius (in observat. in Ganz, pag. 213.) comparing these successions each with the other; from the diversity of computation from the interruption and gaping conjunction thereof, argues the Catalogue to be plainly fictitious. There are nevertheless even among our Christian Divines some, who lay hold upon that

continuation of Traditions, and use it to serve their turn: how prudently, let others judge. For I have not underta∣ken curiously to examine that series and the nine classes of Iewish Doctors: con∣tenting my self at present with these few collections concerning the Original and Antiquity of the Talmud.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Article. 1. Right de∣fined, and
• * 1.2

  2. distingui∣shed into Preceptive and Conces∣sive.
• * 1.3

  3. What is Right Na∣tural, and What Di∣vine.
• * 1.4

  4. What is right Posi∣tive or Civil.
• * 1.5

  5. Civil right either pe∣culiar to one Nati∣on, or com∣mon to many Na∣tions.
• * 1.6

  6. Right com∣mon to many Na∣tions sub∣divided in∣to Impera∣tive and Interve∣nient.
• * 1.7

  7. Right di∣stinguish'd from Law.
• * 1.8

  8. Natural Right, and
• * 1.9

  9. Natural Law defi∣ned.
• * 1.10

  10. That all the Laws of Nature are the Laws of God.
• * 1.11

  1. God's Right to the abso∣lute Mo∣narchy of the World.
• * 1.12

  2. His Domi∣nion over men Natu∣ral, and Civil.
• * 1.13

  3. The Sta∣bility of His Posi∣tive Divine Laws giv∣en to the Iews; and Universal extent of the same.
• * 1.14

  4. The diffe∣rence be∣twixt Law natural & positive Di∣vine, as to their Obli∣gation.
• * 1.15

  5. The impor∣tance of the Premisses, & design of the subse∣quent Di∣scourse.
• * 1.16

  6. The Me∣thod and Heads of the same.
• * 1.17

  Article 1. Three Pre∣liminaries concern∣ing these Precepts.
• * 1.18

  2, Various opinions of the Rabbines concern∣ing the number of these Pre∣cepts.
• * 1.19

  Article 1: What was understood to be Ex∣traneous Worship by the Egyp∣tians; and what by the He∣brews.
• * 1.20

  3. That the interdict of Idolatry given to the He∣brews, seems to have re∣spect to the mani∣fold Idola∣try of the Egyptians.
• * 1.21

  3. Egyptian Polytheism, contagi∣ous to the Hebrews; and there∣fore obvia∣ted by one general in∣terdict.
• * 1.22

  4. The set∣ting up of Pillars, Statues, &c. Why forbidden by Moses to the He∣brews; tho' not unlawful to the Stranger, unless used to Idola∣try.
• * 1.23

  5. The Mo∣saic Law concern∣ing Idols, explicated.
• * 1.24

  Article 1. Blasphe∣my for∣bidden among the Egyptians,
• * 1.25

  2. What was blasphemy to the He∣brews.
• * 1.26

  3. Blasphemy and Idola∣try, equal crimes and always to be punish∣ed by Exci∣sion.
• * 1.27

  Arti. 1. Homicide prohibited to the Egyptians and other Gentiles, by Law Natural: and after to the Isra∣elites, by the Mosaic.
• * 1.28

  2. Exposing of Infants, and procu∣ring of A∣bortion al∣so Inter∣dicted.
• * 1.29

  3. Punish∣ment of wilful Mur∣der in the Common∣wealth of the He∣brews.
• * 1.30

  4. Right of Asyle, in casual Ho∣micide.
• * 1.31

  5. How far an Aggressor was to be resisted by a by-stan∣der, in de∣fence of the assaul∣ted.
• * 1.32

  6. Homicide, in what ca∣ses permit∣ed, and whence a∣rose the Right of Zealots.
• * 1.33

  7. That the Law de A∣nathemate gave the Hebrews no right to devote their children or servants to death: and therefore that the Daughter of Iephtha was made, not a vi∣ctim, but a Nun.
• * 1.34

  1. Incest, A∣dultery So∣domy, and Bestiality, interdicted by the Law of Nature.
• * 1.35

  2. Before the Mosaic Law, mar∣riage of the Bro∣ther with the Ger∣mane, not with the Uterine Si∣ster, per∣mitted: & why.
• * 1.36

  3. Lacedemo∣nian Law permitting marriage with Ute∣rine Si∣sters, not with Ger∣mane.
• * 1.37

  4. Marriage with both Uterine and Ger∣mane Sister, law∣ful among the Egyp∣tiane,
• * 1.38

  5. and Persi∣ans.
• * 1.39

  6. Marriages interdicted to the Is∣raelites.
• * 1.40

  7. The Right of Marry∣ing with the Bro∣thers Wi∣dow, most ancient, and con∣firm'd by Moses.
• * 1.41

  8. The same used by the Egyptians.
• * 1.42

  9. The He∣brew Wo∣men un∣married, free to humble themselves to whom they pleas∣ed before the Law.
• * 1.43

  10. The Right of Divorce instituted by Moses.
• * 1.44

  11. Polygamy permitted to the He∣brews both before and after the Law.
• * 1.45

  12. The He∣brews not permitted to lie, or marry with Gentiles not Prose∣lytes.
• * 1.46

  13. Eunuchs & Bastards excluded from Ma∣trimony with Isra∣elites.
• * 1.47

  14. The Right of Prose∣lytes and Liber∣tines.
• * 1.48

  15. The Maid-Servant not permitted to Marry, before she was made absolutely Free by Redemption or Manumission:
• * 1.49

  16. Nor the Man-Ser∣vant; un∣til the Christians gave them jus Conju∣gii.
• * 1.50

  Article 1. Theft In∣terdicted among the Egyptians, whose Sin∣gular Law concerning Robbery is recited.
• * 1.51

  2. Theft, of what kind soever, forbidden also to the Sons of Noah, by Law Natu∣ral: and
• * 1.52

  3. By the Mo∣saic, to the Hebrews.
• * 1.53

  4. Fraudu∣lent re∣moving of ancient Land∣marks, Theft.
• * 1.54

  5. Punish∣ment of va∣rious frauds a∣mong the Egyptians.
• * 1.55

  6. All fraud, even in words, un∣lawful to the He∣brews.
• * 1.56

  7. The diffe∣rence be∣twixt the Right of an He∣brew, and of a Gen∣tile, as to pilfering things of small Va∣lue.
• * 1.57

  8. Satisfacti∣on for da∣mage, al∣ways to be made, by the Mosaic Law; and to whom.
• * 1.58

  9. The Law of restoring things lost, explicated.
• * 1.59

  10. An une∣qual Price, unlawful.
• * 1.60

  11. Punish∣ment of Theft Ca∣pital, not from the Law of the Hebrews, but from that given to the Sons of Noah.
• * 1.61

  21: The Mosaic Interdict of Theft de∣duced from Law Natu∣ral.
• * 1.62

  13. Vsury un∣lawful to the He∣brews a∣mong them∣selves; law∣ful to the Gentiles.
• * 1.63

  14. Gain from Games, un∣lawful to an Hebrew.
• * 1.64

  Artic. 1. The admi∣nistration of Justice by Iudges, prescribed, first by Na∣tural Law, & after by the Mosaic.
• * 1.65

  2. Courts Iu∣ridical not consti∣tuted be∣fore Moses.
• * 1.66

  3. The con∣trary not evident from the Traditions of the Rab∣bins; nor from the Scripture.
• * 1.67

  4. Nor from the Exam∣ple of Si∣meon and Levi, and of Iudah in the cause of Thamar.
• * 1.68

  5. The Right of a Gen∣tile in the Common-wealth of the He∣brews, as to Judgments in foro.
• * 1.69

  Article 1. Eating of Blood In∣terdicted, first to No∣ah, and af∣ter to the Israelites.
• * 1.70

  2. The reason of this In∣terdict.
• * 1.71

  3. The Law against eating of any thing that died of it self, and of any Member torn off from an Animal alive: and the reason thereof.
• * 1.72

  4. Examples of such cruelty & carnage in Baccha∣nals.
• * 1.73

  Article 1. The Mosaic Law, of all written Laws the most an∣cient.
• * 1.74

  2. Moses, the Wisest of all Law∣givers.
• * 1.75

  3. The Wri∣ters design & method in the e••∣suing ex∣plication of the De∣calogue.
• * 1.76

  4. Why God is here call'd The Lord.
• * 1.77

  5. That the Law was given, not immedi∣ately by God Him∣self, but by an Angel in the Name of God.
• * 1.78

  6. Why the Angel that pronoun∣ced the Law, said, I am the Lord, &c.
• * 1.79

  7. Why the Writer of the Law saith, all these Words.
• * 1.80

  8. God's pe∣culiar Right to the Title of Supream Lord of the Israelites.
• * 1.81

  9. The Pre∣face to a Law ought to be brief and full of Authority.
• * 1.82

  10. Why God, in these Precept, chose the number Ten.
• * 1.83

  11. Why the Law was given in the Wil∣derness.
• * 1.84

  12. Why it is here said, Thy, in the singular number.
• * 1.85

  Article 1. Why it is here said, Other Gods beside me.
• * 1.86

  2. Gods di∣stinguish'd into two Classes.
• * 1.87

  3. The Cele∣stial Lumi∣naries, the first false Gods.
• * 1.88

  4. Kings and Queens de∣ified after death, the Second false Gods.
• * 1.89

  5. Whence it was that Brutes came to be worship'd as Gods.
• * 1.90

  6. Honor due to good Angels, and what.
• * 1.91

  7. Signs of honour proper to God, not to be exhibi∣ted to good Angels.
• * 1.92

  8. Civil Ve∣neration of Kings, not unlawful.
• * 1.93

  9. Extirpati∣on of Poly∣theism, the principal design of this Pre∣cept.
• * 1.94

  10. The Unity of God, manifest by the Light of Nature.
• * 1.95

  Article 1. In what sense the word Idol is always used in ho∣ly Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.96

  2. That Ido∣latry was founded upon an o∣pinion that Images Magically consecrate were ani∣mated by Daemons, and there∣fore vocal.
• * 1.97

  3. Teraphim used chief∣ly for Di∣vination.
• * 1.98

  4. Teraphim, how made &
• * 1.99

  5. Of what Materials
• * 1.100

  6. What were the Silver Shrines of Diana of the Ephesi∣ans.
• * 1.101

  7. Why gra∣ven Ima∣ges of Ani∣mals were by God in∣terdicted to the He∣brews.
• * 1.102

  8. That God reserv'd to himself a right of exception to this Law; from the Instan∣ces of the Cherubims and of the Brazen Serpent Erected by His Com∣mand.
• * 1.103

  9. Images of the Stars, also inter∣dicted by this pre∣cept; and that to prevent Polytheism. &
• * 1.104

  10. to admo∣nish men, That the Invisible God can∣not be re∣presented by Images.
• * 1.105

  11. What Pi∣ctures fall under this interdict.
• * 1.106

  12. That the Christians have not thought themselves indetermi∣nately ob∣liged by this Law.
• * 1.107

  13. What is here signi∣fied by A∣doration of Images.
• * 1.108

  14. Different Opinions of Christi∣ans about honour ex∣hibited to Saints before their Images & Pictures.
• * 1.109

  15. The true sense of the Word Ido∣latry.
• * 1.110

  16. Private Men a∣mong Christians ought not to pull down Idols
• * 1.111

  17. That God revenges Idolatry only to the third and fourth Ge∣neration: and that by deliver∣ing up the Posterity of Idola∣ters into miserable Servitude.
• * 1.112

  18. Who are properly said to hate God.
• * 1.113

  19. Why God is here said to shew mercy un∣to Thou∣sands.
• * 1.114

  20. Who are by God call'd Pi∣ous, and who Righ∣teous Men.
• * 1.115

  Article 1. Why it is here said, the Name of the Lord, not my Name.
• * 1.116

  2. Perjury interdicted chiefly by this Pre∣cept: and
• * 1.117

  3. Threatned to be se∣verely pu∣nish'd by God Him∣self.
• * 1.118

  4. The San∣ctity of an Oath.
• * 1.119

  5. Why God threatneth to revenge Perjury by Punish∣ments in∣flicted by Himself.
• * 1.120

  Article 1. The pre∣cept of keeping holy the Sabbath, distin∣guish'd from the precept of resting from La∣bour upon the Sab∣bath; as by the causes, so also by the times.
• * 1.121

  2. The differ∣ent inter∣pretations of Grotius and Sel∣den, of the word Re∣member, reconcil∣ed.
• * 1.122

  3. Testimo∣nies of the Sabbath observ'd anciently by Gen∣tiles also.
• * 1.123

  4. Why the primitive Christians held their Assemblies upon the Sabbath day.
• * 1.124

  5 The Lords day not Surrogat∣ed into the place of the Sab∣bath.
• * 1.125

  6. why the Greeks and Latins use the word Sab∣bata, not Sabbatum.
• * 1.126

  7. Labour upon Six days of the Week, not com∣manded, but only permitted.
• * 1.127

  8. Why God fixed the Sabbath upon the Seventh day.
• * 1.128

  9. Why he by many words in∣culcated this Pre∣cept.
• * 1.129

  10. Who are to be un∣derstood here by Thy Son and thy Daughter.
• * 1.130

  11. Humanity of Masters towards Servants here inti∣mated.
• * 1.131

  12. Some goodness and mercy to be exer∣cised also toward Brutes, by this Pre∣cept.
• * 1.132

  13. Who is here meant by The Stranger that is within thy gates.
• * 1.133

  14. Why the Stranger was by this Law obli∣ged to ab∣stain from Labour upon the Sabbath.
• * 1.134

  15. Why God made the Universe in Six days.
• * 1.135

  16. What is to be under∣stood by His resting upon the Seventh day,
• * 1.136

  17. How the true Se∣venth or Sabbatical day was first made known to the He∣brews.
• * 1.137

  18. The ho∣nour of the number Seven, de∣riv'd from the Aegyp∣tian Ma∣thematici∣ans.
• * 1.138

  19. The Sep∣tenary number of days ob∣serv'd by Gentiles in their Feasts
• * 1.139

  20. The Num∣ber Seven of solemn respect in the Mosaic Rites & in other My∣steries.
• * 1.140

  21. The week∣ly Circle of Days, deriv'd by the Aegyp∣tian Astro∣logers from the Seven Pla∣nets.
• * 1.141

  22. Bede's rea∣son why in the pla∣netary de∣nominati∣on of the Seven days of the week, the natural order of the Pla∣nets was not ob∣serv'd.
• * 1.142

  23. Why Sa∣turn was made Lord of the Se∣venth day.
• * 1.143

  24. The Anti∣quity of the plane∣tary deno∣mination of the Se∣ven days: and con∣clusion of this chap∣ter.
• * 1.144

  Article 1. That this Precept was anci∣ently ob∣served by the Egyp∣tians, the Pythago∣reans, and
• * 1.145

  2. the Athe∣nians.
• * 1.146

  3. Honour and rever∣ence given by the E∣gyptians even to the dead bodies of their Pa∣rents.
• * 1.147

  4. Other Na∣tions also honour'd Parents.
• * 1.148

  5. Excellen∣cy and usefulness of this Law.
• * 1.149

  6. The right of Mothers to honour and rever∣ence from their Chil∣dren.
• * 1.150

  7. Children by this Law oblig∣ed to re∣lieve their Parents in want.
• * 1.151

  8. Longaevi∣ty, the re∣ward of filial reve∣rence.
• * 1.152

  9. The Pe∣nalty ad∣ded to this Law.
• * 1.153

  Article. 1. Murder a Crime a∣gainst God, Nature, and Civil Laws.
• * 1.154

  2. Exempts from this Law.
• * 1.155

  Article. 1. Theft, in∣jurious to private Men, and hurtful to the Pub∣lic.
• * 1.156

  2. The ne∣cessity and utility of this inter∣dict.
• * 1.157

  3. Theft of a Man, capi∣tal among the He∣brews.
• * 1.158

  Article 1. Who is here to be understood by Neigh∣bour.
• * 1.159

  2. The form of Adju∣ration used by the Hebrew Judges to Witnesses and to the Accused.
• * 1.160

  3. False Testi∣mony, a hainous Crime.
• * 1.161

  4. The Pu∣nishment of a False Witness among the Hebrews.
• * 1.162

  Article 1. What is here meant by Concu∣piscence, according to the in∣terpretati∣on of the Hebrew Masters.
• * 1.163

  2. Acts indi∣rectly tending to the grati∣fication of lusts, in∣terdicted by this Precept.
• * 1.164

  3. As also the simple purpose to fulfil them.
• * 1.165

  4. Concupi∣scence without effect, no Sin, ac∣cording to the judg∣ment of the Rab∣bins.
• * 1.166

  5. But con∣demn'd by the Chri∣stians, who are obliged to purity of mind.
• * 1.167

  6. Not to covet any thing that belongs to another, the Sum of all Mo∣ral Pre∣cepts.